Raw, Jpeg or both.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Raw only, retains everything and is so much faster to process

stew
 
For a paid job, I'd never shoot anything other than RAW.
 
I'm RAW+JPEG.

I'm not good enough to shoot in just JPEG, but like to see the original JPEG and compare it with my finished and converted RAW to see how far out I am.
 
artona said:
Raw only, retains everything and is so much faster to process
Click to expand...

Really? How can RAW PP be faster than JPEG? I normally shoot JPEG and there is literally no PP to be done on them].... ;)
 
Thanks for the input so far. For those who shoot both, do you set jpeg to basic or fine. A friend of mine shoots both but the jpeg is in basic as he says it is just for reference. When viewing photos on the hard drive (prior to LR) he can quickly delete unwanted images so he only imports potential keepers.

So, second question, those that shoot RAW only, do you import from camera straight into LR/PS

Jeff
 
100% RAW, I use bridge, ACR, then open in Photoshop CS4 for final editing, cropping, sharpening etc.
 
Raw as much as I can, jpeg for events where we have to print on site as our Mitsubishi doesn't "see" raw annoyingly.
 
I shoot RAW + Jpeg fine, always have for some reason, i guess it was to compare between the shots once processed

Think I will soon drop to RAW + Jpeg basic/small and use them for reference, that way it will force to be process more pictures and not just use jpegs
 
Raw & JPEG fine for me too. some shots go direct from the JPEG, but any needing work doing are dealt with in the Raw file. My work flow prefers me to have both so I can use windows to view the JPEG's whilst working on Raw.
 
It seems most so far shoot Raw or RAW+jpeg, only one (DekHog) shoots jpeg only. I can certainly see the benefits of shooting both but wondered if there are any drawbacks other than card space.

I also note the great Gerry Ghionis says he only shoots jpeg which surprised me.
 
Raw all the way for me. The real benefit to me is being able to custom white balance after the fact.

JPEG is great if you don't have a bunch of mixed light sources to deal with which change as people move around a room. Typical one for me is our bride walking down the aisle. Very often she will start out in artificial light of some sort and as she walks down the aisle she often walks into a patch of daylight. So the lighting changes a lot in a short space.

It's also one great benefit of some of the larger (read posh) venues, they tend to have far more consistant lighting simply because they are so big. Got to love a BIG church :)
 
Jeff.B said:
It seems most so far shoot Raw or RAW+jpeg, only one (DekHog) shoots jpeg only. I can certainly see the benefits of shooting both but wondered if there are any drawbacks other than card space.

I also note the great Gerry Ghionis says he only shoots jpeg which surprised me.
Click to expand...

I can't see any drawbacks with shooting both (other than card space) you have the jpegs for quick viewing instant use and the raw for the extra latitude they give you and non distructive editing.
 
Jeff.B said:
I also note the great Gerry Ghionis says he only shoots jpeg which surprised me.
Click to expand...

RAW....................Cyclist who uses stabilisers
JPEG....................Cyclist who rides a unicycle
Jerry Ghionis..........Cyclist who rides a unicycle...on a cable suspended over the Niagara Falls...filled with sharks. :D
 
When asked if he shot JPeg or RAW, a respected photographer giving a retouching seminar asked his audience, 'why would you buy a 12 megapixel camera and only take a 3 megapixel picture?'
 
gman said:
RAW....................Cyclist who uses stabilisers
JPEG....................Cyclist who rides a unicycle
Jerry Ghionis..........Cyclist who rides a unicycle...on a cable suspended over the Niagara Falls...filled with sharks. :D
Click to expand...
Hmmm, cyclists with stabilisers fall over less.... ;)
 
Regardless of paid work or just messing at home - RAW.

Did try doing RAW and jpeg once but couldn't see the point!

Sometimes there is next to nothing to do, other times loads of tweaks, but I like having the option.
 
