1. keef32

    keef32

    Messages:
    617
    Name:
    Richard
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Just having a think...

    Do people use JPEG for certain shoot types and RAW for others?

    Like landscapes in RAW but JEPG for an event like a dinner party?

    Or is it a case of one or the other?
     
  2. gcgraphs

    gcgraphs

    Messages:
    332
    Name:
    GC
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Sure this one will run...

    99% RAW for me. If it's worth shooting, it's worth having the maximum potential.

    Think the only time I'd swap to jpeg is if the subject/instance was immediately newsworthy and needed sending/sharing soonest.

    GC
     
    RedRobin likes this.
  3. MarcHT

    MarcHT

    Messages:
    46
    Name:
    Marc
    Edit My Images:
    No
    It is a quite usual question TBH...
    Most of the people stick with one of the options or both (raw+jpeg). It’s been discussed lots of times the pros and cons...
     
  4. GeeJay57

    GeeJay57

    Messages:
    1,807
    Name:
    Glenn
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I use jpeg most of the time, especially for motorsport or other situations where I want fast burst speeds and might fill the buffer if I shot RAW. In decent light, with a fairly conventional scene, I think jpeg is fine. If on the other hand lighting and/or the scene is more of a challenge, I will shoot RAW+jpeg. A lot of the time I still find the jpeg to be good enough for what I want, but sometimes having a RAW can be handy for correcting things like WB or recovering shadows.

    For a dinner party (indoors?), I'd probably shoot RAW just to be sure I could adjust WB in post.
     
  5. keef32

    keef32

    Messages:
    617
    Name:
    Richard
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    That's the sort of thing I was thinking, and im pretty much the same.
     
  6. sk66

    sk66

    Messages:
    6,319
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I shoot both simultaneously, but use the jpegs at least 50% of the time. IMHO, 90% of the time spent editing raw files is only to get them to the level of a jpeg SOOC (if the camera is set up properly).

    There are certainly times where a jpeg only workflow makes the most sense IMO... images that are just meant for sharing/communication such as a lot of events and professional sports.
     
  7. KIPAX

    KIPAX Waldorf

    Messages:
    19,878
    Name:
    KIPAX
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Done to death .. but I still enjoy upsetting the RAW users :)

    I take a good JPG so I don't need the RAW.. what adjustments i do make work great on jpg :)
     
  8. ecoleman

    ecoleman

    Messages:
    4,678
    Name:
    Elliott
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I would imagine it depends largely on what you shoot and how quickly you need to get images out.

    For landscapes, you need a raw image to get the most out of the Dynamic range. A landscape photographer will usually spend quite a bit of time editing a hero shot.

    For dinner parties, I would guess that depends. You could shoot raw if you had time to edit the images later before handing them over to a client or it they were for yourself. If you need to hand the images over quickly or display them at the dinner party then .jpg would be the way to go.

    Sports photographers will more often than not shoot .jpg. They need to get the images out to the press as quickly as possible so there is no time to edit raw images. Of course professional sports photographers may shoot raw and .jpg so they have the best of both worlds.

    Wedding photographers will usually shoot raw for editing later but many will also shoot jpg so that some images can be shown at the reception, or the jpg images could be used for the couple to choose their favourite shots before time is spent editing all of them.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2018
    RedRobin and gcgraphs like this.
  9. cambsno

    cambsno

    Messages:
    14,245
    Name:
    Simon
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I shoot RAW all the time on my DSLR, for paid work I want to be working with the best file I can. When I use by X100F its pretty much always in jpg as the Fuji creates fantastic files.
     
    petersmart and gcgraphs like this.
  10. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic

    Messages:
    5,591
    Name:
    Terry
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I shoot raw for everything... I am retired and have the time....
    However even if I were still a working photographer. I would likely shoot both. and use the jpeg for quickness when time was a factor. and use the raw for selected images when quality was the principal factor.
     
