Do you shoot "Raw" or "Jpeg"

[sonicbuffalo_RIP]

I'm thinking you may not have read it right. I was hoping you would think: "Of course". I understood it.

I said the math was right, even the 0.4% was divided right, but the interpretation was questionable. It is not a useful number. We cannot view Raw files (and would not like it if we could).

It requires at least four Raw pixels to convert to one RGB pixel (Bayer). Pixel count does remain the same, but the data becomes interpolated. That is a loss of resolution, true of any digital camera (except Foveon - do they still exist?). So the camera JPG suffered this issue too. Any JPG did. They all suffer the same process, from the original Raw. So FWIW, your 0.4% number is true of camera JPG or JPG from Adobe Raw, but it is not the right way to view this conversion of 4 pixels to one RGB value. Does not take it into account.

It is only any subsequent 8 bit JPG processing that suffers. Subsequent Raw processing is still 12 bits, same as the camera did it, so really, the difference is we can see what we are doing, instead of blind wishful hoping with our crude camera settings.

But in general, at least very often (certainly pertinent to this JPG vs. Raw discussion) that camera JPG idea is done to avoid doing any processing at all. Don't know how, don't want to, don't really care, don't want to look at them again, whatever, but the common idea is to avoid doing any processing. This practice seems questionable, but in those cases, at least there is no difference in the bit depth.

Which format do you shoot in, Wayne?

 

[WayneF]

Which format do you shoot in, Wayne?

Raw, ever since I learned about it. The benefit is too great to ignore. I don't always get it perfect in the camera.

 

[sonicbuffalo_RIP]

Why not shoot both when possible? It would save you from processing some shots that are fine in .jpg. Just wondering....thks.

 

[WayneF]

Why not shoot both when possible? It would save you from processing some shots that are fine in .jpg. Just wondering....thks.

Well, mine often are not. And it is so easy to output JPG from Raw at anytime (batch processing, etc). We are normally also resampling then anyway. And the camera writing more files takes more time, slowing it. And it fills the card faster (although JPG is almost negligible size compared to Raw). So you get a USB 3.0 card reader, and you're in business.

Really, for me, the argument would be the necessity of wading through all those unnecessary files, trying to sort it out. I doubt I would ever even look at the JPG.

I don't think the right arguments are being presented...

Raw processing is so easy. If you really want Vivid, you can set Vivid in the software too. Or better, you can do it individually, based on what it actually looks like. It is harder to Undo Vivid done in the camera.

But more important, the camera is not often precise. Tools are crude. Perfect White Balance is almost impossible, except maybe bright sun. We don't know the color in the first place, and can't set it right anyway. Yeah, I know about Custom WB and shooting a white card, but that's awkward, and those avoiding processing are not going to do that either. And reflective metering is not very precise, small adjustments are often needed. It makes such a difference to get WB and exposure right on. It is so easy and fast and good, to simply just do what you see is needed. It is a Day and Night benefit.

And another HUGE benefit is the ability to edit (process) many multiple files at once. I usually think of it as correcting, not editing. I usually don't do much other than correcting WB and tweaking exposure and cropping (there is vastly more that can be done). I am not aware Nikon software does multiple files, but Adobe does. If you have many pictures in same situation, a flash session or whatever, one click can correct WB on all of them. It is so easy and fast and good.

 

[sonicbuffalo_RIP]

Well, mine often are not. And it is so easy to output JPG from Raw at anytime (batch processing, etc). And the camera writing more files takes more time, slowing it. And it fills the card faster (although JPG is almost negligible size compared to Raw).

Really, for me, the argument would be the necessity of wading through all those unnecessary files, trying to sort it out.



I don't think the right arguments are being presented...

Raw processing is so easy. If you really want Vivid, you can set Vivid in the software too. But more important, the camera is not often precise. White Balance is almost impossible, except may bright sun. We don't know the color, and can't set it anyway. Yeah, I know about Custom WB and shooting a white card, but that's awkward, and those avoiding processing are not going to do that either. And reflective metering is not very precise, small adjustment are often needed. It is so easy and fast and good, to simply just do what you see is needed.

