JPEG or RAW - what do you shoot??
- Thread starter johncook
- Start date
bluenoser
Banned
I shoot RAW 100% of the time. However there was a time when I first began that I shot only in JPEG. The funny thing is (at least to me) is that I always thought shooting in RAW was only for the "pros" and that JPEG was going to suit me just fine forever.
Well a funny thing happened as I journeyed down the road of photography, I eventually came to the realization that in fact RAW is at least just as beneficial (if not more so) for the new or less skilled photographer! Why? Well a more experienced photographer is better able to get the white balance and exposure (as an example) correct in the camera at the time of shooting - if you can do that consistently under a myriad of every changing lighting conditions then you are indeed a talented photographer! However the less experienced person will struggle with the getting the white balance and exposures correct with any amount of consistency. As such, if the person had shot in RAW - it is MUCH easier to process the image with any number of software packages to attain the proper WB and exposure. There is so much more information available in the RAW file than with a JPEG and as such you have more "head room" to lift shadows for example in underexposed areas without introduction noise so quickly. A JPEG file really restricts how much and how effectively you can correct mistakes that you (and everyone) makes at the time of the initial capture. Of course we all *try* and get it right the first time out but the reality is that is just not going to happen as often as we'd like. RAW has helped me salvage countless images that would otherwise been either ruined or significantly inferior with JPEG.
Of course there are many, many reasons to choose to shoot RAW and I've only touched on the most basic of them. However I am not in the camp of those that feel "superior" to others that insist of shooting JPEG - I just want to make sure that everyone makes an educated decision on which format is best for them. Heck - I sat in an afternoon session with Gary Fong (uber wedding photographer) and he happily boasts to anyone listening that he only shoots in JPEG! His rational is that the file sizes are much smaller (they are) and as a result he can shoot faster and capture more pictures in the rapid - bang, bang - world of wedding photography. Also he says with the thousands of pictures he takes at each shoot he just doesn't have the time to go through post processing to any large degree. (However Gary is a pro and I'm willing to be he gets it right more often than I - or most of us - do!
)
There really is no absolute "thou shalt" answer to this issue (although some would disagree with that statement). There are a few good reasons to shoot in JPEG depending on the circumstances (your ability, experience and type of shooting you're doing) but I think the reasons to shoot in RAW far outnumber - in general - the reasons to go JPEG.
Just my .02 of course.
Well a funny thing happened as I journeyed down the road of photography, I eventually came to the realization that in fact RAW is at least just as beneficial (if not more so) for the new or less skilled photographer! Why? Well a more experienced photographer is better able to get the white balance and exposure (as an example) correct in the camera at the time of shooting - if you can do that consistently under a myriad of every changing lighting conditions then you are indeed a talented photographer! However the less experienced person will struggle with the getting the white balance and exposures correct with any amount of consistency. As such, if the person had shot in RAW - it is MUCH easier to process the image with any number of software packages to attain the proper WB and exposure. There is so much more information available in the RAW file than with a JPEG and as such you have more "head room" to lift shadows for example in underexposed areas without introduction noise so quickly. A JPEG file really restricts how much and how effectively you can correct mistakes that you (and everyone) makes at the time of the initial capture. Of course we all *try* and get it right the first time out but the reality is that is just not going to happen as often as we'd like. RAW has helped me salvage countless images that would otherwise been either ruined or significantly inferior with JPEG.
Of course there are many, many reasons to choose to shoot RAW and I've only touched on the most basic of them. However I am not in the camp of those that feel "superior" to others that insist of shooting JPEG - I just want to make sure that everyone makes an educated decision on which format is best for them. Heck - I sat in an afternoon session with Gary Fong (uber wedding photographer) and he happily boasts to anyone listening that he only shoots in JPEG! His rational is that the file sizes are much smaller (they are) and as a result he can shoot faster and capture more pictures in the rapid - bang, bang - world of wedding photography. Also he says with the thousands of pictures he takes at each shoot he just doesn't have the time to go through post processing to any large degree. (However Gary is a pro and I'm willing to be he gets it right more often than I - or most of us - do!
