Reading mode: Light Dark

RAW or JPEG which one do you shoot with ?

RAW or JPEG which one do you shoot with ?

  • Total voters
    0
Go to last post
Chris59 said:
IR1234 said:
Chris59 said:
IR1234 said:
Chris59 said:
tcg550 said:
Chris59 said:
IR1234 said:
Chris59 said:
Everyone shoots RAW. Some people who have no idea like to save their images as JPEGs only, but that's their loss.
Click to expand...
BS. Incredibly myopic view.
Click to expand...
No, true. There are no advantages to shooting JPEGs - period.
Click to expand...
Sure there are.
Click to expand...
Apart from taking up less room on oh-so-expensive SD cards and hard drives, allowing you a greater burst of JPEGs only, and the ability to send those ground breaking news photos to your editor that little bit faster, name one.
Click to expand...
For a company like mine, we would need about $30-40k to move up to shooting raw. Its not just the “oh so expensive sd cards”, it would involve a lot of extra equipment, not mention moving to 1dx2s as the 7d2 buffer depth isnt big enough.

Why would i do that to satisy the two people each year who ask if i shoot raw?
Click to expand...
Quite. Personally though, I'd feel short changed if I paid anyone to shoot photos for me and they shot JPEGs on a 7D II.
Click to expand...
You don’t understand my business, and frankly i can’t be bothered to explain.
Click to expand...
It's not the job of the customer to "understand your business". As a customer, I'm entitled to request information on how you intend to do the job I want.

As for "I can't be bothered to explain" - with that kind of attitude, it's no surprise you also "can't be bothered" understanding or working with RAW to provide a superior product to your customers.

I cannot imagine ever paying anyone to take JPEGs with a 7D Mk II. If I were you, I wouldn't let on who I was in case some of your clients find out...
Click to expand...
There are very legitimate cases where jpeg makes sense professionally. His is one of them.
 
Chris59 said:
It's not the job of the customer to "understand your business". As a customer, I'm entitled to request information on how you intend to do the job I want.

As for "I can't be bothered to explain" - with that kind of attitude, it's no surprise you also "can't be bothered" understanding or working with RAW to provide a superior product to your customers.

I cannot imagine ever paying anyone to take JPEGs with a 7D Mk II. If I were you, I wouldn't let on who I was in case some of your clients find out...
Click to expand...
I paid my duaghter's wedding photographer $3,500+ I never asked what camera he was planning on using or what format he was shooting or what his workflow was after the shoot.

I never even looked at his camera while he and his partner were shooting. He delivered exactly what the contract said in the time frame it was promised.

Was he shooting raw? Probably, maybe, but it did not matter to me one bit.
 
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Don Lacy said:
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Don Lacy said:
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Don Lacy said:
Chris59 said:
IR1234 said:
Chris59 said:
Everyone shoots RAW. Some people who have no idea like to save their images as JPEGs only, but that's their loss.
Click to expand...
BS. Incredibly myopic view.
Click to expand...
No, true. There are no advantages to shooting JPEGs - period.
Click to expand...
The way I would state this is there is no advantage to shooting JPEGS when it comes to image quality
Click to expand...
No advantage to whom? For anyone who is too busy to learn photo editing (which is the case for many people - parents with young families, professionals in demanding jobs, people devoting their time to charitable work etc) then the most cameras deliver JPG quality that is far better than anything those people could do from raw. For them that's a huge advantage.
Click to expand...
The whom part is irrelevant it is not part of the equation can you name an instance when shooting JPEG will produce better image quality then a Raw file properly processed.
Click to expand...
Your initial statement makes no reference to how the file is processed. The quality of the processing depends almost entirely on the skill of who is doing it, so "whom" is very relevant.
Click to expand...
No it is not it does not matter to my initial statement a Jpeg file does not have more IQ then a Raw file just because someone may not be able to extract that IQ does not change that.
Click to expand...
What does "more IQ" mean? "Better" and "more" aren't synonyms. And if the process used, whichever it is, has produced the IQ required then the fact that a different process could produce a different result doesn't mean it is "better".
Click to expand...
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Gerry Winterbourne said:
However, now that you've raised a new topic, the answer is that as long as the dynamic range of the scene is less than that of the sensor and the shot is appropriately exposed, there is no reason to expect either JPG or raw to be inherently better. First, "properly" is a matter of opinion - there's no fixed rule about what the "ideal" processing for any image is; and, second, there's no reason to suppose that the camera's algorithms won't deliver a "properly" processed result.
Click to expand...
I can think of many instances when a camera algorithms will not deliver a good result if that was the case no one would shoot Raw.
Click to expand...
You've changed the topic again. Your question wasn't about the general merits of one format compared to the other, it was about specific cases, which I gave.

