Is RAW the only way all the time ?

Sootchucker

Sootchucker

Messages
2,870
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
Just a pondering my friends. I was last night going though many gigabytes of images I shot on our summer holiday this year in Crete and surrounding Greek islands.

With well over 1000 images taken in 2½ Weeks, and all shot RAW+JPG Fine on my Olympus OMD-EM1, it occupies many gigabytes of space on my HDD.

When I started looking more closely at the in camera JPG's which I just shoot out of habit (I pretty much always process the RAW files), it occurred to me that the JPG's were actually of excellent quality with good DR, excellent WB and spot on exposure. In all reality when compared to some of the RAW files I'd processed there wasn't really much in it.

It got me thinking, are we all really conditioned these days to only shoot RAW then spend hours (if not days) sat in front of a computer processing them ? As a photographer for over 35 years, I of course see where RAW has it's place, and if I was still shooting events or weddings, it would be my setting of choice (the safety net), but for less critical work and things like holiday snaps, are we really better off not ditching the RAW's, shooting plain old JPG's and enjoying the photos straight away ?

I actually did a print last night at A3 size of 2 identical images. One the OOC JPG and one the processed RAW file, and whilst there were subtle differences i.e. I processed the RAW file slightly differently from the camera, just as one photographer would process an identical file differently from the next guy, but TBH, in printed form and on screen, both were excellent. Of course I know it depends on how good the camera renders it's JPG's (Olympus are pretty good at this), some other maybe not so, but I think from now on, I'll start shooting my less critical work in JPG form and leave the RAW's for when they are really needed - difficult lighting, mixed lighting and high ISO are about the only ones I can think of ?

What do you boys and girls think, or is my thinking sacrilegious ?
 
Last edited:
Whatever works for you is right, that's all there really is to it! For me personally, with storage being so cheap these days I don't really see the point in shooting anything except RAW but I don't think shooting JPEG would be a problem at all for 99% of what I do. The JPEG output from both my 7D and 5D2 has looked great whenever I've played about with it, it's just that my inner purist wants as much detail as possible even if it doesn't automatically equate to a better image.

Ultimately if you're happy shooting JPEG and it gives you whatever you need, go right ahead. :)
 
Andrew buy a Sigma DPM and you end up with 80MP RAW files if you want to process them in LR/PS6.

I always wonder about shooting jpegs ...... but I can never bring myself to do it just it case I get that "once a year" shot
 
Last edited:
I think most sports shooters shoot jpeg, quicker write times.
 
Good grief... I almost never shoot in RAW.. most people I know don't shoot in RAW.. You must live in a very small world if you thing everyone shoots in RAW

Three reasons to shoot in RAW

1) Because your not confident enough to get a good picture in JPG and you think your going to have to fix it in software..

2) Because you intend to do a lot of work on the picture that JPG can't handle.. artistic maybe...

3) Because you ahve been brainwashed into thinking thats how real photogrpahers work ..
 
KIPAX said:
Good grief... I almost never shoot in RAW.. most people I know don't shoot in RAW.. You must live in a very small world if you thing everyone shoots in RAW

Three reasons to shoot in RAW

1) Because your not confident enough to get a good picture in JPG and you think your going to have to fix it in software..

2) Because you intend to do a lot of work on the picture that JPG can't handle.. artistic maybe...

3) Because you ahve been brainwashed into thinking thats how real photogrpahers work ..
Click to expand...

so you reckon that the only reason to shoot RAW is 2). .......... would help a lot if I only shot jpegs with my DP3M.

as a matter of interest I find that I always have to process my Nikon .NEF RAW files in LR in some way
 
Last edited:
I shoot whichever format suits what I'm doing at that time, most of the stuff I shoot in raw because I tend to do quite a bit of processing to get the exact look I'm after, however when I'm doing time lapse or wild life generally I'll mostly shoot JPEG
 
RAW is most certainly not the only way. As has already been said sports photographers almost invariably shoot in JPEG (quicker right speeds in burst shutter mode). However I will always shoot in RAW and JPEG - most of the time the JPEG's are perfectly good enough for my needs. But cameras don't always get the WB or exposure absolutely right and having a RAW file allows that bit of fine tuning.

As storage space is so cheap why take the chance of shooting JPEG only unless circumstances demand.
 
BillN_33 said:
so you reckon that the only reason to shoot RAW is 2). .......... would help a lot if I only shot jpegs with my DP3M.

as a matter of interest I find that I always have to process my Nikon .NEF RAW files in LR in some way
Click to expand...