)There really is no absolute "thou shalt" answer to this issue (although some would disagree with that statement). There are a few good reasons to shoot in JPEG depending on the circumstances (your ability, experience and type of shooting you're doing) but I think the reasons to shoot in RAW far outnumber - in general - the reasons to go JPEG.
Just my .02 of course.
topgunwghs
Senior Member
After shooting raw and finishing post process. Is it possible to convert to JPEG w/ watermark and retain all that excellent detail, or is there always going to be a loss? The reason I have not converted to RAW is that I use FastStone processing and when I convert from RAW to JPEG after I PP, I lose a bit of everything, color, sharpness, balance etc... I need a different PP software huh? What's the best free download?
I experience the same problem, I only have the ViewNX2 software that came with my D7000, the RAW files often look waaaaay better than the converted jpeg, I have it set to the highest quality compression. Not sure what I'm doing wrong.
Dual, use raw 50% of the time, often the JPEGs are just fine, but the RAWS are always there for later, sometimes go back a year later, to re-harvest and start with the raw. Depends on how
much of a hurry I am in.
So, for example, had to do a group portrait of some club, the JPEG came out fine, (except for having to copy a set of open eyes), a few minor touchups, and done.
much of a hurry I am in.
So, for example, had to do a group portrait of some club, the JPEG came out fine, (except for having to copy a set of open eyes), a few minor touchups, and done.
I shoot RAW pretty much exclusively. Shooting RAW plus JPEG just reduces the number of images you can hold on the card. I started using NX2 but abandoned it soon after when I saw that PS CS5's NEF editor was easier to use and gave you more flexibility. The only drawback to NEF is you cannot see what the images look like if just using something like Windows Explorer. But if you are using PS, you can just make a proof sheet using Bridge and see everything at a glance, NEF files work perfectly with Bridge
Last edited:
I shoot RAW, exclusively. I like the flexibility that it gives me, post processing. As far as I am concerned, I consider RAW my digital negative. I will upload my images with NX2. If the image does not need much post processing, I will use ViewNX2 to export to JPEG. If I need to do more than a little tweaking, I'll use Photoshop Elements.
Scott Murray
Senior Member
After consideration I will be using only RAW in Africa, this may result in filling up my 1TB External HDD but that is a small price to pay
Scott Murray
Senior Member
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
I shoot in RAW for the same reason I shot negatives and not slides. Yes, you can do the lion's share of your work up to the point where you press the shutter button, and there's an art to capturing the image. With a slide in hand I have my captured image and not a whole lot I can do to change it. With a negative I have the full complements of the darkroom at my disposal to correct and/or manipulate that capture. Sure, it takes time. When I don't have it I use my iPhone.
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
Download the Microsoft Camera Codec Pack to solve that problem. It's free and available for download from here:
Download Microsoft Camera Codec Pack from Official Microsoft Download Center
PhotoEnth47
New member
I shoot mainly in RAW, although I will often shoot in both. I know post-processing can be a lot of work, but for me that is part of the whole enjoyment of digital photography. If I just shot in JPeg then I would have to get it absolutely right in-camera, which I often don't. I can batch process when necessary.
I use ACDSee Pro 6 as my post-processing software. I can't afford Photoshop, and Photoshop Elements doesn't give me the control or capabilities that ACDSee does. ACDSee cost me $US99, so it's heaps cheaper than most of them, but is an exceptionally capable program, including 64bit RAW processing.
I use ACDSee Pro 6 as my post-processing software. I can't afford Photoshop, and Photoshop Elements doesn't give me the control or capabilities that ACDSee does. ACDSee cost me $US99, so it's heaps cheaper than most of them, but is an exceptionally capable program, including 64bit RAW processing.
pistnbroke
Banned
Its very simple to me ..if you have a few images you want to work on for perfection then go RAW ..if you have 1000 images from a wedding then you have not got the time to Pi$$ about and should have shot large basic in the first place....
Scott Murray
Senior Member
I will have thousands of images that I will be bringing back from Africa and they all will be RAW, I will take my time and process every single one of them.