RAW vs JPEG for pros - what's your take?

I shoot jpeg and RAW when possible. When not possible, it depends upon the event.

I shoot both - depending on a number of factors. Product photography with fine detail - like jewellery - has to be raw - more highlight detail available and slightly sharper images. On the other hand, products with minimal detail e.g. pack shots - jpeg every time.

People photography - usually I shoot jpeg.

If i know the images are going to be reproduced really large - raw.

General location work - either jpeg or raw - again depending on subject.

I don't think there is a definitive answer. Raw is better in theory- no argument - but in practice you're not going to see a difference between the two most of the time.

I guess the answer is really in what areas the pro earns his money from. I was speaking to a few of my mates recently who shoot motorsports for magazines and print sales etc. They all were shooting jpeg, although one of them told me he still prefered velvia slide film. Funny thing was, as soon as the action started, he was banging away with a D2x

Old question, same answers. Beware of people who claim Raw/jpg is the only way. I know a few photogs who shoot raw just because they can and they think it must be better, yet thier knowledge of photography is weak.

Others only use jpg because they are fearful of PhotoShop. On most occasions I know when I hit the button that I've captured a good shot and mostly use jpg. For commercial work, especially stainless steel with tricky lighting its Raw.

Yes, virutally all tasks with RAW can be done with JPG, but you just have a less data to work with. JPG gives you:

• less headroom for tonal adjustments before artifacts appear (e.g. banding/posterization)
• less enlargement before JPG artifacts appear (digitization jaggies)
• lost data when repeatedly resaving in jpg
• less data for conversion to non-JPG formats (e.g. 16-bit TIF)

If you don't crop much, don't enlarge, much, don't post-process much (either for creative reasons or to salvage bad shots), don't convert formats often, then JPG can work well and very efficiently.

Me? I shoot in RAW unless I have a specific need for fast final output (a few minutes to download JPGs from CF cards), or when pefected maximum quality is not important (casual snapshots of friends and family).

Have plenty of storage and not shooting big bursts of high-speed action? Then shoot combined RAW + JPG mode if your camera supports it.

[email protected]

Consider what you are shooting for.

Read that Rockwell site, and seemed off target, it was like he hated RAW and made up bs about jpg.

Jpg is fine for up to 10x15 prints, web and conversions, but for anything else in the ad-world, the client always wants a 48 meg 5200x3800 tif file. Those always turn out better when converted from RAW. Try doing it from a 1600x1200 jpg, its not going to look very nice.

Back in the film days slides where always better than negs, hands down. Regardless. Then scanning got better for negatives and all sorts of bad exposures got brought back to life and many a waiter became a fledging photog. Negs are easier to shoot and have more exposure latitude.

Now people consider using a jpg in a pro setting, its hilarious. It is easier. Go right ahead... oh and shoot it in P mode. Just kidding of course.
--
http://www.kevinradford.com/look.htm

Sometimes you will get great pictue and you wish you shot in raw.

I shoot RAW exclusively but may start using JPEG for some of my sports stuff, just because you get longer bursts.

Used to use JPEG, switched to RAW and won't go back for anything that doesn't need long bursts.

I've used raw as stated earlier but prefer jpg

Sounds strange but read the specs I posted. Besides I shoot digital like I did 4 x 5 velvia. If you know what you are doing and you have an s2 for jpegs and a d2x d2h you don't have to rely on all those cruches you nail it every time expecialy with news photo requirements. Any of these cameras will exceed the requirements with jpeg.

Studio portraits I also nail every time so there is no contest there why would I ever shoot raw for portraits I have complete control of everything.

But my original post refered to news shots. When I start shooting landscapes then maybe and just maybe my requirements will change. Commercial is another thing I probably would shoot raw most of the time.

My daughter is finally married and I will never, never, never, never, never do a wedding again . Too old to chase 17 year olds around for 20 hours in 85 degree with tux and 75 pounds of equipment.

My never therefore means for newspaper and portraits a little overzelous in my statement, sorry.
--
Let the light in! Walt
[email protected]

I totally agree with Ken Rockwells assessment. I think a lot has to do with what you're shooting. If you're doing a wedding and are the only photographer you'll probably take 400-500 exposures during the event. This is tough to do in RAW and not miss something important while waiting for the card to catch up with the camera. When blowing pictures up 16x20 or larger I notice a difference, but for normal prints of a wedding 8x10's and smaller I agree with Ken when he says he notices no difference except in the time it takes for post production.

I know that people will always argue that RAW is better because that's what you always hear, but unless you're taking limited shots and have the ability and time for post production I think the advantages of shooting JPEG outweigh RAW. This especially holds true if using a camera like a D200 with high pixel count.