There are, of course, many situations where raw can - in the hands of a competent operator - deliver better results. Those situations include the many that fall outside what I said - scene DR exceeds sensor DR, exposure is inappropriate - as well as others. But pointing that out does nothing to falsify what I said.
Click to expand...
 
Chris59 said:
It's not the job of the customer to "understand your business". As a customer, I'm entitled to request information on how you intend to do the job I want.

As for "I can't be bothered to explain" - with that kind of attitude, it's no surprise you also "can't be bothered" understanding or working with RAW to provide a superior product to your customers.

I cannot imagine ever paying anyone to take JPEGs with a 7D Mk II. If I were you, I wouldn't let on who I was in case some of your clients find out...
Click to expand...
You must understand most professional photography is business, like production of cameras and lenses. The product must have a certain price to make something below the bottom line. Think about you having a MFT Panasonic, certainly not the best camera in the world but good enough and apparently for many others. If there's too much work involved you can't produce enough or the price becomes too high for the customer.

There are very few cases where the amount of work and the price of the final product is irrelevant..

BR Teddy
 
Last edited:
Don Lacy said:
Gerry Winterbourne said:
You've changed the topic again. Your question wasn't about the general merits of one format compared to the other, it was about specific cases, which I gave.

There are, of course, many situations where raw can - in the hands of a competent operator - deliver better results. Those situations include the many that fall outside what I said - scene DR exceeds sensor DR, exposure is inappropriate - as well as others. But pointing that out does nothing to falsify what I said.
Click to expand...
Only on DPR will you still find people willing to argue this re read what I first wrote which was simply that a Raw file has more information then a JPEG which can result in better image quality then a JPEG.
Click to expand...
What you first wrote in this sub-thread (which is what this debate is about) was "The way I would state this is there is no advantage to shooting JPEGS when it comes to image quality and in many cases a disadvantage depending on what and how you shoot. Now does this make everyone happy probably not."

There is no word in there about the amount of information contained in either sort of file. There are several possibilities here: (a) you didn't write what you meant to say (b) you've forgotten how you started the debate (c) you think that what you wrote then means what you now claim - it doesn't.
Don Lacy said:
Its a general statement no need to bring up the skill of the photographer at post processing or the scene photograph a 16 bit file contains more information then a 8 bit file.
Click to expand...
That's true but has nothing to do with this debate.
Don Lacy said:
Not sure why you keep wanting to bring up instances where a JPEG file is as good as Raw
Click to expand...
Because you asked: "... can you name an instance when shooting JPEG will produce better image quality then a Raw file properly processed ... [?]"
Don Lacy said:
I already conceded that.
Click to expand...
Where? When you wrote "The way I would state this is there is no advantage to shooting JPEGS when it comes to image quality"? If elsewhere, please show me.
 
Really amazing results. Has anyone ever seen this same poll questions being offered somewhere other than a gear forum. Somewhere where the plain old photographer and common folk would be the target audience? I have never personally met anyone that shoots raw and processes on computer. But I've only been involved with digital photography since the early 1990's though.
 
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Don Lacy said:
Gerry Winterbourne said:
You've changed the topic again. Your question wasn't about the general merits of one format compared to the other, it was about specific cases, which I gave.

There are, of course, many situations where raw can - in the hands of a competent operator - deliver better results. Those situations include the many that fall outside what I said - scene DR exceeds sensor DR, exposure is inappropriate - as well as others. But pointing that out does nothing to falsify what I said.
Click to expand...
Only on DPR will you still find people willing to argue this re read what I first wrote which was simply that a Raw file has more information then a JPEG which can result in better image quality then a JPEG.
Click to expand...
What you first wrote in this sub-thread (which is what this debate is about) was "The way I would state this is there is no advantage to shooting JPEGS when it comes to image quality and in many cases a disadvantage depending on what and how you shoot. Now does this make everyone happy probably not."

There is no word in there about the amount of information contained in either sort of file. There are several possibilities here: (a) you didn't write what you meant to say (b) you've forgotten how you started the debate (c) you think that what you wrote then means what you now claim - it doesn't.
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Its a general statement no need to bring up the skill of the photographer at post processing or the scene photograph a 16 bit file contains more information then a 8 bit file.
Click to expand...
That's true but has nothing to do with this debate.
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Not sure why you keep wanting to bring up instances where a JPEG file is as good as Raw
Click to expand...
Because you asked: "... can you name an instance when shooting JPEG will produce better image quality then a Raw file properly processed ... [?]"
Gerry Winterbourne said:
I already conceded that.
Click to expand...
Where? When you wrote "The way I would state this is there is no advantage to shooting JPEGS when it comes to image quality"? If elsewhere, please show me.
Click to expand...
 
Bob A L said:
Really amazing results. Has anyone ever seen this same poll questions being offered somewhere other than a gear forum. Somewhere where the plain old photographer and common folk would be the target audience? I have never personally met anyone that shoots raw and processes on computer. But I've only been involved with digital photography since the early 1990's though.
Click to expand...
I suppose it’s the sampling factor. Lots of very serious raw imagers post here, but they only represent a very small sampling of people who make images. A jpeg shooter here might be like a box mix cook at an elite foodie site.
 
Don Lacy said:
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Don Lacy said:
Gerry Winterbourne said:
You've changed the topic again. Your question wasn't about the general merits of one format compared to the other, it was about specific cases, which I gave.

There are, of course, many situations where raw can - in the hands of a competent operator - deliver better results. Those situations include the many that fall outside what I said - scene DR exceeds sensor DR, exposure is inappropriate - as well as others. But pointing that out does nothing to falsify what I said.
Click to expand...
Only on DPR will you still find people willing to argue this re read what I first wrote which was simply that a Raw file has more information then a JPEG which can result in better image quality then a JPEG.
Click to expand...
What you first wrote in this sub-thread (which is what this debate is about) was "The way I would state this is there is no advantage to shooting JPEGS when it comes to image quality and in many cases a disadvantage depending on what and how you shoot. Now does this make everyone happy probably not."

There is no word in there about the amount of information contained in either sort of file. There are several possibilities here: (a) you didn't write what you meant to say (b) you've forgotten how you started the debate (c) you think that what you wrote then means what you now claim - it doesn't.
Don Lacy said:
Its a general statement no need to bring up the skill of the photographer at post processing or the scene photograph a 16 bit file contains more information then a 8 bit file.
Click to expand...
That's true but has nothing to do with this debate.
Don Lacy said:
Not sure why you keep wanting to bring up instances where a JPEG file is as good as Raw
Click to expand...
Because you asked: "... can you name an instance when shooting JPEG will produce better image quality then a Raw file properly processed ... [?]"
Don Lacy said:
I already conceded that.
Click to expand...
Where? When you wrote "The way I would state this is there is no advantage to shooting JPEGS when it comes to image quality"? If elsewhere, please show me.
Click to expand...
Well one of two things are becoming clear either I need to be more concise in my writing and stop assuming what I imply is understood
Click to expand...
I think what you need is to be more precise - that is, say what you mean. You are already concise, in that you use few words to get what you are saying across; too concise, in fact, if you don't include everything you mean to convey.
Don Lacy said:
or two your just being difficult
Click to expand...
Definitely not. But lots of beginners read these forums (not just the Beginners forum) and it's important that what we tell them is correct.
Don Lacy said:
for the sake of ending this I will go with number one. Enjoy your day I am going to go and take some photographs.
Click to expand...
 
There's always some idiot who likes to be highly precise and technical about what someone says even though it adds nothing to the conversation.
 
Bob A L said:
Really amazing results. Has anyone ever seen this same poll questions being offered somewhere other than a gear forum. Somewhere where the plain old photographer and common folk would be the target audience?
Click to expand...
Which? Plain old photographer and common folk are unlikely to be the same grouping (although there would, of course, be some overlap). But why would they be the target audience for this question anyway?