WHAT? Personally when I shoot in RAW it's because of 1) ..your powers of deduction leave a lot to be desired :)
 
KIPAX said:
Good grief... I almost never shoot in RAW.. most people I know don't shoot in RAW.. You must live in a very small world if you thing everyone shoots in RAW

Three reasons to shoot in RAW

1) Because your not confident enough to get a good picture in JPG and you think your going to have to fix it in software..

2) Because you intend to do a lot of work on the picture that JPG can't handle.. artistic maybe...

3) Because you ahve been brainwashed into thinking thats how real photogrpahers work ..
Click to expand...

I'm none of those three...
 
No. Raw isn't the only way.

Sometimes I shoot JPG, sometimes RAW, sometimes both together.

It just depends what I'm shooting really.
 
PMN said:
Whatever works for you is right, that's all really is to it! For me personally, with storage being so cheap these days I don't really see the point in shooting anything except RAW but I don't think shooting JPEG would be a problem at all for 99% of what I do. The JPEG output from both my 7D and 5D2 has looked great whenever I've played about with it, it's just that my inner purist wants as much detail as possible even if it doesn't automatically equate to a better image.

Ultimately if you're happy shooting JPEG and it gives you whatever you need, go right ahead. :)
Click to expand...

Agree 100%
storage is so cheap now that I just don't see the point in taking jpegs for what I do
I sometimes go back and reprocess an old raw shot as I'm learning all the time how to do editing
but also see that for pro sports etc shooters like Kipax jpeg makes sense and they probably have the experience to nail the exposure every time but I need the bit of room for error that raws give you
 
Last edited:
Wow....steady on KIPAX, this is just a friendly debate. No I haven't been brain washed, and I have many TOG friends all of whom shoot RAW exclusively, exactly as PMN said in post #2.

If you shoot JPG exclusively then good for you, but it doesn't mean every one thinks the same way.
 
PMN said:
@Sootchucker Unfortunately you do find people on forums who seem to think they know everything about other photographers based on things like what format they shoot, it's essentially the photographic world's equivalent of astrology (and every bit as stupid). :)
Click to expand...


This^^^ As is clearly evidenced by some of the patronising, ignorant and plainly unhelpful comments in this Thread:rolleyes:. Shoot whatever is suitable for you in the particular circumstances and with which you are comfortable. The end!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: PMN
I don't fit into kipax's 3 (although probably still closest to #1)... However I never get close to the buffer speed limit on my camera AND storage is so cheap it's virtually free these days. So I see no downside for me personally in defaulting to RAW. Except when shooting on film, of course :)
 
The only time I shoot RAW is usually at a wedding or family get together.

Otherwise it's jpeg all the time.

Whilst obviously you have more to work with if you process a RAW, don't think that you can't do minor miracles on jpeg when you get it wrong.
 
For my motorsport, cycling and athletics I shoot JPG. Motorsport shot on large JPG, max quality, but the other stuff is often shot on smaller sizes - e.g. medium2, quality 6, or whatever setting I'm requested to shoot at.

For my theatre work I'll shoot raw.

For other stuff - I'll decide on the day.
 
No, it's not the only way all the time.
 
KIPAX said:
1) Because your not confident enough to get a good picture in JPG and you think your going to have to fix it in software..
Click to expand...
Or to put it another way (because "not confident enough" sounds like you are insinuating the person is not capable of getting it right in camera ;))...

1) Because you believe* you can get a more pleasing result by taking your time over processing than whatever the inbuilt JPEG engine can manage with its current settings.

If you want to be able to process the shot in any way (other than crop/rotate) then use RAW as you lose WAY too much information when the camera converts to JPEG to do any amount of processing without the loss of information showing. JPEG is more than fine for everything else.

*Note: you may or may not be capable of producing a better image, but belief is all that is needed.
 
Well I suppose we had to have the christmas Raw v Jpg debate didn't we? Shall we get all het up over Canon v Nikon tomorrow, it will be christmas eve afterall.

Guys, can we keep it civil if you are going to have this debate please, or this thread will end up as the christmas turkey that got left on the shelf.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
is it being said that it takes more skill to shoot jpeg well than to shoot RAW?
 
Why is it necessary to choose? I mostly shoot RAW+JPEG. Most of the time the jpeg image with a little tweaking is fine. But sometimes I want the extra latitude of dynamic range in RAW, and I can't always predict in advance when that will be. Mostly I know what shots will need RAW before I shoot, but sometimes a quickly snatched opportunistic shot turns out to be worth the best I can squeeze from it. Sometimes what was meant to be a casual documentary shot turns out to have something I never saw at the time which makes the basis of a great image. Sometimes years later with new skills and new software I want to go back and try improving an old favourite by processing from RAW for the first time.