DT01 said:
When asked if he shot JPeg or RAW, a respected photographer giving a retouching seminar asked his audience, 'why would you buy a 12 megapixel camera and only take a 3 megapixel picture?'
Click to expand...

:thinking: Although it's obvious what the photographer is getting at his statement is not really accurate.

It's not a 3 megapixel picture. That's the file size after compression and compression doesn't necessarily mean you degrade the image quality and more importantly degrade the quality noticeable to the human eye. Can you tell the different between level 12 and level 10 JPEG compression? I doubt it.


swanseamale47 said:
Hmmm, amateurs with stabilisers fall over less.... ;)
Click to expand...

Just as the pro on a unicycle falls over less ;)


popcorn.jpg
:D :p


DT01 said:
but I like having the option.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, if you can and have the time then RAW does make more sense.
 
DT01 said:
When asked if he shot JPeg or RAW, a respected photographer giving a retouching seminar asked his audience, 'why would you buy a 12 megapixel camera and only take a 3 megapixel picture?'
Click to expand...

I sure wouldn't trust a retoucher who said that... o_0
 
DT01 said:
When asked if he shot JPeg or RAW, a respected photographer giving a retouching seminar asked his audience, 'why would you buy a 12 megapixel camera and only take a 3 megapixel picture?'
Click to expand...

Sounds more like a 'toucher upper' to me.... :thinking:
 
Originally Posted by DT01
When asked if he shot JPeg or RAW, a respected photographer giving a retouching seminar asked his audience, 'why would you buy a 12 megapixel camera and only take a 3 megapixel picture?'
Although it's obvious what the photographer is getting at his statement is not really accurate.

It's not a 3 megapixel picture. That's the file size after compression and compression doesn't necessarily mean you degrade the image quality and more importantly degrade the quality noticeable to the human eye. Can you tell the different between level 12 and level 10 JPEG compression? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

Yes, you're right Graham...maybe he could have phrased it better. How about, 'why would you want to capture all that data and let the camera discard 75% of it'?
 
DT01 said:
Yes, you're right Graham...maybe he could have phrased it better. How about, 'why would you want to capture all that data and let the camera discard 75% of it'?
Click to expand...

If 75% of the data is just a pure white background which has been compressed via an algorithm then I wouldn't care!

I know what you are saying, I think it's more about how much compression is applied and how good it is at compressing without reducing quality.

Here's a good read: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d200/quality-settings.htm

Also: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/file-formats.htm


Jpegs get rid of all the repetitive data unless you go ballistic with the compression! lol
 
gman said:
If 75% of the data is just a pure white background which has been compressed via an algorithm then I wouldn't care!

I know what you are saying, I think it's more about how much compression is applied and how good it is at compressing without reducing quality.

Here's a good read: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d200/quality-settings.htm

Also: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/file-formats.htm


Jpegs get rid of all the repetitive data unless you go ballistic with the compression! lol
Click to expand...

Trouble is, it's not just about compression. It's also about sometimes crucial shadow detail and highlight recovery, to say nothing about white balance correction and the ability of a file to withstand PP without falling apart.

If minimal PP is the aim, simply set up a standard preset in Lightoom and apply it on import. Files processed, except you're doing it and not using the camera as the computer, as well as throwing data away at the point of capture.
 
Last edited:
Radiohead said:
It's also about sometimes crucial shadow detail and highlight recovery, to say nothing about white balance correction
Click to expand...

Get it right in the first place and you shouldn't need to worry about this. I do understand that if you make some mistakes then RAW can save things, but then isn't the whole point of being a pro is that you don't make mistakes?

I'm not saying anyone is infallible but for speed of workflow vs mistakes made, I would have thought a pro would avoid RAW and go JPEG.

I also prefer using RAW but I'm finding myself more and more simply just exporting straight to JPEG and making some quick final edits. I do like having the RAW just incase I do have to make amends but then I'm not a pro :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top