Should I shoot JPG or RAW?

Zev

Senior Member
I'm a wedding photographer with over 30 years experience, previously shooting with the Nikon 801, then Nikon F100. The few weddings I've shot with my D7200, I've only shot JPG, and the results have been incredible. Only a handful need any editing, which means my time on the computer is negligible. The images my clients get are basically straight out of the camera. 6000 x 4000 Hi Res. They have all been thrilled with the quality they get.


However, a few colleagues have told me this is not very professional, and I should only shoot RAW. But this would mean spending countless hours in front of the computer, and I very much doubt my clients would see any difference.


In my pastime, I shoot landscapes for myself. Also in JPG. And once again, very little editing.


Does any pro shoot JPG? How would shooting RAW files make a difference to my business? Would shooting RAW give me better landscape images after editing?
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
If you're getting great results with JPG then you might not need to spend "countless hours in front of the computer" because it sounds like you're nailing your shots. The advantage to shooting Raw is that if you don't nail something you have more options.

What you would most likely do is to create a set of settings that translate your Raw files to what you're getting from your JPEGs. I use Lightroom to import and catalog my stuff, and I apply certain defaults to my Raw files on import. For you this may be as simply as applying the Camera profile that matches what you're shooting with and then set your sharpening and denoise adjustments. Once you have that you can then save it and apply it on import to all your images. It should leave you with no more work than what you have now in terms of editing. You'd just have to do a batch export to JPEG for your customer. And like I said, it will allow you to save some images that you might have missed.
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
I've always heard many wedding photographers shoot jpeg simply because of the high number of images involved. But if you are shooting an outdoor wedding at high noon without the ability to use flash, then I'd consider shooting RAW. You asked whether shooting RAW for landscapes would be better. In a nutshell - yes for both of these scenarios. The reason is during bright outdoor scenes, the sensor might not be able to capture all the brights and darks in images that we can see with our eyes. A camera sensor doesn't have quite the dynamic range that the human eye has. And that's where editing in RAW has its advantages.

What this means is if you shoot jpeg for an outdoor wedding where you can't use flash (or if you are shooting landscapes), you might very well blow out your highlights if you are exposing for the people. RAW has the ability to bring back detail within overexposed highlights than what jpeg offers. The same goes with shadowed areas: if you expose for the highlights, the people might very well be underexposed. RAW can bring back details in underexposed areas better than jpegs.

One way around blown skies is using a graduated neutral density filter such as the ones Cokin or Lee offer especially if shooting jpeg. Years ago I worked for a portrait/sports/wedding studio. Only the owner and one person did the weddings. When I saw images taken along the Delaware River, the sky was blown out in every photo. When I asked why they didn't use a graduated neutral density filter, one of the employees asked why I was suggesting it. The scenery was beautiful, but the sky was completely blown out.

For your weddings, I agree with Jake. If you are exposing properly in camera with consistent results and taking a high number of images, then stick with jpeg. Not sure if you have to take low light images without flash - that would be an exception as details within shadows are better recovered when shooting RAW.
 

Andy W

Senior Member
Does any pro shoot JPG?

Yes. My sister has been a professional portrait photographer for a long time and shoots JPG. If you and your clients are happy it sounds like you're doing fine. Shooting landscapes in RAW may be beneficial for reasons already mentioned.
 
Last edited:

Zev

Senior Member
Thanks for that. Yes, shooting 400+ images at a wedding is a huge amount of computer work if shooting RAW. (Love the olden days when I just dropped off the film at the lab and they did all the work) And except for indoor shots or bad lighting situations, I always use a polarising filter. Makes a huge difference to the sky, reflections, and any scenes with water. Possible the reason I have never experienced blown out sky.
 

BF Hammer

Senior Member
Yeah, if something isn't broken, don't work too hard at fixing it.

But something to consider is to try Raw+Jpeg as an option. Both formats are saved to the cards. When you take a shot that might need some rescue adjustments in post, the Raw file is there to work with.
 

MrsRobs

Senior Member
RAW

DSC_4368.jpg


JPEG

DSC_4368-2.jpg


The Raw version is much grainier. How would I fix that, I shoot Raw + Jpeg. but would like to know how to get rid of the grainy-ness on the RAW version. Its most noticable in low light images for me. Thanks!
 

BF Hammer

Senior Member
RAW

View attachment 352648


JPEG

View attachment 352649


The Raw version is much grainier. How would I fix that, I shoot Raw + Jpeg. but would like to know how to get rid of the grainy-ness on the RAW version. Its most noticable in low light images for me. Thanks!

I'm only guessing, but you might have long-exposure noise reduction turned on in the setup menu, which would apply a noise reduction filter to the JPEG only. Just give the RAW file a noise-reduction filter, and you can adjust the amount of noise reduction to help keep detail that way.
 

MrsRobs

Senior Member
Checked the settings and the long-exposure noise reduction is turned on. So that makes sense. Ive added a noise reduction filter on the RAW file and its exactly that what it needed. Its retained the details, but removed the grainyness , and made the whole feel glossier and warmer. I can be more specific and add the filter to only the area above the fireplace, but wanted to show you the before and after. Much better imo.

DSC_4368-3.jpg

RAW + noise reduction filter
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
....Ive added a noise reduction filter on the RAW file and its exactly that what it needed. Its retained the details, but removed the grainyness , and made the whole feel glossier and warmer.

Just be aware that when applying noise reduction, quite often it softens the image (or area where it's applied). Usually there are at least 2 types of noise reduction options: Luminance noise reduction and Color noise reduction. And you should be able to tweak those settings under additional sliders or settings for Luminance Detail and Color Detail. Those help by allowing you more control of just how much noise reduction is done.

There are several different programs that handle noise reduction. Photoshop and Lightroom have it built in. The Nik Collection (aka DXO Mark software) has Dfine. But one that appears to be really impressive is the one Jake demonstrated by Topaz. It's called DeNoise AI. And no doubt other companies offer noise reduction. Just be sure to learn how to adjust the amount of noise reduction that you are applying. :)
 

Danno

Senior Member
RAW & JPEG for the formals. JPEG for the reception, etc.
I prefer raw for all my photos. I enjoy post-processing. However there are times when I shoot at my church, and I put raw on the primary card and JPEG on the second card. With the Z6 I saved both to the single card. I have the JPEG files I share right away and RAW files for those times when a family member wants a copy of the photo.
 

Patrick M

Senior Member
Anyone telling you it’s unprofessional is nuts. You produce great work that your clients like. That‘s what a professional does. Taking a raw image does offer you opportunities that a jpeg can’t, for instance recovering shadows or whatever, but it also adds quite a big and time consuming couple of steps to your work flow. Unless you’re familiar with pp software, There’s also the cost and the time that learning to use it will take. Time is money.
it seems to me that you don’t need it.
 

Fred Kingston

Senior Member
RAW editors have exponentially increased in performance and disk space/speed has increased while costs have exponentially decreased since this thread was started... RAW gives you a greater dynamic range for editing than JPEG... Earlier sizes and costs were trade-offs...that's no longer true... Very fast 256G SD cards are less than $30, and 1T external hard drives are less than $60...

Most all of the newer Nikon cameras also allow for a setting of various forms of "Compressed RAW" images that are 1/2 to 1/4 of the camera's full RAW capability resulting in file sizes comparable to JPEG sizes, but with all the benefits of a full RAW file.

As a hobbyist, my priority is Quality. So I only shoot RAW... Many of my peers that are professionals that are worried about speed and size, shoot RAW compressed...
 
Top