    Mr Badger likes this.
  11. sk66

    sk66

    Messages:
    6,319
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    A lot is made of the "quality" of a raw file due to it being a 16bit file. But if you are using a camera/ISO where the sensor is generating ≤ 8bit color and ≤ 8 stops DR it makes zero difference... you can run that data through a 12 or 14 bit processor (ADC) and stuff it into a 16bit file format (raw/tiff/etc) and it will still be ≤ 8bit accuracy.

    And TBH 8bit is usually plenty... it's more colors than a human can see. The problems arise when editing the data with only 8bit accuracy. I.e. the numbers 100 and 3 do not require a high degree of accuracy (bit depth) to represent/depict, but the result of dividing 100 by 3 (editing) does.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2018
    petersmart likes this.
  12. Mark Johnson

    Mark Johnson

    Messages:
    1,994
    Name:
    Mark
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I record both. Jpegs can be Wifi'd to the phone and emailed quickly. RAW needs to be processed by some software. Though I do believe this software is available on your smartphone now...……..
     
  13. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic

    Messages:
    5,591
    Name:
    Terry
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    it is really a question of Maths ....leave all the rounding up or down to the end for greatest accuracy. use the native figures where you can.
    When you are doing editing, you are using a colour space, screen calibration and look up tables to show your image on a monitor. everything is fairly approximate... but we can adjust images exactly how we want to see them. Raw images give you wider choices.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2018
    gcgraphs likes this.
  14. Furtim

    Furtim

    Messages:
    1,597
    Name:
    David
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I switch to JPG only when I'm shooting fast moving action stuff (wake boarding etc) - because I never hit any buffer limits.
    RAW + JPG rest of time, but usually use the JPG.
     
    juggler likes this.
  15. Cagey75

    Cagey75

    Messages:
    9,380
    Name:
    Keith
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I shoot both, but only so I can pixel peep on the LCD, yes, I am a chimper. If I shoot RAW only the cam won't allow me to zoom in as much on the preview. But since I'm taking all images to LR I dump the Jpegs after loading to PC
     
  16. realspeed

    realspeed

    Messages:
    5,881
    Name:
    Bazza
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I shoot raw on a Cf card and Jpeg on an SD card. Jpeg quicker to check photos Raw better for editing using a dual slot card reader
     
  17. gremlin16

    gremlin16

    Messages:
    1,787
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    90% RAW and 10% Jpeg Fine here. Certain projects don’t need a raw and I don’t need to edit it much.
     
  18. Raymond Lin

    Raymond Lin

    Messages:
    6,411
    Name:
    Raymond
    Edit My Images:
    No
    100% RAW (dual cards).

    I don't even shoot JPEG.
     
  19. chris malcolm

    chris malcolm

    Messages:
    1,325
    Name:
    Chris
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Exactly so. My problem is that I can rarely tell at the time whether I'll need the extra processing latitude of RAW, and processing from RAW always takes me most of a minute even for a quick one, whereas I can do a quick jpeg edit in seconds. So I shoot RAW+JPEG, and decide when processing the JPEG whether to go to RAW.

    I also set the JPEG parameters in the camera to low saturation, low sharpening, and low contrast. That means my OOC jpegs are flat and dim looking, but have more latitude for JPEG processing, thus reducing the number of times I need to go back to RAW for greater latitude.
     
