Raw vs Jpg argument

Gary Bagshawe

Gary Bagshawe

Messages
1,038
Edit My Images
No
I know this has been gone over a million times but........
A large amount of my work is for publication in newspapers or for prints no bigger than A3. For this jpg is fine.
However, with the top picture libraries asking for minimum file sizes of 48mb im finding myself wishing that I had learned more about the raw format earlier on in my digital experience. I have so many shots that I would love to stick into libraries but shot them on high quality jpg:bonk:
:bang: It really is worth IMO learning about raw conversion etc. I have even found myself shooting news stories on raw:shrug:
 
I've always used RAW since I bought my 300D . Never liked the idea of storing the main copy in a 'lossy' format.
 
No, Alamy for one have just started accepting jpegs, so you can have a jpeg based workflow. You just have to make sure that either a) no re-saving happens, so that means minimal editing. and b) that the file is 48mb opened. Apparently they supply all their shots to customers in jpg anyways, so lord knows why they've been making their contributors jump through hoops for ages!

I'm not sure about other stock libraries, but alamy also accept 24mb for reportage stuff.

I think in your line of work speed is of the essence so raw is only going to slow you down. I think rob shoots jpegs mostly too.


If you want to submit them to some stock agencies you could always up-rez them if necessary to 48mb opened with genuine fractals or something and then save as a tiff.


Incidentaly, I think they will only want 48mb size once opened. How big a jpeg does your camera spit out (once they're opened in PS)?
 
Yeah, I've never understood the mentality of asking for a 48MB file.

"Erm, ok... so if I save this Jpeg as a Tiff, then you'll accept it? Even though it's more data for exactly the same pixels?"

"Yep"

"You're the boss... Dumbass."
 
A 48mb file is a 48mb file no matter how you save it! and generaly, a 48Mb file is 17X12 ish size print at 300ppi. They use this so they can guarantee their clients a certain level of resolution. Remember, some of these files *may* be printed at up to billboard dimensions, hence why they accept smaller files for reportage. Some of the other stock agencies will expect no interpolation, whereas some will demand it dependant on the output size of your camera.

it's all a bit odd, and they all have their foibles, as I'm rapidly discovering!
 
Well personally I had always shot in JPEG, then about 6 months ago began to shoot in JPEG+RAW, and now I shoot exclusively in RAW. Mainly because Im getting more comfortable with being able to convert a RAW to whatever I require.

However I also find it ridiculous that images for stock libraries were specified mainly by their file size - always seemed a bit to much of a quantity instead of quality attitude.
 
Why would anyone shoot jpg when they can shoot raw? shoot raw and you always have the data to go back to to adjust as needed and convert into whatever format you want.
 
RAW for portraits, weddings, important stuff.
JPEG for sports/high number of images with less post processing.

TIFF format for the 48Mb files, don't forget, each time you edit/open then save a jpg you loose some quality (never sure that you'd really notice) but I don't understand it too much!

My 2p worth!
Carl.
 
Steep said:
Why would anyone shoot jpg when they can shoot raw? shoot raw and you always have the data to go back to to adjust as needed and convert into whatever format you want.
Click to expand...

When I've done 1500+ shots on a day, which happens often as not. Converting and resizing would take far too much time. And if you get it right as a jpeg I'm damned if you can tell the difference anyay.
 
Gary Bagshawe said:
I know this has been gone over a million times but........
A large amount of my work is for publication in newspapers or for prints no bigger than A3. For this jpg is fine.
However, with the top picture libraries asking for minimum file sizes of 48mb im finding myself wishing that I had learned more about the raw format earlier on in my digital experience. I have so many shots that I would love to stick into libraries but shot them on high quality jpg:bonk:
:bang: It really is worth IMO learning about raw conversion etc. I have even found myself shooting news stories on raw:shrug:
Click to expand...

save the jpeg as a .tiff file
 
Newspers need stuff fast, so shoot jpg and offf it goes. lets face it, the quailty of newsprint is crap. So shoot on jpg no problem, you then get requests from magazines (if its a good story) asking for better quality stuff. aghhhhh, If you have the time frame shoot raw, thats all im trying to say. My head hurts and ive drunk far too much. Have fun all
 
The big file size requirements were just a hang-up from film scans, these consisted of nearly as much grain/noise info as the genuine photo info. Stock agencies need some sort of standard I suppose, but sheer file size doesn't convey anything about the quality.
Just interpolate to get there and submit uncompressed Tiffs, digital shooters have been doing that for years to get to the requirements
 
I shoot everything on RAW and convert the images selected for use into TIFF for printing and JPEG for transmission.
Having spoken to the Picture Editors at News International we now transmit larger (i.e. less compressed) JPEGs than previously - 10" along the long side at 175dpi and compressed to no less than level 10. This helps prevent issues associated with garbled file info which some end-users were experiencing with images that were too compressed.
 
I shoot 100% Raw. I haven't quite got my workflow working yet (Only got the camera 3 weeks ago), but currently I'm looking at different ways to compress the converted TIF's. I will start burning the Cr2 files to DVD when I get a DVD writer :D. Currently I only have about 50gigs left on my 160gig HD (well...its 200Gig, formatted to just over 185, with a 160 and 25 partition)

Leo
 
Don't compress the TIFFs. Just buy another hard drive when it's full. £80 for 250Gb from PC-World (rip-off buch of thieving gits they may be, but cheap stuff if you look hard).
Burn at least 2 copies of your DVD back-ups. We had some go bad on us last year and we're looking at £300 per disk to retrieve the data...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top