Must I shoot in raw?

If you are happy with JPEGs, keep doing it.

Raw is easier for me. (I have a Z6, but this should apply equally to a Z50.)

Especially if the white balance needs work, or if shadows are important, or I'm shooting in low light. The 8-bit jpg data limits all of these things.

And the Z6 only has a fraction of a second to process the jpg, so it's noise reduction isn't nearly as good as the DxO 1-click noise reduction, which processes for 3 to 10 seconds while exporting the jpg results.

~~~

I shoot raw+jpg, so I have a reference image, and I occasionally use the jpg with very minor edits for social media type usage.

I mostly edit with DxO v5, and sometimes accidentally pick the jpg from the thumbnail strip. Then I start wondering why the edits are more difficult, until I see that the Color Temperature is only "warmer <-->cooler" instead of kelvin and tint for raw images. Oh: I'm editing the wrong file.

Well exposed raw images with good color that need minimal edits are quick, only slight exposure/contrast/geometry edits are needed, and these are simple. It's not harder than a jpg minor edit.

raw images that need more work might never be acceptable if they were jpg edits.

~~~

An example from a post-sunset walk. As usual, download the originals instead of these compressed thread images.

The original jpg:



Even though it's a moderate 1600 ISO, the Z6 applied noise reduction to the shadow areas, including the trees across the river.

~~~~

My raw edit.



~~~

jpg edit. Attempting to get a similar edit from the jpg. This was more work than the raw edit.



~~~

A screenshot from FastStone image viewer, raw on the left, jpg edit on the right, 200%.

The raw edit has much better color and way more detail in the cable stays and the trees. And no sky noise.

I always shoot RAW+JPEG. No good reason not to. Many/most images will lose nothing as jpegs, but there will be some where you can do better. That said, it does take a certain amount of skill and history with whatever program you process your RAW files with. I've sometimes spent quite a lot of time messing with a RAW, then decided I didn't gain all that much over the jpeg, if anything. Set up right, Nikons deliver extremely good jpegs.

Nice pictures. Personally I used to shoot jpgs and then switched to raw at some point. I can still use Nikon's NX Studio to get the same jpgs like from the camera afterwards if I want. I have some old pictures of a D50, that are only jpgs. Sometimes I think it would be nice to have the raws nowadays to apply some more modern raw processing on them. But on the other hand, would I really want to re-edit all those pictures? Having just the jpgs can also free you from all those choices of editing. With current jpgs being so good, I'd say, stick to it if you are satisfied.

You can shoot jpegs.

When you shoot jpegs you are processing the data with such decisions as:

1) "film" curve (use neutral), i.e. mapping of scene brightness to picture brightness,

2) color space, what colors are possible (I use Adobe, wider than sRGB)

3) noise reduction

and so on, so these are important to setup correctly.

Here is a similar thread exploring how to have a rich high image quality:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62129838

Most people can't tell the difference jpeg vs raw. That said if the scene has tricky lighting you can shoot raw and bracket.

travelfoodphoto said:

Your input and experience shooting jpeg and or jpeg/raw with Nikon cropped sensor cameras would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

TFP

Click to expand...

I'd say that RAW is not mandatory at all but for sure you get addicted to it when you face a condition where, say, White Balance is not 100% sharp or where you want to play with the image in post processing taking full advantage of the sensor capabilities.

I been a JPG shooter long time ago when I used to shoot a Fuji S5Pro whose JPGs were astonishing but I figured and realised that RAW data can always come to help, actually I took a beautiful image where the sensor went nuts with a cheap filter I put in front of my lens and I learnt the lesson, RAW+JPG and only keep what matters, it's costless on the camera but would add some cost to storage, if you are happy with your results leave things as they are and just enjoy the process of taking images.

I personally find RAW files easier to work with and that shooting jpeg doesn't save me anytime.

JPEGs I suppose could be good if you're not using any sort of photo application before posting the web. For instance, if you copy your photos from your camera straight to an external hard drive and then send them directly to shutterfly or something.

However, my workflow is to just use the photos app on my phone or even lightroom mobile on my phone. In both of those cases, the phone doesn't care if the file is a raw or jpeg and handles both the same. The big difference is the raw files have a bunch more latitude to correct for highlights and shadows.

Lightroom mobile even has the option to read camera settings, so your initial look at the RAW file looks identical as if you shot jpeg, just with a ton more data for editing.

Even when I used to shoot Fujifilm, I still thought the RAW files smoked the SOOC jpegs.

I did RAW + jpg in the beginning. But it is too much work developing RAW per individual shot.

If I am now insecure about lightmetering I rather do bracketing. And find the middle one is mostly best.

I rather spend that RAW conversion time outdoors.

If the quality and results from shooting JPG are satisfactory to you, then please continue shooting JPG. It doesn't really matter what other people do, if you are happy with the results, then keep doing it.

The "conventional wisdom" that you should shoot RAW (and really all "conventional wisdom") implies there is only one right way to do things, and that to me is nonsense.

1) people who are such excellent photographers that they always get there photos perfect right straight from the camera (definitely not me ! A good number of mine kind of suck lol)

2) people who are just not very concerned with ultimate photo quality) definitely not me either. I'm a pixel peeping fool )

dj_paige said:

If the quality and results from shooting JPG are satisfactory to you, then please continue shooting JPG. It doesn't really matter what other people do, if you are happy with the results, then keep doing it.

The "conventional wisdom" that you should shoot RAW (and really all "conventional wisdom") implies there is only one right way to do things, and that to me is nonsense.

Click to expand...

But you should keep in mind, that if a jpeg you shot is ot satisfactory and you have no RAW, you have a lot less options or maybe none to get that photo. With RAW there are often good chances to get a satisfactory result in post processing,

3. Experienced photographers that took the picture correctly and then are not using the photo for large prints, pixel peeping, etc.. The JPEG and about 15-30 sec on photoshop is fine for online viewing, photo albums, internet display, smaller prints, etc..

thisisbenji said:

I personally find RAW files easier to work with and that shooting jpeg doesn't save me anytime.

Click to expand...

+1

Jrobe said:

3. Experienced photographers that took the picture correctly and then are not using the photo for large prints, pixel peeping, etc.. The JPEG and about 15-30 sec on photoshop is fine for online viewing, photo albums, internet display, smaller prints, etc..

Click to expand...

After all the comments to my thread, I think yours is the most accurate and logical conclusion.

Best,

TFP

My problem with jpeg kind of comes down to situations like this. Obviously this is a heavily backlit situations where I couldn't use artificial lighting from the front. Shooting jpeg, I'm either completely blowing out the sky or underexposing the subject and introducing a bunch of noise in the shadows. I shot this event in jpeg only just to give it a go and was very disappointed in how the sky held up in all of the backlit shots as compared to when I normally shoot RAW. The shots where the sun is behind me, there's no issues, it's only when I'm shooting into the sun where I would want larger latitude to adjust in Lightroom.

Jrobe said:

3. Experienced photographers that took the picture correctly and then are not using the photo for large prints, pixel peeping, etc.. The JPEG and about 15-30 sec on photoshop is fine for online viewing, photo albums, internet display, smaller prints, etc..

Click to expand...

I've read your reply about 5 X's trying to fully understand it.

But when you say, "took the picture correctly".... I'm sorry, but I'm not talking about 1 individual photo. I'm sure I could go through a few hundred of my photos, and find a few that were (technically speaking) almost perfect, and of which JPG would have worked just fine.

One thing I can say though...... I might take a whole bunch of shots that are not too bad at all, but the one shot that might matter the most.... Like some super rare vagrant bird, that I did a 600 mile round trip to find... Is the one that will probably benefit from shooting in RAW, when I figured JPG should be enough. Murphys law. If shooting in RAW is overkill for 95% of my shots, that's fine. It all becomes completely worth it for those few shots which "could be" the most important shots of the trip.... Or maybe even, the best shot of my life.

travelfoodphoto said:

Jrobe said:

3. Experienced photographers that took the picture correctly and then are not using the photo for large prints, pixel peeping, etc.. The JPEG and about 15-30 sec on photoshop is fine for online viewing, photo albums, internet display, smaller prints, etc..

Click to expand...

After all the comments to my thread, I think yours is the most accurate and logical conclusion.

Best,

TFP

Click to expand...

I think its the most pointless. But to each there own

I totally agree with you on this.

I was out the other day taking some landscape shots. It was midday so the sun was fairly high in the sky and I was shooting towards the south. There was a very patchy layer of clouds. So the sun was out but it was lighting up the thinner layers. There was no way to get a proper photo straight out of the camera.

I photograph birds as one of my main subjects. Many times you are stuck with the birds being backlit. I'd much rather have 14-bit data to do heavy post processing than 8-bit data.

Of course, the response by many would be that you shouldn't be taking backlit photos in the first place. Photography is about light and why are you taking photos in horrible light? I wish my light was always perfect.

I don't get out much, but was in Best Buy the other day and was amazed to see 18 TB drives. With that much space easily available there's no reason not to shoot RAW+jpeg and just stash the RAWs on the big drive. Then, when you get tired of fighting to get a jpeg right, you'll still have the RAW to play with. Even if 95% of your jpegs are great, you'll wish you had saved the RAWs for those few others.

I shoot RAW only in demanding or especially important situations.

So, I switch to raw for example when dynamic range needs to be maximized (happens often with landscape photography) or when camera can't figure out the white balance (happens under some strange artificial lights).

And official portraits, wedding photos and such. However, mostly portraits are taken in such a good light that I don't actually gain much by shooting RAW (I do it mostly just in case).

Anyway, I'd say 95% of my photos are jpeg only and it doesn't happen often that I would regret not shooting RAW.

Modern Nikons have such a good AWB, light metering and jpeg-engine that one can go about without shooting RAW.

It is also somehow motivating to try to take photos in a way that doesn't require post-processing. Kind of a challenge, I guess (not a hard challenge, though).

Another thing that comes with experience and good equipment is that one doesn't even have to take so many shots.