  20. Teflon-Mike

    Teflon-Mike

    Messages:
    994
    Name:
    Mike
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    If I want to 'faff'... I shoot in FILM!!!!
    The Electric-Picture Maker, is for 'fast' photos; all that automation to make it easy and convenient, and 'save' me messing; direct to digital out-put is then an extra easement that saves faff of scanning.
    Hence, 99% of the time EPM is set to JPG... I likely wouldn't process a NEF any differently to how the j-peg programmers polled experts suggest very much any-how, and jpg still allows a lot of diddle-ability in post if I want, and NEF doesn't really offer an awful lot 'more' for the 'having' to open and export in post to get a JPG that can be 'shared' and generically viewed... I cant adjust the focus distance or lens with a slider, I cant adjust the shutter-speed or aperture with a slider, all I can really do is adjust the exposure brightness 'a little' and the thresholds/response curves in between.. so is it 'really' such a huge 'advantage' to make an 'oh-so' much 'better' photo?
    The time spent in post, even if it's just a minute, to open, view, check, maybe adjust brightens/contrast and then export as transportable jpg, would probably be much better spent, and if multiplied by the number of shots taken, far more time, looking at the scene, and if control is to be applied, doing something to the scene, like move an unsightly ashtray, or clean a dirty table top, or shift a chair, pick up a day-glow crisp-packet or 'whatever', and that little attention to whats in-front of the camera, rather than whats in the camera, let alone what is after the camera, is far more likely to make far more difference to getting that 'better' shot, than any extra fiddle-ability I may get from shooting jpg over nef.....
    There are very very few instances where I might actually exploit the small extra NEF may offer in post-process twiddle-ability..... and so most of the NEF files I have are from where the camera has been left in NEF or set to NEF by accident!.... and it IS an accident... honest! Though it is humorous when O/H grabs camera to take snap of dog or green-thing (something in the garden 'growing'), then starts moaning and ranting she cant see the pictures on her PC or get them to show up on farce-broke!
    DSLR as a 'glorified' point and press? Absolutely! I did not buy the EPM with all that automation in it to make myself as much or more work as I did using my old clock-work Zenit film Camera! And if I want the all that 'control' or 'involvement'.... well, I can still slap a film in the Zenit... or the sigma, or the Ziess Ikonta, or or or.....!!!! A-N-D get even more of it... waiting till every-one gone to bed and messing with chemicals and day-light tanks, and washing up bowls!!!

    And I am NOT an anti PP Luddite! I started digital processing photo's back in the mid 90's with what was then called a 'Digital-Dark-Room' rather than Photo-Shop or Post-Process package! Saves a lot of wasted paper and chemicals, this widgetal malarkey does... BUT, when it comes to the technology, I'm an engineer, and first rule, its NOT technology if it doesn't 'help' solve a problem... its just a gadget.

    Using the automation an EPM offers, whether that's Auto-Focus, Auto-Exposure, or standardised JPG processing, or post-process adjustment... UNLESS its employed to solve a problem, and actually make life easier or better... it is NOT a useful technology, its a gadget,! And when that gadget is actually making problems and demanding effort and time, rather than saving it, its not even a gadget, its a problem!

    And here in lies the grouch, all this potential 'technology', all the possible 'easement' it can offer, has made photography so undemanding, that the "The Go Manual, Shoot Raw" mantra, is so often applauded for little reason other than to make the photographer feel 'involved' and doing something worth-while, so much taken care of by the electronic 'easements', going manual, over-riding the easements is oh-so-often employed JUST to make the photographer feel they are taking part, doing something 'important' and achieving something that the camera wouldn't left to its own pre-programmed devices.... is 'anti-technology'.. shifting the photographers time and attention from looking through the camera, to looking AT the camera, and looking for everything to be achieved by prodding buttons!

    So little of the job is in the camera to start with, the amount of influence that the equipment may contain over how good an image may be is so tiny, to start with...

    Raw vs JPG?!? May as well try and argue whether self cancelling indicators on a car are best cancelled by hand, or left to the steering wheel! It's just so un-important in the bigger picture, it's just a non issue! Worry about where your steering the car, and whether there's any-one to indicate to, rather than whether the self-cancelling indicator is a 'problem' cancelling indicators for you when you might want them left on! Want to be a better driver? Watch the effin road! Want to be a better photographer? Look through the camera, not at it, worry about the scene, not the box!
     
    SkyMover, omens and Lensflare like this.
  21. Phil V

    Phil V

    Messages:
    21,821
    Name:
    Phil
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Editing...
    This would have been a worthwhile post. ;)
     
    omens likes this.
  22. woof woof

    woof woof

    Messages:
    18,670
    Name:
    Alan
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Maybe but I don't see how just not worrying about it or looking through the camera (unless it's mirrorless) will help you if the white balance is hopelessly off. Of course sometimes a way out there WB can be a lovely thing to look at but if you're trying to capture the scene as your eye sees it maybe you're better off shooting raw as there just might not be time to carry out a custom WB and set your camera up to capture an as the eye sees it scene. Try that and the moment and many others after it could be gone. RAW is much easier to deal with in this instance.