And another HUGE benefit is the abiility to edit (process) many multiple files at once. I am not aware Nikon software does this, but Adobe does. If you have many pictures in same situation, flash session or whatever, one click can correct WB on all of them. It is so easy and fast and good.

Thanks Wayne!

 

[Horoscope Fish]

These debates are fun.....gives me cause to think about why I shoot the way I do. In the past I have shot double barrel raw. I think I will from now on, shoot raw + .jpg. I see no reason to shoot double barrel raw, as I would just be duplicating my shots. If I shot both raw & .jpg, I have a choice on which format to use depending on what I want to do with the shots. Does anyone have any good reason not mentioned for shooting both formats? I know if a card is corrupted during the shooting, fomatting, etc., that I will be stuck with which ever format wasn't affected. I guess I'm willing (in most cases) to take that chance. Anybody have any other ideas about this?

I tried it for a while but my "thing" with shooting RAW + JPG is, I guess, what many people find most attractive about it: Winding up at the end of a shoot with two identical file sets. For me, that got to be a bother. Gawd knows I'm a minimalist, though...

In short, I just shoot RAW and process the ones worth displaying, either online or for printing; the rest get archived. Easy peasy.

....

 

[sonicbuffalo_RIP]

I tried it for a while but my "thing" with shooting RAW + JPG is, I guess, what many people find most attractive about it: Winding up at the end of a shoot with two identical file sets. For me, that got to be a bother. Gawd knows I'm a minimalist, though...

In short, I just shoot RAW and process the ones worth displaying, either online or for printing; the rest get archived. Easy peasy.

....

Thanks Fish.....now I have quite a bit to sort out in my head regarding which format (s) to use. Really I don't see how you can really lose either way. Maybe I'll keep double barelling raw to keep things simple.

 

[J-see]

And another HUGE benefit is the ability to edit (process) many multiple files at once. I usually think of it as correcting, not editing. I am not aware Nikon software does multiple files, but Adobe does. If you have many pictures in same situation, a flash session or whatever, one click can correct WB on all of them. It is so easy and fast and good.

That's quite handy indeed. I took a lot of shots today under the same conditions. I only had to process one in LR, select all the rest and apply the same processing.

Another reason, besides the file increase, for not shooting JPEG is that it requires you to adjust the settings before you shoot. Conditions change constantly and often a shot is about being fast. Having to tweak settings before hitting the trigger isn't benefiting there.

 

[WayneF]

And lossless editing is another very big advantage of Raw, assuming you might edit.

Say you edit the JPG and it is only 8 bits, but say it comes out good. But suppose later on, you decide it needs to be done a different way. But you probably wiped out your original by overwriting the JPG, so now your change has to shift the already shifted data, back and forth, 8 bits. That's not good. If you did save your original JPG, you still have to start over from scratch. That's not convenient.

The Raw concept is the the pristine original Raw is always kept, and is always the starting point. When you "edit" what is saved is the LIST of the changes you specify. The data is not affected. This is invisible to us, but then when you view it or output a JPG, the change list is applied to the original data, to output the new RGB file. Then later, you want something else, maybe Vivid or whatever, so you do it. But then all you change is the LIST of specified edits. You simply discard the previous JPG, and output a new JPG, starting from the original Raw file, with the modified list - always shifted only this one time, at final output (as 12 bits, and NOT back and forth due to repeated edits). This is Lossless Edit, the original data is always the starting point. For example, you can even Uncrop, and get all the pixels back.

I think this process was necessary, not a planned advantage, because we have no tools to actually edit a Raw file. But it works out great.

