What to format to shoot...decisions decisions!

Northstander

Northstander

Messages
345
Name
Jonathan
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi

The time for my first DSLR purchase is getting ever closer, (don't worry, I have decided on my weapon of choice, so this thread won't be another "what DSLR?" thread).

I'm trying to decide what to do about shooting in JPEG/RAW. In all honesty, being a Dad and having a small eBay business, I don't have the time to process every single shot that I take so RAW is a non-starter at the moment.

The camera I'm going to buy has the option to shoot in RAW and convert to JPEG in camera.

My question really is whether this would be better than just shooting in JPEG? I've seen some comparisons of JPEGs/RAWs from this particular camera, and I'll be darned if I can tell much difference!

Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:
Most importantly - with RAW you can choose the white balance in post processing.
Also you have a chance to resque over/under exposed shot but recovering highlights or pulling details from shadows.

You loose all this (and much more) with jpeg.

RAW is the way to go, esp for newbie. Many professionals shoot jpeg, but they have years of experience and know exactly what they are doing.
 
Having gone from raw to jpeg for a while ive gone back to raw, with memory being so cheap you may aswell shoot in a decent format. Depends also on how fast you fill the buffer though.
 
Northstander said:
I don't have the time to process every single shot that I take so RAW is a non-starter at the moment.
Click to expand...

Thought I'd quote myself, so everyone is clear :p

BTW Gunnar, I'm not exactly a newbie. Just because I don't own a DSLR at the moment doesn't mean I don't know anything about photography.
 
Last edited:

Surely you have answered your own question then...
 
Processing Raw doesn't take any longer than previewing the image and deciding whether it is a keeper or not. Even if you are shooting Jpeg I doubt you will get every one right straight out of camera and there are times when the latitude available in raw files can save the day. If you're not sure shoot raw and jpeg and you've got the option to process the raw files later.
 
Get a program like lightroom and RAW processing only takes minimal time over JPG's.
I've shot RAW since getting a DSLR and it really doesn't impact too much on my processing time, I simply export from DPP (canon's RAW processor) with minimal settings then do all the necessary processing on the TIFF files. It's still quicker than when I shot with a fuji S9600 because with the bridge camera I had to spend at least twenty minutes on each image very carefully applying noise reduction and strong sharpening. All I need to do to the exported TIFF's from my DSLR is contrast/colour adjustments, basic sharpening and sometimes basic noise reduction (or more specific over ISO 800) and they're good to go.
While I was using the free trial of lightroom 3, it was even quicker. With lightroom I just breezed through the images altering a couple of sliders here and there and they look how I want (if you can budget for it I highly recommend lightroom).
Anyway, my point is that RAW files might not take as much work as you think to make them look as good or better than the JPG the camera would have come out, and you'll be extremely glad of the headroom those times when you missed the exposure on a crucial shot.
The raw files that take time to process for me are generally ones where the shot would have been pretty much lost if it was a JPG out of camera.

But if you really don't want to spend any time processing, I'd just shoot JPG's. Going through all your images converting them yourself in camera will be time consuming and it'll drain your battery quite a bit quicker.
 
Last edited:
Northstander said:
No...the question is JPEG, or RAW and convert to JPEG in camera.
Click to expand...

I don't understand- is this not the same thing? I thought a JPEG was just the camera processing the raw image. You seem to be suggesting that the unidentified camera shoots JPEG or 'special' JPEG? Mine is not that good- it just shoots JPEG although it does shoot TIFF as well as RAW.

In any case, why can't you shoot RAW + JPEG and if you have an image you really like then at least you have the RAW file to experiment with and see if you can make it look better than the JPEG.
 
I have an Olympus Pen and the JPEG's are meant to be amazing... which most of the time I am happy with them.
But recently I took a load of photo's at a family wedding and when I saw the JPEG's I was quite upset with them, they looked horrendous... luckily having the RAW files meant I could use them to get the images I wanted... as has been said earlier shoot both and then if you don't like the JPEG's you have the RAW files to salvage!
 
Best thing to do is spend a day or an afternoon and experiment with it then you can make a choice.

Personally I only shoot raw as i have import presets in light room that give me the basic look i like 90% of the time then I tweak the ones i need to. Also doing a fast preselection in photo mechanic of the images Im going to take into light room and delete the ones i dont want. I can edit down 2000 shots from an Ice hockey match down to the 50 or so deliverables in an hour and a half.
 
The D3100 can process RAW files in camera. Its takes as long, if not longer to do this, than to just shoot RAW and process in Lightroom, plus you miss out on a whole load of other settings that could be applied in Lightroom that the camera cant do.

If you dont want to process, shoot JPG, if you do shoot RAW. Its really that simple.

It takes me about 2 minutes per photo to intenisvly process a RAW. I could do it in a lot less if I didnt play around with the sliders so much to see different effects..
 
I would recommend shooting RAW, it gives you a much better chance to correct shots if it goes a bit pear shaped, and you can always do a batch convert and save of all the shots as JPEG's if time is pressing, and have the luxury of being able to sort the problems using RAW as well.
 
I say have an experiment to see if you want to process raw from scratch or if you don't mind 'pre-determined' JPEG settings....

Personally, people seem to think that jpegs are a final solution that can't be tweaked.... They can and for web use I think they're fine. For extensive, heavy editing the raw may be the best route but for snapping then JPEG is fine.....
 
I shoot in RAW and JPEG simultaneously. I use the JPEGs as quick proofs to see which pics are good enough to process properly. For processing I use Lightroom, which makes it pretty quick (well unless you're on an old computer or netbook lacking the necessary processor speed).

I would regret it if I had taken a really good shot in JPEG only that could have been a fantastic shot if taken in RAW and processed accordingly.

So my advice would be to shoot in RAW and JPEG simultaneously - all that takes is a slightly larger memory card, but it's not like these cost the world these days (I use 16GB cards).
 
My personal preference is to shoot raw + basic jpeg

Basic jpegs, lower res and space. This allows you to quickly view the pics and pic the raw you want to use.

Raw does take a bit longer to process (depending on machine spec and software you are using) but is sooooooooo much more handy in saving pictures that otherwise would be binned.

You've pointed out that you don't have time (usually) but you can also batch process raw files (if you shot loads and they are pretty much the same exposures etc you could leave overnight processing and in the morning have a folder full of pics...?).

Of course you can always just shoot high res jpegs.

If I were you I'd shoot jpegs for a week, raw for a week and compare which you prefer to work with. Or if you have a big enough card shoot raw + high res jpeg? Then if you need to tweak you can...?
 
I just shoot RAW and do a batch convert to JPEG using Nikon ViewNX. Best of both worlds - you get the same JPEG you would get out of the camera and you still have the RAW if you ever want to tinker later.
The batch conversion takes a while, but since it requires no input from me I go and do something else like watch TV or have dinner.
Shot RAW+JPEG for a while but ran out of memory on holiday once and realised I was just wasting card space.
 
I'm a bit confused....

I'm a dad of three (one of whom is still a little one) and run three businesses and I manage to shoot in RAW very happily, I even find time to type on a well known photography forum :p. It only takes moments to open the RAW file in CameraRAW which itself is embedded within Photoshop effectively. The benefits of tweaking WB, exposure, saturation, vibrance etc etc in RAW outway the few seconds extra it takes to deal with the RAW files.

Each to their own I guess... How about missing Eastenders to make up the time ;)
 
I always shoot raw and went to the local airshow last week and found that my SD cards were not fast enough to keep up with my Pentax K-5 (7fps and 14 bit raw files) so I had to switch to jpeg. Have to say I was VERY disappointed with the amount of detail I could pull from the pictures. I did have one small capacity fast speed card and tried some raw files on that, they were so much better than the jpeg after processing.

2 High speed cards in transit at this very moment. :)
 
I have to admire people who buy fast cards. I buy the cheapo ones and live with slow write speeds :D

PS. RAW for me.
 
With memory being cheap why dont you shoot RAW + JPEG.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top