... I would use jpegs

Michael J.

Michael J.

Senior Member
Just took this quote just to start a discussion about time :cool:

sonicbuffalo said:
If I was shooting hundreds of shots, I would use jpegs.
Click to expand...

When my daughter has a dancing or sport performance, I will take about 300 photos per performance. On our vacation trip I take about 900 to 1200 photos in 4 days. I take them all RAW.

Once, two years ago, I changed to JPEG for my vacation trip, and at this time I shot lots of indoors, museum, Temples, underwater world, etc. Unfortunately I am not a pro and some shots turned out underexposed or the WB was a bit far from close. It was very difficult to get them afterwards likable not to say many photo couldn't get right. I learned as a hobbyist to shoot RAW. You know good things need time. I have time.

During my years on this earth I learned that something done in a hurry takes more time to fix it afterwards. When companies ask me to use less time I am going to ask them do you want 100% Quality or just 80% and guess what, in 20 years doing my job in so many well-known companies they choose... yes 100%.

I need it straight away, many people will say this. What this people are doing when the malls are closed, when their is a blackout, traffic jam, etc.? Or do this people everything straight away. What if they are sick, have unexpected overtime to do, got diarrhea, some gears got broken down, etc.?

Does time controll us or controll we the time? Nature don't know time it is happening when it is ready.
 
D

Don Kuykendall_RIP

RIP :(
That is the best response I have ever heard. Wonderful.

I do though shoot JPEG every once in a while. Like when the faculty softball team plays once a year where my wife teaches. I could care less how good they really look so I shoot the best I can and then use ViewNX2 to resize them and upload them to Facebook.

They have been pretty good but if they did not turn out good I would have just deleted them and not lost any sleep over the loss.
 
W

WayneF

Senior Member
I can't always get it just right either, surprises are common, but Raw makes it be an trivial problem. I think Raw processing only takes an average of maybe 10 or 15 seconds extra per picture (since many cases can fix multiple pictures in the same one click). Much of that time involves just looking at the picture the first time, but that does include fixing white balance and exposure, fixing crop and straightening, and sometimes altering standard color profile (Neutral for portraits, maybe Vivid for a few landscapes, etc). And resampling for print size, and batch output of corrected image to JPG for use. Processing only one picture might take a bit longer, but processing a few hundred does not (average of each). We get pretty good at it. ;)

Anyone that can't spare a few more seconds on each picture is sure never going to make JPG be correct. Raw is the easy, fast and good way. :)
 
Last edited:
M

Moab Man

Senior Member
When shooting sports, with a lot of shots, I will shoot raw and jpeg. I then do a batch processing auto fix for the purpose of showing to potential (parents) clients. Then, I let them choose the shots they like. Those I will sit down and edit the raw for. BUT, I never share a bad shot due to missed focus or jpeg processing just flat got it wrong.
 
wev

wev

Senior Member
Contributor
I would not dream of disputing anything that has been said, but I shoot jpeg because it is easy and I am lazy. I began with RAW, but my computer (c 2009 Win Xp) takes forever to do anything with a file and I always seem to end up with images no better than I get just processing as I do now. Perhaps I could invest a good measure more time and tweak a little more out, but what I do is adequate for my modest needs and abilities, so there I stay. That said, I really only print one actual job per year and, to be frank, the recipients would not know the difference between RAW files and raw carrots; I just make sure the images given satisfy my eye.
 
Woodyg3

Woodyg3

Senior Member
Contributor
I figure whether it's RAW or jpeg, I'm going to edit. Since that's the case, I shoot RAW and have more latitude with what I can do. That said, I did have to buy two new hard drives this weekend to keep up with the constant addition of GB after GB of photo files. Jpeg would sure take up a lot less space! :)
 
wev

wev

Senior Member
Contributor
Woodyg3 said:
I figure whether it's RAW or jpeg, I'm going to edit. Since that's the case, I shoot RAW and have more latitude with what I can do. That said, I did have to buy two new hard drives this weekend to keep up with the constant addition of GB after GB of photo files. Jpeg would sure take up a lot less space! :)
Click to expand...

There is that, certainly. To which can be added, what the hell happens to all the stuff in the end? I hope to live a few more years at least, but eventually my wife and/or daughter is going to have to deal with around 50,000 image files (at the current pace and including my work in American silver), the vast majority of which will mean nothing at all to them past my byline. I mean, how many high resolution RAW files of flowers or birds or whatever does a person want or need?
 
E

Eyelight

Senior Member
I've wandered back and forth, but have arrived at the idea that shooting RAW is like shooting wide. You can crop a wide shot, but you can't uncrop a narrow shot. I can turn a hundred (yea thousands of) RAW files into JPEGs with a few clicks, but a JPEG is a JPEG.
 
wev

wev

Senior Member
Contributor
Yes, but again, to what use? I shoot 100-200 flower and plant images a year for the department. They are used, sized 2" x 3" for our sale cards or the online ID database. In both cases, RAW files are pointless excess for the intended use. How many of us here print 4' x 6' posters on a regular basis? Or shot for Vogue or Sports Illustrated? Looking at the images posted here, good, bad, or otherwise: I could not guess at the original file format nor do I care to know. Would people like my images more if I had started in RAW and jiggered down to a finished jpeg? I hope that they like them because I captured (as luck would have it) something of interest, not because I fiddled things. A good image is a good image -- when in doubt shoot three and accept your losses; no one is perfect every time and no format will save you when you aren't.
 
wev

wev

Senior Member
Contributor
I find the walking dead altogether more interesting -- present company accepted, of course.
 
M

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
If any one has tried raw but still feels Jpeg gives them all they need then go for it, dont be talked into something you dont want or feel you need,if i could take better images i would use it some of the time.
 
Top