Just one mans opinion.

sidfrisby said:

Follow this link for some useful information.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

Best wishes
--
Sid Frisby
Norwich
Norfolk UK
Member: NUJ & BPPA
Wewbsite: http://www.sidfrisby.com

Click to expand...

--
Randy

http://www.sundiegostudios.com

There are always two people in every picture:
the photographer and the viewer.
-Ansel Adams-

after 4 years with digital I came to the conclusion that the only reason why I shoot raw is due to the fact that I want the best my camera can give me.

jpegs are a big compromise (then there are several levels of jpeg quality, why don't shoot the lowest level to save space on the card?)

besides, in raw I can really save time tuning the white balance to 300 shots in one shot without even opening them.

The details are better, the colors are better, the power to fine tune the exposure and the brightness is amazing.

I'll reverse the question: why on earth you want to settle for less quality after you buy an expensive camera and an expensive lens?

I get such good pictures with jpeg I hate to waste time with the computer. I guess I still like to shoot like film. I want to get the shot when I take it. Not sit at the computer and fix it. It's nice that you can but it is also nice that we have camera's that are able to take awesome pictures without having to be a expert in photoshop.

Whatever turns you on.

MarkLe said:

after 4 years with digital I came to the conclusion that the only
reason why I shoot raw is due to the fact that I want the best my
camera can give me.

Click to expand...

Interesting. I've begun to wonder whether the only reason I shoot RAW is because I"m not good enough to get the picture right in the first place. JPEG saves a lot of time in post for me.

Photojournalists who must transmit their take are also prime candidates to use JPEG, but of course that's really the same technical reason why someone shooting solely for web use would use RAW. Primarily, to limit the bandwidth requirement, and when the issue is file transmission, less and "more less" is always a goal.

Otherwise, JPEG offers no advantage. The only disadvantage of RAW is file size. In these days of cheap file space and cheap cpu horsepower, the RAW file use is like film: It's the cheapest part of then entire effort.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

It rather depends on why, for whom, and what you intend to do with protraits.

Shooting family groups, glamour portraits, et cetera, I frequently have to do rather intensive manipulation such as head swaps, layers, and use of the Liquify feature. That is far better accomplished from a RAW-based PSD file than from a JPEG.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

I usually spent much more absolute time in the darkroom than behind the camera for any given photograph (with the exception of the purely PJ stuff). Computer time is the same as darkroom time.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

RogerMerit said:

MarkLe said:

after 4 years with digital I came to the conclusion that the only
reason why I shoot raw is due to the fact that I want the best my
camera can give me.

Click to expand...

Interesting. I've begun to wonder whether the only reason I shoot
RAW is because I"m not good enough to get the picture right in the
first place. JPEG saves a lot of time in post for me.

Click to expand...

In my opinion, Mark is righton the money. Think of it this way:

When you shoot Jpeg, the camera takes the same sensor data contained in a Raw file, applies specific settings for white balance, saturation, contrast, sharpness, etc., reduces the bit-depth from 12 to 8 bits/color, and then compresses the results, throwing away additional data.

You do make an interesting point, in that some people shoot Raw, are somewhat careless about exposure, figuring that they can just correct it in post-processing. This is definitely not a good idea. Whether shooting Raw or Jpeg, the better your exposure is in the camera, the better your results will be. Life being what it is, though, you're not going to nail the exposure 100% of the time, and shooting Raw does give you more latitude in making corrections, and still having high quality results.

I have posted some information and perspective on this issue on my website here:

http://www.dlcphoto.com/RawFormatWorkflow/RawFormatWorkflow.htm

Yes, you will save time in post-processing, but if your goal is to get the best possible image out of your camera, then in my opinion, shooting in Raw format is essential. And with a well-designed, efficient converter (I use Capture One), the time cost is really fairly minimal, and insignificant compared to the flexibility and control it gives you.

Good luck with whatever you choose.

--
Don Cohen
http://www.dlcphoto.com
Costa Rica Photo Safari - December, 2006:
http://www.dlcphoto.com/CRPS2/PhotoSafari3General.htm

Always Raw and manual. Highest quality is most important. Why use a lossy compressed file. You have more control in raw and you have the advantage of working in 16 bit files and much more captured information. It only takes a few min. to process a file. It's a lot longer in the darkroom.

If I was printing B&W for display, I considered it a productive evening if I got 3 final prints.

When doing commercial work using a Royalprint processor, it would take a morning to crank out 50 different B&W prints with a minimum of tweaking.

There's a magic of watching the print come up in the developer that's unmatched in the digital world. On the other hand, I can sit at my desk in my office with the fire going, a glass of wine and some nice music on the stereo and tweak my images with far more control than ever possible in the darkroom.

Maybe I'll write a PS action that will show at dark screen for 30 seconds, then gradually fade in the image. It won't show me the true image until two minutes have passed. If I don't like the result, it will throw away any changes and make me start all over.

Doug