    Anyway, RAW gives you much more scope. With jpeg you're getting more of whatever the team at Canon (or whoever) think you'll be happy with. That's fine if it coincides with what you want but it's my picture and I'd rather have it how I want :D
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2018
    Phil V likes this.
  23. Cagey75

    Cagey75

    Messages:
    9,380
    Name:
    Keith
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Not really, this 'get it right in camera' attitude is, as you like to say, b****x. Some people just enjoy processing, the 'I don't got time for that' is also b****x. Even the busiest people alive could take 5 minutes out for quick fixes and improvements if they wanted. The ones who 'get it right in camera' are probably using some 'vivid' in cam profile with NR, sharpness and contrast pumped, so the camera is doing half the job anyway.

    As for this "I used film in the 90's therefore I know what I'm talking about ..." :sleep: I shot film in the 80's! and I'm still learning

    [Edit] doing it with an X on end doesn't work either :D
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2018
    cambsno likes this.
  24. gerry s

    gerry s

    Messages:
    654
    Name:
    Gez
    Edit My Images:
    No
    You could just be a really slow learner
    :)
     
  25. Cagey75

    Cagey75

    Messages:
    9,380
    Name:
    Keith
    Edit My Images:
    No
    If you're not still learning, you're not paying attention
     
  26. woof woof

    woof woof

    Messages:
    18,670
    Name:
    Alan
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I shot film in the 70's (71 actually) and all that proves is I'm getting older.
     
    Lensflare likes this.
  27. Cagey75

    Cagey75

    Messages:
    9,380
    Name:
    Keith
    Edit My Images:
    No
    There's a possibility I may have too, someone might have let me click a shutter when I was 4 :D
     
  28. woof woof

    woof woof

    Messages:
    18,670
    Name:
    Alan
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I got my first camera in 71, a Kodak Instamatic and I still have it. I haven't used it for many years but I do look at it now and again :D I have a soft spot for simple cameras :D
     
  29. Cagey75

    Cagey75

    Messages:
    9,380
    Name:
    Keith
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Up until I was in my late teens all I ever used was basic p&s film cameras [ Agfa, Kodak, Pentax, Olympus ...just some I vaguely remember] I'd swipe whatever camera my Dad happened to have knocking about and buy film for it, I had no clue about any exposure triangle or any kind of manual controls [some would say I still don't], I just loved taking pictures. Trouble was, my ignorance led to many a roll of black negatives. I guess I began to learn how to manipulate light from there, and started looking for cameras with some form of control.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2018
  30. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic

    Messages:
    5,591
    Name:
    Terry
    Edit My Images:
    Yes

    I shot and processed film in the 40's, that also proves I am old.
    But I still enjoy learning. There is no end to it.
     
    GordonM and woof woof like this.
  31. Phil V

    Phil V

    Messages:
    21,821
    Name:
    Phil
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Edited down to just the bit I quoted?
    As usual the 500 words of waffle aren’t simply too much they’re also incorrect in so many ways.
     
  32. Cagey75

    Cagey75

    Messages:
    9,380
    Name:
    Keith
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Yeah the driving analogy, it takes as much time to come up with a spiel like that as it takes me to process an image in LR to my taste. As for the whole post, I'd have a whole wedding done in that time :D [not really]
     
    Phil V likes this.
  33. Lensflare

    Lensflare

    Messages:
    2,774
    Name:
    Simon Everett
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Christ, you must be as old as my brother....! :eek:

    Deciphering the replies, it would appear that there are plenty of good phtographers, turning out perfectly good work, shooting jpeg for the most part. Teflon Mike hasn't been read properly. He has hit the nail firmly on the head - you buy a camera body with all the computerised technology within it - then go and shoot without using it. That 'gubbins' the technicians and engineers and designers put into the 'black box with a beer bottle on the front' has been eschewed for the sake of 'maintaining control'. If you want to 'maintain control' why do you buy all that automation in the first place? Surely you have wasted your money buying something that you aren't actually using. A bit like the people who buy the latest mobile thingy, but still only use 20% of the capability of the previous one they have given up. I wish I had that amount of money to just throw away on frivolous wastage.