So since storage is pretty cheap I just shoot both RAW & JPEG. One less thing to worry about when I'm taking photographs.
 
I find that I always have to adjust my Nikon NEF RAW files

but hardly ever with the converted TIFFs that I get out of the Sigma DP3M

(except for B & W)
 
BillN_33 said:
is it being said that it takes more skill to shoot jpeg well than to shoot RAW?
Click to expand...
No. You may need more equipment to get the lighting right (flashes, reflectors, filters etc) though.
 
Unless you're using full frame there's no point shooting raw because your files will be unusable crap (even without a UV filter on the lens) anyway. :D
 
Sootchucker said:
Wow....steady on KIPAX, this is just a friendly debate. No I haven't been brain washed, and I have many TOG friends all of whom shoot RAW exclusively, exactly as PMN said in post #2.

If you shoot JPG exclusively then good for you, but it doesn't mean every one thinks the same way.
Click to expand...

oh for crying out loud this is just stupid.. I already stated in this thread that I do shoot in RAW when needed. why do you feel the need to amkie things up just to argue and atatck.... ... so sad :(
 
arad85 said:
Or to put it another way (because "not confident enough" sounds like you are insinuating the person is not capable of getting it right in camera ;))...

.
Click to expand...


no i wasnt trying to insult...


christmas spirit alive and well today.. dont agree wiht someone so make it up as you go along to argue with them..
 
KIPAX said:
Good grief... I almost never shoot in RAW.. most people I know don't shoot in RAW.. You must live in a very small world if you thing everyone shoots in RAW

Three reasons to shoot in RAW

1) Because your not confident enough to get a good picture in JPG and you think your going to have to fix it in software..

2) Because you intend to do a lot of work on the picture that JPG can't handle.. artistic maybe...

3) Because you ahve been brainwashed into thinking thats how real photogrpahers work ..
Click to expand...
3a because you might want to do something with the image which means that having the maximum amount of data available is an advantage. For most people most of the time, that might never be required. But having it there is handy.

I'm happy to accept that for a lot of jobs JPEG is the obvious choice. It'd be nice if the JPEG shooters could see the other side of the coin. ;)
 
I've only ever shot Raw by accident, jpeg all the way here.
I love taking pics, but for me the enjoyment would vanish if i had to process the blighters -)
 
KIPAX said:
oh for crying out loud this is just stupid.. I already stated in this thread that I do shoot in RAW when needed. why do you feel the need to amkie things up just to argue and atatck.... ... so sad :(
Click to expand...

If you didn't barge into threads and make outlandish assumptions about other people based on stupid things like what format they shoot then maybe your comments would be better received.

Just a thought.
 
Phil V said:
What if they need to shoot over 200ISO. :)
Click to expand...

Phil

that is a cross you have to bear along with many many others ……. I change batteries like changing 36 exposure roll film …. I reckon that you need 8 batteries

I have had the camera 3 days …… it's just amazing to me …. only shot at ISO 100 so and waiting for better outside light

I must be one of those cameras that "you must shoot before you die" type today scenarios ………. just wondering if and when they will produce an FX sized sensor ……. I can see why they were £1,000 when first released but I can also see why they only sell for £350 new now ……… I really do think that if you are a good serious photographer, (I'm not), they are worth considering even if only for a few "real keepers" per week or month

Oh and a lightweight tripod is now with me most of the time!!!!
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
I'm happy to accept that for a lot of jobs JPEG is the obvious choice. It'd be nice if the JPEG shooters could see the other side of the coin. ;)
Click to expand...

I'd agree with this.

Many people only shoot JPG and whilst being happy with their results, may not realise what that added flexibility of RAW can do for them.

On the flip side, there will also be a lot of people who read once upon a time that RAW is best and haven't given JPG a look in 10 years.
 
Last edited:
dinners said:
I'd agree with this.

On the flip side, there will also be a lot of people who read once upon a time that RAW is best and haven't given JPG a look in 10 years.
Click to expand...

I agree with that and many current internet "experts" say shoot RAW
 
Sometimes life is too short to be taking RAWs and spending hours later editing them - I've set my D610 to have the U2 memory bank in what I call 'snapshot' mode, JPEG fine, auto ISO on, ADL turned on to normal etc etc, then when I go to a party or a friends wedding (that I am not doing photos for), I stick it in that, have fun taking photos (which is meant to be the point) and then stick them all up on Facebook or whatever it is with the minimal amount of fuss!

Landscapes however I would only ever shoot RAW :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top