You wouldn't need a survey: the overwhelming majority wouldn't know how to answer because they wouldn't understand the questions. Even though they don't realise it the vast majority shoot JPG.
Bob A L said:
I have never personally met anyone that shoots raw and processes on computer.
Click to expand...
My direct sample is quite small - eight people whom I know well enough to be familiar with their photographic styles. Three shoot raw and process on computer; two shoot JPG and don't do any processing; two shoot JPG and occasionally process on computer; one mixes and matches.
Bob A L said:
But I've only been involved with digital photography since the early 1990's though.
Click to expand...
I've been involved with being human since 1942 and I've never met an Inuit. Personal experience in limited spheres doesn't really tekk anyone much.
 
I love your honesty and agree with you. The cameras I have now produce such good JPEG's that I never shoot RAW any more. In fact my RAW skills are so lacking that I can never produce results as good as what I get in JPEG. I will qualify that with the fact that I adjust the JPEG parameters in a way that allows my to get great results in any situation so in a way I do shoot RAW, edit the RAWS to my taste before hand and let the camera do the work for me. Using cameras with extremely accurate WYSIWYG EVFs allows me to do this. This works for me 99% of the time.

--
Tom
Look at the picture, not the pixels
 
Last edited:
tcg550 said:
Chris59 said:
It's not the job of the customer to "understand your business". As a customer, I'm entitled to request information on how you intend to do the job I want.

As for "I can't be bothered to explain" - with that kind of attitude, it's no surprise you also "can't be bothered" understanding or working with RAW to provide a superior product to your customers.

I cannot imagine ever paying anyone to take JPEGs with a 7D Mk II. If I were you, I wouldn't let on who I was in case some of your clients find out...
Click to expand...
I paid my duaghter's wedding photographer $3,500+ I never asked what camera he was planning on using or what format he was shooting or what his workflow was after the shoot.

I never even looked at his camera while he and his partner were shooting. He delivered exactly what the contract said in the time frame it was promised.

Was he shooting raw? Probably, maybe, but it did not matter to me one bit.
Click to expand...
Very different feeling here. For weddings, I would ask for the raw files.
 
Chris59 said:
It's not the job of the customer to "understand your business". As a customer, I'm entitled to request information on how you intend to do the job I want.

As for "I can't be bothered to explain" - with that kind of attitude, it's no surprise you also "can't be bothered" understanding or working with RAW to provide a superior product to your customers.

I cannot imagine ever paying anyone to take JPEGs with a 7D Mk II. If I were you, I wouldn't let on who I was in case some of your clients find out...
Click to expand...
The whole reason i wont waste my time with you to explain my business is because you’re not listening. I posted a link to a thread that explains my business from earlier in the year which you havent even been bothered to follow.

Now as for my customers “finding out”, the last customer of 2016 who asked about raw, now works for me.

He shoots jpeg now.
 
stevo23 said:
tcg550 said:
Chris59 said:
It's not the job of the customer to "understand your business". As a customer, I'm entitled to request information on how you intend to do the job I want.

As for "I can't be bothered to explain" - with that kind of attitude, it's no surprise you also "can't be bothered" understanding or working with RAW to provide a superior product to your customers.

I cannot imagine ever paying anyone to take JPEGs with a 7D Mk II. If I were you, I wouldn't let on who I was in case some of your clients find out...
Click to expand...
I paid my duaghter's wedding photographer $3,500+ I never asked what camera he was planning on using or what format he was shooting or what his workflow was after the shoot.

I never even looked at his camera while he and his partner were shooting. He delivered exactly what the contract said in the time frame it was promised.

Was he shooting raw? Probably, maybe, but it did not matter to me one bit.
Click to expand...
Very different feeling here. For weddings, I would ask for the raw files.
Click to expand...
I know several local wedding photographers. They deliver the final images, not raw files.
 
Chris59 said:
Moti said:
Chris59 said:
IR1234 said:
Chris59 said:
tcg550 said:
Chris59 said:
IR1234 said:
Chris59 said:
Everyone shoots RAW. Some people who have no idea like to save their images as JPEGs only, but that's their loss.
Click to expand...
BS. Incredibly myopic view.
Click to expand...
No, true. There are no advantages to shooting JPEGs - period.
Click to expand...
Sure there are.
Click to expand...
Apart from taking up less room on oh-so-expensive SD cards and hard drives, allowing you a greater burst of JPEGs only, and the ability to send those ground breaking news photos to your editor that little bit faster, name one.
Click to expand...
For a company like mine, we would need about $30-40k to move up to shooting raw. Its not just the “oh so expensive sd cards”, it would involve a lot of extra equipment, not mention moving to 1dx2s as the 7d2 buffer depth isnt big enough.

Why would i do that to satisy the two people each year who ask if i shoot raw?
Click to expand...
Quite. Personally though, I'd feel short changed if I paid anyone to shoot photos for me and they shot JPEGs on a 7D II
Click to expand...
This is because you are a gearhead and not a photographer.
Click to expand...
Not at all. When someone I am paying is shooting JPEG it's because they are too lazy and don't care about the final product. It's all about getting the most from the gear you have.
Click to expand...
In all the years I've been on DPR, your opinion on this subject has to be the most ignorant I've ever encountered.
 
Chris59 said:
Mark B. said:
Chris59 said:
Everyone shoots RAW. Some people who have no idea like to save their images as JPEGs only, but that's their loss.
Click to expand...
Does it have to be explained to you? The option of having the camera save a jpg is available. But I don't know anybody that actually says 'do you choose the option for the camera to convert the raw to a jpg or do you shoot raw?'. It's easier - and 100% understood - to simply say 'do you shoot raw or jpg'. Do you bog everything else in life down with semantics?
Click to expand...
Perhaps if more people understood what "shooting RAW" meant, they would never choose to shoot JPEG.

Of course it's simpler to say "I shoot RAW" or "I shoot JPEG", but simple in this case is not only just wrong, it's misleading.
Click to expand...
Well, it's not going to change. Ever. So get used to it. Everyone else on this forum, and every photographer I've ever spoken to face to face understands perfectly well what 'shooting jpg' means, and their own personal reasons for making that choice.
 
stevo23 said:
tcg550 said:
Chris59 said:
It's not the job of the customer to "understand your business". As a customer, I'm entitled to request information on how you intend to do the job I want.

As for "I can't be bothered to explain" - with that kind of attitude, it's no surprise you also "can't be bothered" understanding or working with RAW to provide a superior product to your customers.

I cannot imagine ever paying anyone to take JPEGs with a 7D Mk II. If I were you, I wouldn't let on who I was in case some of your clients find out...
Click to expand...
I paid my duaghter's wedding photographer $3,500+ I never asked what camera he was planning on using or what format he was shooting or what his workflow was after the shoot.

I never even looked at his camera while he and his partner were shooting. He delivered exactly what the contract said in the time frame it was promised.

Was he shooting raw? Probably, maybe, but it did not matter to me one bit.
Click to expand...
Very different feeling here. For weddings, I would ask for the raw files.
Click to expand...
Forget it. No serious wedding photographer will ever give you his raw files.
 
Mark B. said:
stevo23 said:
tcg550 said:
Chris59 said:
It's not the job of the customer to "understand your business". As a customer, I'm entitled to request information on how you intend to do the job I want.

As for "I can't be bothered to explain" - with that kind of attitude, it's no surprise you also "can't be bothered" understanding or working with RAW to provide a superior product to your customers.

I cannot imagine ever paying anyone to take JPEGs with a 7D Mk II. If I were you, I wouldn't let on who I was in case some of your clients find out...
Click to expand...
I paid my duaghter's wedding photographer $3,500+ I never asked what camera he was planning on using or what format he was shooting or what his workflow was after the shoot.

I never even looked at his camera while he and his partner were shooting. He delivered exactly what the contract said in the time frame it was promised.

Was he shooting raw? Probably, maybe, but it did not matter to me one bit.
Click to expand...
Very different feeling here. For weddings, I would ask for the raw files.
Click to expand...
I know several local wedding photographers. They deliver the final images, not raw files.
Click to expand...
Concur, RAW is the equivalent of film.. never gave my negatives to anyone either

Teddy

ps. now when we have dismissed film except from nostalgic reasons why on earth I'd want to start using it's digital counterpart instead? :D
 
Moti said:
Forget it. No serious wedding photographer will ever give you his raw files.
Click to expand...
Yes. Like it or not when you hire a wedding photographer or studio photographer the photos belong to the photographer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top