Tom Boucher
Senior Member
RAW+JPG would acheive that while giving more flexibility wouldn't it?
--
http://public.fotki.com/trekkie
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Why are you still shooting jpegs?
- Thread starter NeilJones
- Start date
--
http://public.fotki.com/trekkie
Graham Snook
Senior Member
Before I start I'll explain what I do.
I work full time for a number of different magazines. I specialise in marine photography, both yachts and motor boats. My photographs will go through the print process (not inkjet) maybe a few digital prints, maybe a bit on the web, but the majority is all going through a high speed print press. We've (me and the company I work for) have run experiments and there was no difference between RAW and Jpg after they came back from the printers.
If you still need to know why I'm still shooting jpg, read on.....
The 4 basic reasons I use for shooting jpgs, they are:
Time
Quality
Storage
Capacity
Time...It takes me less time to edit and go through my work if it's jpg. Because I do none of the colour correction, sharpening or re-touching of my work...All I'm concerned with are the Images, and whether they are in focus...from those I do an edit to around 150 shots
Quality...Strange one I know, RAW is better than jpg we know that. However the extra quality that's possible from RAW gets lost in the magazine printing process. So for me there is no advantage in shooting RAW so I shoot jpg
Storage...Simple one, we get more images on a CD/HDD/DVD 150 RAW from a shoot would be 2 cd's for each job rather than 1 of jpgs, then another 2 lot as back up, so each job is costing you cd's more...Therefore 150 jobs per year 300 CD's...at around 7 mins to burn, label and file each CD...35 hours a year just burning CD's...DVD's take longer to burn (well they do on my system) so that's the DVD argument out of the window
Capacity...Again simple, I get more images on my CF cards, I get a higher burst rate when I'm shooting, and I don't have to open the back of my camera to change cards so often
I'd like to shoot RAW, but don't have the time. The results I get from jpgs are more than up to the job - Correct exposure, white balance, sharpening etc...and if it's not spot on it will be within a correctable level and that's what matters
There is not right or wrong with the RAW Vs Jpg argument, what suits one person might not suit another, as long as you take good pix what does it matter?
Whether you shoot on Canon/Nikon a 10D/ 1DSmkII or RAW/Jpg, it's the pics that matter, not how they were taken
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Always give the client a vertical-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=280578
I work full time for a number of different magazines. I specialise in marine photography, both yachts and motor boats. My photographs will go through the print process (not inkjet) maybe a few digital prints, maybe a bit on the web, but the majority is all going through a high speed print press. We've (me and the company I work for) have run experiments and there was no difference between RAW and Jpg after they came back from the printers.
If you still need to know why I'm still shooting jpg, read on.....
The 4 basic reasons I use for shooting jpgs, they are:
Time
Quality
Storage
Capacity
Time...It takes me less time to edit and go through my work if it's jpg. Because I do none of the colour correction, sharpening or re-touching of my work...All I'm concerned with are the Images, and whether they are in focus...from those I do an edit to around 150 shots
Quality...Strange one I know, RAW is better than jpg we know that. However the extra quality that's possible from RAW gets lost in the magazine printing process. So for me there is no advantage in shooting RAW so I shoot jpg
Storage...Simple one, we get more images on a CD/HDD/DVD 150 RAW from a shoot would be 2 cd's for each job rather than 1 of jpgs, then another 2 lot as back up, so each job is costing you cd's more...Therefore 150 jobs per year 300 CD's...at around 7 mins to burn, label and file each CD...35 hours a year just burning CD's...DVD's take longer to burn (well they do on my system) so that's the DVD argument out of the window
Capacity...Again simple, I get more images on my CF cards, I get a higher burst rate when I'm shooting, and I don't have to open the back of my camera to change cards so often
I'd like to shoot RAW, but don't have the time. The results I get from jpgs are more than up to the job - Correct exposure, white balance, sharpening etc...and if it's not spot on it will be within a correctable level and that's what matters
There is not right or wrong with the RAW Vs Jpg argument, what suits one person might not suit another, as long as you take good pix what does it matter?
Whether you shoot on Canon/Nikon a 10D/ 1DSmkII or RAW/Jpg, it's the pics that matter, not how they were taken
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Always give the client a vertical-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=280578
Forrest41926
Forum Pro
Now either you have a few extra steps at the beginning of your workflow ( probably: move all the cr2 files into one folder and the jpegs into another ), or you have two of every thumbnail to cull through in Photoshop or Bridge, or whatever you use. You have less room on your CF card, and if you're using a 5D, you suddenly don't have 60 or more frames before you have to flush to "disc."
Not that these are insurmountable problems in day-to-day shooting for most people ... but to say JPEG has no place in photography is just plain silly.
My experience has been that raw only gives you more flexibility when you've botched the white balance, or the exposure, and need to rescue the image after the fact. Otherwise, it still gives you a slightly more detailled image, at the expense of quite a bit more work, but nothing that would just be impossible in jpeg files.
( If you're going to do batch sharpening, I'm not sure what the point of doing it outside the camera is? )
PhotoFortnoy
Senior Member
This photo is a good example of why I don't shoot RAW. Many RAW conversions look flat, opaque and clammy to me. It's often from simplistic conversions and then not taking the further necessary steps to get it back to "3D punchy" that it should be.
JPG is fast and easy. I believe we should shoot our photos correctly the first time and not worry about possible corrections available when we shoot RAW.
RAW takes more steps. It hogs space. Except for some very esoteric technical differences I can't see where RAW is any better than JPG that is shot properly.
I have not met any RAW shooters who can prove to me that RAW is better based on the quality of their finished edited results. I would be happy to be proven wrong.
I may switch to RAW rarely under difficult lighting situations.
Stan Schutze
http://www.pbase.com/schutze/modeling
'AMATEURS worry about equipment. PROFESSIONALS worry about money. MASTERS worry about light' ... I love it all and I don't worry about anything
The other Larry
Senior Member
What a pure joy it was to go through your action/boat gallery...Fabulous talent you are.
canon l glass
Well-known member
Yes I am I know my craft and I don't have a problem with the exposures or white balance. I use a mk2n and do not compress my files. A fellow photographer I know has a 20 and 30 d and shoots raw. You cannot tell one from the next. I can see a variation from the 20/30 d files when shot in JPG.
Why Don't all DJ's use Denon ?
Why Don't all DJ's use Denon ?
I think there's a considerable variance between different camera brands in regards to JPEGs straight from the camera, and their usability.
If a camera has a good image processor, and gives you excellent quality JPEGs then why not use them? A JPEG from the 12 Mpix 5D is a lot smaller than the very slightly compressed JPEGs from a 6Mpix KM 7D, and I think it shows a different approach to out of camera images. I believe Canon puts more emphasis on RAW conversion, and less on processed-compressed images, which is perfectly fine, but other's (can) do it differently. I know from my time with the 1Ds that the difference between converted RAW files and out of camera JPEGs was huge - not so with the 7D that in some aspects often gives the same or even better results - instantly.
I hate post processing, and if a camera allows me to set all the proper settings from white balance to exposure compensation easily (and that's a benefit of a higher end DSLR) then why should I spend more valuable time infront of the computer? Not that I have anything against RAW files, but I want my camera to give me either good JPEGs too, or better yet, uncompressed TIFF files.
If a camera has a good image processor, and gives you excellent quality JPEGs then why not use them? A JPEG from the 12 Mpix 5D is a lot smaller than the very slightly compressed JPEGs from a 6Mpix KM 7D, and I think it shows a different approach to out of camera images. I believe Canon puts more emphasis on RAW conversion, and less on processed-compressed images, which is perfectly fine, but other's (can) do it differently. I know from my time with the 1Ds that the difference between converted RAW files and out of camera JPEGs was huge - not so with the 7D that in some aspects often gives the same or even better results - instantly.
I hate post processing, and if a camera allows me to set all the proper settings from white balance to exposure compensation easily (and that's a benefit of a higher end DSLR) then why should I spend more valuable time infront of the computer? Not that I have anything against RAW files, but I want my camera to give me either good JPEGs too, or better yet, uncompressed TIFF files.
Ken Schmidt
Senior Member
Very nice pic's and thanks for posting about your shooting style.
Thanks for taking the time to post .
Ken
--
http://www.pbase.com/sailorboy
Thanks for taking the time to post .
Ken
--
http://www.pbase.com/sailorboy
woolcan
Forum Enthusiast
TQSC...time, quality, storage, capacity.