It is true that Adobe Raw software allows using the Raw editor on JPG and TIF files, and is then lossless edits too, saving the list, and always starting from the original JPG. Lossless edits too. You still have to output a new JPG for other software to see the changes. But if you are using the Raw software, why not use a Raw file, and skip the 8 bits and JPG artifacts?

I do edit my wifes little compact camera JPG that way. There are a few that cannot be saved, but she thinks it takes great pictures.


Anyway, if a little simple edit is accepted to improve your images, then Raw is the way to go.

If you won't consider any edit, then trust your camera JPG.

 

[AC016]

 

[nikonpup]

raw - now to find a editing program that can read my mind. (if i haven't lost it already) :-(

 

[J-see]

Perfect White Balance is almost impossible, except maybe bright sun. We don't know the color in the first place, and can't set it right anyway. Yeah, I know about Custom WB and shooting a white card, but that's awkward, and those avoiding processing are not going to do that either. And reflective metering is not very precise, small adjustments are often needed. It makes such a difference to get WB and exposure right on. It is so easy and fast and good, to simply just do what you see is needed. It is a Day and Night benefit.

LR makes WB easy but to my embarrassment I'd have to confess that until recently I had completely overlooked the dropper. Before, I had to find a compromise for WB but now I finally discovered that little tool, I just click a spot I know to be white and LR automatically sets the correct WB for that shot.

 

[WayneF]

Yes, photo editors are in fact difficult, for example trying to correct white balance in Photoshop is not easy (as opposed to Photoshops Camera Raw module). These mostly have generic graphics tools in them, nothing says "white balance".

But Raw editors are different. They have camera tools for camera jobs, like a White Balance tool, Exposure slider, tools not in photo editors.

I would like to offer this again, for those who have never seen Raw, so don't really know what it involves.

Why shoot Raw?

If you have a few minutes, there is video towards the page top.

If it might seem too slow, then at least skip to just before minute 8.

The point is, this is very easy stuff.

 

[J-see]

I was reworking some afternoon shots in LR and decided to use the original in Nikon's soft and set the settings I probably had used if shooting JPEG.

The first would be the final JPEG, the second is the final RAW.

 

[John P]

I guess I am the odd duck.
I only shoot raw in extreme varied lighting conditions.

I still use a hand held light meter. Or spot meter in camera. I also use a gray card, or expodisc for white balance.

I am in no way against post processing as I did plenty of that in the dark room.
But I am extremely color blind. Which makes digital manipulation very challenging.

I also shoot in manual mode. Gives me more control, and I find it way faster than aperature, or shutter priority and messing with exposure compensation.
3/4 or more of the images I sell are shot in jpeg. That does not mean that I never shoot raw.

Studio-flash controlled setting I shoot jpeg

Street photography- I shoot manual mode, spot metering, jpeg

Action- Manual mode jpeg

Landscapes- manual mode, spot metering. Jpeg

Events with mixed lighting- Raw

Extreme backlighting- Raw

For me Raw vs Jpeg is not an arguement. Whatever works for you is what you should be shooting.
Bear in mind, when I do have time while shooting Jpeg. I still bracket my shots.
Being as color blind as I am, white balance has definitely been the worst part of digital photography for me.

 

[montignac]

I am the same as you John P except I tend to us aperture. I have photos in three different exhibitions all taken in JPEG. At weddings I use raw for the important shots ( just in case ) but the informal JPEG so I can show the outcome during the evening.

 

[JH Foto]

Only RAW for me.............

 

[WayneF]

It is encouraging for the future of the human race that so many have adopted Raw.

My count in this thread is 24 Raw, 3 Both, 1 JPG. Some were skipped, obscure or ambiguous in a fast scan, or perceived as a duplicate. Perhaps not an extremely precise count, but the trend is clear. That surprised me, but is a good thing. Once the raw advantage is seen, there's no going back.

 

[Browncoat]

As President of FCKER (Fan Club of Ken Rockwell), I am stunned by these ill-informed replies. Shocked.

 

[Don Kuykendall_RIP]

added a poll so go back and vote