Why are you still shooting jpegs?

Haven't looked at the submission requirements for any magazines or stock agencies have you?

I'm doing a peice for Texas Highways and they require RAW. Almay stock 45meg tiffs.

Just what magazines do you sell JPEGs to?

--
'I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated.'
-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

and i mostly shot birds and need to take many shots to get some in perfect focus...small bufer ...

i want better AF!!!

all best
kristian

NeilJones said:

I'm amazed at how many photogs I run across at weddings every
weekend (I'm a DJ) that still shoot only jpegs? Why?

They are getting paid to get the best possible images from these
events. The best possible images comes from raw files.

An excuse I hear often is "well, I takes too many shoots to go
through all those raw images"! Why are you taking "too" many shots?
Did you take "too" many shots in your film days (if you were
shooting back then)
Stop taking thousands of shots! That's overkill. Start taking less
and better shots rather than just needlessly snapping away!

Think quality and not quantity!

Rant over!!

Click to expand...

Plus, I have never mastered RAW conversion, but if I did, I would probably use it more often.

I plan on using it someday, since m JPEG's from the 5D aren't as "perfect" as the ones I got from my D60. I need to learn my camera.....

Some interesting comments.

Now go switch your camera settings to Raw and get the most from your camera!

Peace out!

David Sherman said:

Plus, I have never mastered RAW conversion, but if I did, I would
probably use it more often.
I plan on using it someday, since m JPEG's from the 5D aren't as
"perfect" as the ones I got from my D60. I need to learn my
camera.....

Click to expand...

Graham Snook said:

T3 said:

Subtle adjustments to the tone curve, saturation, contrast,
highlight contrast, shadow contrast, even applying a certain color
profile at the RAW stage...can make a significant improvement to
even images that were shot "right the first time". It can make an
okay image into a fantastic image.

Click to expand...

Erm...Sorry, isn't this the sort of thing that can be corrected in
photoshop? My Jpgs still have more than enough information for my
work, so why add in another hurdle in the way of the final image,

Click to expand...

I used to shoot exclusively in RAW. Color correcting an entire wedding of JPEGs is a major pain in the butt compared to doing the same with RAWs.

Graham Snook said:

But if they are subtle changes, surely it's better to deal with
each image on an individual basis rather than running 100 of them
through the same batch, why not just pic the fantastic image and
work on that one in PS?

Click to expand...

Again, it's quicker to do it in RAW, even if 100 images need their own individual adjustments. In Photoshop, if you were to do the same with JPEGs, it means opening, adjusting, saving, and closing each image on an individual basis. Just the open-save-close process in Photoshop is enough to eat up a lot of time.

Graham Snook said:

No one was saying just use the settings out of the camera and be
done with it, but the images I get from my 1dsmkII are pretty fine
without having to batch process the lot before/after or during the
editing process, and they can still have subtle adjustments made.

Click to expand...

For low volume work or for adjustments to very small numbers of images, yes, JPEGs are fine. But I was talking about high volume work, where the workflow advantages of RAW make the process much easier. And yes, even if you just want a very small quantity of images, just convert those select images to JPEG, or better yet, to a 16-bit TIFF for more adjustment possibilities.

Seems like RAW vs JPG is simply post-process vs. not post process. Or is it?

After laughing at yet another RAW vs. JPG religious war (I mean message thread), I saw yet another link to the infamous curmudgeon Ken Rockwell's own take on RAW vs JPG ( http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm ) .

Rockwell makes reference to the work of Karl Grobl ( http://www.karlgrobl.com/ ), saying, "Karl no longer has the time to piddle with anything in Photoshop: if the image isn't perfect as shot it gets deleted" as justifcation for his (Rockwell's) argument for JPG over RAW.

Rockwell is mistaken. Grobl has some indentical shots on his site that are shown in both B&W and in color. The dopplegangers didn't appear to be of identical luminance and tonality to my eye, so I checked the luminance curves of 2 images' B&W and color versions. They were not identical. One had subtle differences, the other had significant differences. Post-processing was done, most likely to produce the B&W versions.

Does any pro pure JPG shooter do literally ZERO post-processing for 100% of his shots (including that done by assistants or editors... be honest!)? I suspect not. If it were the case, I would be amazed. Does anybody do ZERO culling of their shots before presenting their shots? I doubt that, too (nobody wants to show a muffed shot).

I aim for perfection in my exposure, but I don't always acheive it. So when I have to do any post-processing, I would prefer to do it in RAW, for the known advantages of RAW, and putting up with the known disadvantages of RAW. I'm sometimes pressed for time to deliver results when somebody else will do the PP, so then I shoot JPG.

I know that I'm gonna do some image sorting, culling, and post-processing, and I'm happy with the RAW processing/workflow software that I use for that purpose and with the extra bit of lattitude I get with RAW, so I prefer to shoot RAW, and occassionally shoot JPG. But the more I shoot, the less I shoot JPG.
--
[email protected]

You have great compositions on your link, but at least on the uncalibrated monitor I'm using to write this, many of your shots' highlights are, for my taste, over-exposed, detracting the viewer's eye from the more important parts of the images.

I don't know if that's embematic of JPG, or of JPG in the lighting you have shot it, or whatever. But only the final output matters, whether shot on JPG or RAW.

We should shoot, expose, process, and display our preferences. Let the viewers of images decide if they like the images. Does a great cook ever give out his recipes? No, unless he's ready to retire.
--
[email protected]

Graham Snook said:

T3 said:

If you head into a catalog shoot with the decision to shoot
JPEG, you're already basically taking 16-bit Adobe RGB off the
table as an option.

Click to expand...

16-bit jpg aren't an option to begin with for the print medium.....

There is no noticeable difference between a printed RAW image in a
catalogue and a printed jpg image in the same catalogue/magazine.
After the printing process has butchered your work (for butchered
see reduced gamut of CMYK and then reducing to what the printing
inks can produce, and use of paper stock) You could shoot on 16-bit
RAW or 8-bit jpg there is NO visible difference

Click to expand...

16-bit is about delivering the maximum image file to your client. From there, they can do as they wish, including processing it to an 8-bit JPEG for print. It's not about printing 16-bit.

Graham Snook said:

fyi the images that sports illustrated et al are buying in (not
comissioning) will be shot by picture agencies, most of whom shoot
on jpg, because SI are not their only client.

Click to expand...

The thing is, you can get a JPEG from a RAW, but you can't get a RAW from a JPEG. And if you're an SI shooter shooting the Super Bowl, you'll be shooting RAW. And giving the excuse, "I don't have time for RAW" isn't going to fly.

Get to the venue a half hour or an hour before the reception, set up some speakers and a console. Play music for several hours, talk a lot. Eat, talk some more and play some more music. In the meantime, the photographer has been running himself/themselves ragged since an hour or two before the ceremony, lugging gear up hill and down dale, at the beck and call of every aunt and cousin the bridal couple has. The photographer(s) now have shot the pre ceremony, the ceremony, and now get to run their butts off getting every imaginable angle of dancing couples, kissing couples, garter toss, bouquet toss, dwarf toss, stll carting gear around, moving lights, etc. And then there's the all important sunset shot to tear the bride and groom away from the party for, and get. All the while, the DJ sits behind his console and grooves.

And, as the DJ, I now get to critique the workflow and results of the photographers too. Cool!
See how nice it looks from the other side of the fence?
--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Skip M said:

Get to the venue a half hour or an hour before the reception, set
up some speakers and a console. Play music for several hours, talk
a lot. Eat, talk some more and play some more music. In the
meantime, the photographer has been running himself/themselves
ragged since an hour or two before the ceremony, lugging gear up
hill and down dale, at the beck and call of every aunt and cousin
the bridal couple has. The photographer(s) now have shot the pre
ceremony, the ceremony, and now get to run their butts off getting
every imaginable angle of dancing couples, kissing couples, garter
toss, bouquet toss, dwarf toss, stll carting gear around, moving
lights, etc. And then there's the all important sunset shot to
tear the bride and groom away from the party for, and get. All the
while, the DJ sits behind his console and grooves.
And, as the DJ, I now get to critique the workflow and results of
the photographers too. Cool!
See how nice it looks from the other side of the fence?

Click to expand...

And I make $1500 per wedding and average 5 per month! (and I have a day job)

It looks like you work the low end weddings with the crappy cheapo DJ's. Maybe you will get to work with a pro one day!

Skip M said:

--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Click to expand...