RAW would not make any difference in the final image quality in the publication or website. Get the white balance right, and the color in curves and levels will come around.
http://www.horsephotos.com/watermark.jsp?photoID=38684
--
Kind regards from Kentucky
(Keeping a half an eye open for the unusual)
http://blackhorse.smugmug.com/
Use my code, mwICJbgqDfwnJ to save $5.00 on your Smugmug sign-up if you like!
RAW would not make any difference in the final image quality in the publication or website. Get the white balance right, and the color in curves and levels will come around.
http://www.horsephotos.com/watermark.jsp?photoID=38684
--
Kind regards from Kentucky
(Keeping a half an eye open for the unusual)
http://blackhorse.smugmug.com/
Use my code, mwICJbgqDfwnJ to save $5.00 on your Smugmug sign-up if you like!
Graham Snook
Senior Member
Thank you both for your compliments.
From the link at the bottom of this post the bottom 36 pix were on film, the top 24 were digital, all shot on Jpg
If I was shooting raw I wouldn't have been able to post these straight from the camera to the magazines website from the press centre minutes after walking through the door...
http://www.ybw.com/gallery/Round-the-Island-2006
Although the thumnails look flat, if you click on the image once let it load up then again you get the jpeg straight from the camera (with a tad of sharpening) with no colour correction or exposure adjustment
It's not all portfolio stuff, but I was capturing a variety of boats that fits our reader profile
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Always give the client a vertical-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=280578
From the link at the bottom of this post the bottom 36 pix were on film, the top 24 were digital, all shot on Jpg
If I was shooting raw I wouldn't have been able to post these straight from the camera to the magazines website from the press centre minutes after walking through the door...
http://www.ybw.com/gallery/Round-the-Island-2006
Although the thumnails look flat, if you click on the image once let it load up then again you get the jpeg straight from the camera (with a tad of sharpening) with no colour correction or exposure adjustment
It's not all portfolio stuff, but I was capturing a variety of boats that fits our reader profile
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Always give the client a vertical-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=280578
Man... You have got to be kidding me!! Sure, if you have situations like the one shown, with controlled lighting, and plenty of it... Then Yea fine! But it's about control, Surely!!
Get into mixed available Low light, and you are into a different arena...
Mix Tungsten, Daylight and Gas together and the benefit of dealing in RAW comes into it's own... Especialy when working in CS or perhaps Phase One..
Shoot small Jpeg and Raw as the cameras were made for...
From a 1GIG card one can get up to 75 frames using both...........
LOL
Marc
Get into mixed available Low light, and you are into a different arena...
Mix Tungsten, Daylight and Gas together and the benefit of dealing in RAW comes into it's own... Especialy when working in CS or perhaps Phase One..
Shoot small Jpeg and Raw as the cameras were made for...
From a 1GIG card one can get up to 75 frames using both...........
LOL
Marc
You say you want the best.
Are you using a 39 megapixel Phase One back? Why not?
Are you using primes only? They are better than zooms?
Are you using top quality German lens? They are the best, no?
Do you always use a tripod? It is better.
Why don't you hire the model for a month so you can shoot at all angles to find the best shot? Almost anyone can do better if they have a model for a longer time.
Sometimes clients want something that fits their budget. They are not asking you to go all out, money no object, assignment. A good photographer tries to be efficient and give the client what they want within their budget.
Are you using a 39 megapixel Phase One back? Why not?
Are you using primes only? They are better than zooms?
Are you using top quality German lens? They are the best, no?
Do you always use a tripod? It is better.
Why don't you hire the model for a month so you can shoot at all angles to find the best shot? Almost anyone can do better if they have a model for a longer time.
Sometimes clients want something that fits their budget. They are not asking you to go all out, money no object, assignment. A good photographer tries to be efficient and give the client what they want within their budget.
NeilJones
Veteran Member
This image looks flat and clammy? Hmmm. Time I get a new monitor!This photo is a good example of why I don't shoot RAW. Many RAW
conversions look flat, opaque and clammy to me. It's often from
simplistic conversions and then not taking the further necessary
steps to get it back to "3D punchy" that it should be.
JPG is fast and easy. I believe we should shoot our photos
correctly the first time and not worry about possible corrections
available when we shoot RAW.
RAW takes more steps. It hogs space. Except for some very esoteric
technical differences I can't see where RAW is any better than JPG
that is shot properly.