    The automation is so sophisticated that 90% of the photographers 'doing it for themselves' cannot do MUCH better in the majority of situations, a little better perhaps, but disproportionate to the time and effort involved. In the 10% of situations where 'doing it for yourself' can make a real difference, you should be able to recognise that scene straight away and just switch the settings to deal with it...that might be a quick roll of the wheel to RAW.

    What Mike has said, and most who replied just glossed over, is that the thought that goes into 'making the photograph' before you even look through the viewfinder, can do more than hours in front of a screen could do. Cleaning the area, altering the furniture, placing objects where you want them.....spend more time on that aspect and you will do far better than fiddling with the curves can ever do. BUT, I can erase the litter with photos***e, but the litter is still there. If you pick the litter up, everyone benefits, including your picture.
     
    Teflon-Mike likes this.
  34. Lensflare

    Lensflare

    Messages:
    2,774
    Name:
    Simon Everett
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    In which case you are not doing much altering then. Good jpeg settings would have you 98% there - and that last twiddle can be done on a jpeg!

    I find it amusing that photographers spend £5000 on a camera body to produce a 20MB image, that then gets whittled down to 900kb so it can be viewed on a mobile screen thingy of some description. What is the limit for size on the forum here?
     
    GeeJay57 likes this.
  35. woof woof

    woof woof

    Messages:
    18,670
    Name:
    Alan
    Edit My Images:
    No
    If you shot film in the 40's and are telling us now that proves you're still alive! :D

    PS.
    And that's a good thing as I always enjoy your posts :D
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2018
    petersmart likes this.
  36. GeeJay57

    GeeJay57

    Messages:
    1,807
    Name:
    Glenn
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    IMG_0758.JPG
     
    gerry s, Phil V, ctrollen and 2 others like this.
  37. woof woof

    woof woof

    Messages:
    18,670
    Name:
    Alan
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Hmm well, there are so many ifs and buts but I'll stick to two.

    Firstly we buy highly sophisticated kit with more features than people like me will ever use because there's usually no choice. Show me a camera with only the features I want and no more and with a suitably lowered price and I just might buy it but the fact is that many bells and whistles are just in there if we like them / use them or not. So we're not really paying for them, we're paying for the product and just not using all of the features. Bet you don't use every feature of your TV/phone/car/whatever you have at home...

    Secondly you can't always clear the shot. What about those pesky people cluttering my view not to mention that time I was happily cutting down those telephone lines as they spoilt my composition and those irritating policemen tazered me.

    And thirdly (I know I said only two but I'm on a roll) there may not be time to manicure the world to suit the final picture I want.

    The only times I shoot jpeg are when it doesn't really matter... such as when checking the sensor is clean or when I know the WB will be ok or it's just a record shot... and I can imagine others doing it for other specific reasons - like those people who take pictures and then try to sell you a print 20 minutes later. They're shooting hundreds of portraits and will doubtless hardly have time to print them out never mind look at and perfect every shot so a jpeg (or rather several hundred of them) is a better choice for them than raws which will need work.

    Other than those examples though it's raw every time for me.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2018
    juggler and cambsno like this.
  38. mark4183

    mark4183

    Messages:
    1,252
    Name:
    Mark
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    shoot RAW 100% of the time.... reason being; never tried jpeg haha

    i really dont see the point using both formats at the same time
     
  39. woof woof

    woof woof

    Messages:
    18,670
    Name:
    Alan
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I think one point is that if the jpeg is ok you don't have to bother processing the raw.

    Personally for anything that matters I think it's worthwhile keeping the raw even if you do nothing to it as some future software may be a significant improvement and allow you to make an even better picture - from the raw.

    When I moved from Rawshooter Essentials to CS5 the improvement for me was such a step forward that I went back and redid a load of shots I'd previously done with RSE.
     
  40. mark4183

    mark4183

    Messages:
    1,252
    Name:
    Mark
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    all good and well having both options but why fill up your memory card and hard drive twice as fast
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice