Pros shoot Raw or Jpeg?

This question was just asked on here last week. And the week before and the week before... do a search.

If you really need to ask that, you are probably in the wrong forum. Most professionals shoot RAW for the amount of flexibility and fine tuning it gives, along with the highest quality image possible.

Some shoot jpgs, usually because they are high quantity shooters where fast processing of high quantities is more important than absolute quality.

Like most things, there are no set rules and standards. To each his own, whatever works best for you, etc.
 
Yeah, it's posted and asked over and over yet so many have
NO CLUE as to why they shoot in the mode they do!

I know Raw. I shoot only in it.
For print.

File sizes are becoming outrageous and some will shoot JPEG to save
hrd-drive space.

So shoot me.

===================
This question was just asked on here last week. And the week before
and the week before... do a search.

If you really need to ask that, you are probably in the wrong forum.
Most professionals shoot RAW for the amount of flexibility and fine
tuning it gives, along with the highest quality image possible.

Some shoot jpgs, usually because they are high quantity shooters
where fast processing of high quantities is more important than
absolute quality.

Like most things, there are no set rules and standards. To each his
own, whatever works best for you, etc.
 
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll take all your fishing spots. Teach a man to cook the fish and he'll know the true meaning of "raw".

Welcome to the "Pro Forum" where seasoned professionals give up all their trade secrects for free.
 
Yeah, it's posted and asked over and over yet so many have
NO CLUE as to why they shoot in the mode they do!

I know Raw. I shoot only in it.
For print.

File sizes are becoming outrageous and some will shoot JPEG to save
hrd-drive space.

So shoot me.
Ok, so you think most people who post answers to this question are clueless, you already know that you shoot RAW exclusively, and you think file sizes are outrageous.

So let me ask you, if most people have no clue, why are you asking them the same question that has been asked thousands of times?
 
So let me ask you, if most people have no clue, why are you asking
them the same question that has been asked thousands of times?
Because I thought I was asking the "Pro's" for their OPINION.

Seems to be a very difficult question here. Hmmm.

Regards,
WB.
=====================
 
As a pro, my point and shoot gear does not support RAW! (Is that wearing clothes or in the buff) I have really no idea what it shoots. Guess it might be film or something similar.
 
Thanks.

I've got a 19 year old cat whining and complaining all the time.
What should I do?
 
You guys just take the bait everytime. This thread is destined to become many pages of posters beating their own drum.

--
Bob

Perth, Western Australia
 
95% RAW

If client states in writing it is for web only then small JPG, but that's rare.

Personal family stuff is all JPG, and even with that, I have 20 GB of kid photos on my backup drive in just 3.5 years. She was our 15th wedding anniversary present and when two photographer have a kid late in life, what do you expect!!!

--
Jim Bianchi
http://www.thephotoop.com
Digital guru in the making.
 
Nothing good can be achieved from it.

Thanks. (O/P)

Wayne B.
===================
 
Seriously, whenever this question is brought up, people get very worked up.

Only recently one poster in particular was deliberately being offensive and insulting about it for some reason (he admitted it later) and turned the debate into a schoolyard fight.

This is why you are not getting straight answers. If you do a search you'll see what I mean!
 
As a general rule, my camera is set to JPG + RAW.

I do not shoot projects that involve hundreds of frames -- i.e. no five shot sequences of every member of 20 kids' soccer teams -- so it is no burden on my camera of memory cards to have 50 shots in two different formats.

I edited shots of an event the other night -- change of command of an organization -- that was shot as JPEG+RAW and all the JPEG files were fine, so thre was no need for RAW.

White dogs in the snow benefit RAW, as did a rcent portrait shoot where the exec was inside a room with floor to ceiling windows of tinted glass, and he moved around the room so that intensity and balance of interior light plus window light changed. RAW let me easily smooth out the differences in color, regardless of where he was standing.

JPEG files mean I have a quick and easy file for emailing shots to clients, editors, etc., for them to choose poses, angles, compositions, too, which provides a good reason for NOT just shooting RAW.

BAK

BAK
 
RAW only. I spend a lot of money on quality lenses and I don't see the point of compressing my images. I don't feel I would gain anything from shooting jpg. May be if I was doing news? But I don't, and I'm not even sure 20% of news photographers have such a rush. It's important to me to be able to reprocess a file when I want to and the way I want, especially if the client let me do the CMYK conversions.

There are people who will never find any advantage to post processing like so many pros never knew or could not tell the quality difference between dip and dunk and in line for film processing. Same with E6 or K14, both slide processing but go and scan a Kodachrome to 4 colors and you'll see a little challenge.
Or both? What's your pref and why?

Thanks!!
==================
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top