I have not met any RAW shooters who can prove to me that RAW is
better based on the quality of their finished edited results. I
would be happy to be proven wrong.
I may switch to RAW rarely under difficult lighting situations.
Stan Schutze
http://www.pbase.com/schutze/modeling
'AMATEURS worry about equipment. PROFESSIONALS worry about money.
MASTERS worry about light' ... I love it all and I don't worry
about anything
JackJosephJr
Leading Member
Reading some of your replies you sound angry. What's the problem with people not agreeing with you? From my point of view I shoot so many JPGs for a few companies I work for that I replaced two 1D Mark II bodies with a 1D Mark II N and a 5D just so that I could produce a better quality JPG.
The slightly less quality that JPGs offer is more than made up in the smoothness and lack of noise in low-light sports JPGs, let alone by the workflow and convenience that others have pointed out in this thread. Like most people who shoot for a living I use RAW, JPG or RAW+JPG as appropriate for the situation.
The "one size fits all / it MUST be done this way" talk is just pure BS in the real world. That's one of the reasons why pro cameras have so many options to them. I shot about 3200 images one one assignment using the 5D set to smallest, lowest quality JPG. That might shock you as a waste of a perfectly good camera but I called it doing what the client wanted!
A "real" photographer doesn't alway shoot RAW or JPG, he shoots as the situation calls for. And, when shooting RAW he may use more than one RAW converter as the situation calls for. Just as with the RAW/JPG (meaningless) question there is no "right" RAW converter. Converters have to fit the photography and the photographer. I'm just guessing here but I'll bet you have one application that "must" be used.
Other people are different than you. Live with it.
The slightly less quality that JPGs offer is more than made up in the smoothness and lack of noise in low-light sports JPGs, let alone by the workflow and convenience that others have pointed out in this thread. Like most people who shoot for a living I use RAW, JPG or RAW+JPG as appropriate for the situation.
The "one size fits all / it MUST be done this way" talk is just pure BS in the real world. That's one of the reasons why pro cameras have so many options to them. I shot about 3200 images one one assignment using the 5D set to smallest, lowest quality JPG. That might shock you as a waste of a perfectly good camera but I called it doing what the client wanted!
A "real" photographer doesn't alway shoot RAW or JPG, he shoots as the situation calls for. And, when shooting RAW he may use more than one RAW converter as the situation calls for. Just as with the RAW/JPG (meaningless) question there is no "right" RAW converter. Converters have to fit the photography and the photographer. I'm just guessing here but I'll bet you have one application that "must" be used.
Other people are different than you. Live with it.
Michael James
Forum Enthusiast
after reviewing my weddings:
http://www.ilikewhatisee.com/wed/gallery
Why would I want to shoot raw? I know what I am doing.
Do you qualify other DJs based on their gear?
Shooting thousands of images for a wedding is smart. Telling a story is what the day is about.
--
http://www.photo-synthesis.com
http://www.ilikewhatisee.com/wed/gallery
Why would I want to shoot raw? I know what I am doing.
Do you qualify other DJs based on their gear?
Shooting thousands of images for a wedding is smart. Telling a story is what the day is about.
--
http://www.photo-synthesis.com
Radio Denver
Senior Member
If you're happy with the quality you get from jpegs, it's a moot point. Raw will give you a better image to work with and more lattitude for adjustment after the shot, plain and simple. There are some things in jpegs that can't be corrected, that in raw can be done. Try fixing a 2 stop over-exposed shot with a jpeg. Try fixing the same shot with a raw file, you'll see the difference. You'll also loose some detail in jpg format due to compression.
--
Visit me at
http://www.give-zine.com/
--
Visit me at
http://www.give-zine.com/
Savas Kyprianides
Senior Member
I don't want the overhead and just want something straight from the camera. Then on occasion the results are dismal and made me wish I had the flexibility of having shot in raw.
fuzzytalz
Senior Member
...with lots of time to meticulously process every single RAW file. Working guys learn to get the exposure setting right in the camera so they can get on with the next paying job rather than waste billable hours fixing problems in post.
If you'd ever produced a few thousand images for a single job, you'd understand the need for high quality JPEGs and would respect the ability to produce near-perfect images in-camera.
--
Garland Cary
If you'd ever produced a few thousand images for a single job, you'd understand the need for high quality JPEGs and would respect the ability to produce near-perfect images in-camera.
--
Garland Cary
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum