Should I go RAW only?

Started Jan 29, 2014 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
IGotShot
IGotShot Forum Member • Posts: 81
Should I go RAW only?

I've been shooting RAW+JPEG and now after seeing the ability of the Adobe RAW converter, I'm considering whether to just shoot RAW. What do you guys think?

 IGotShot's gear list:IGotShot's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS M Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM +3 more
(unknown member) Senior Member • Posts: 1,324
Do it
8

RAW files are so easy to convert to JPG, and with free RAW software all around you won't even be limited to software on one computer, you can take your RAWS and develop them anywhere, any time. You can also view the RAWs on the LCD of your camera just like JPGs.

Only use RAW+JPG if you're doing something like reporting from the field and you need to be able to send the images on a moment's notice. Otherwise, what do you need the instant JPG for? Take your time.

Rmark
Rmark Contributing Member • Posts: 712
Re: Should I go RAW only?
3

I resisted shooting raw for a long time, always having heard it is "too much trouble". There were discussions here arguing there was no need, OOC JPG's were so good now.

However there is no problem at all processing raw files , gives you many more options. I used the RAW+jpg for awhile, but it just ate up card and hard drive space, and I ended up never doing anything with the jpg's anyway.

 Rmark's gear list:Rmark's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50mm 1:2.0 Macro Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD Olympus Zuiko Digital 1.4x Teleconverter EC-14 +3 more
Leonard Migliore
Leonard Migliore Forum Pro • Posts: 13,332
Re: Should I go RAW only?

IGotShot wrote:

I've been shooting RAW+JPEG and now after seeing the ability of the Adobe RAW converter, I'm considering whether to just shoot RAW. What do you guys think?

I was initially quite tentative about this. After getting Lightroom, I shot RAW + JPG for a while. A few months of using Lightroom demonstrated to me that I had no use for the JPG's so I stopped saving them. There's just no downside to shooting and editing RAW files.

But you should be able to prove this to yourself.

-- hide signature --

Leonard Migliore

 Leonard Migliore's gear list:Leonard Migliore's gear list
Canon PowerShot G12 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Nikon D300 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G +8 more
nunatak Senior Member • Posts: 2,736
the emperor wears NO clothes

go RAW, or go cookie cutter.

-- hide signature --

design guy

Charles2 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,593
A reason to shoot raw + JPG
1

Depending on the camera, the camera JPG may be good for many uses yet difficult to duplicate. Even the software from many camera manufacturers does not duplicate the JPG; the camera JPG recipe is apparently regarded as a secret sauce.

(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 969
Shoot raw and keep all the information your sensor captures

Shoot raw, sort your keepers, then take your time post processing the best ones.

Lanidrac Veteran Member • Posts: 7,544
Ask yourself
1

If you have to ask here, keep shooting jpeg until you know yourself. Its a hassle shooting only raw and does not make you a better photographer doing so.

-- hide signature --
Dan Marchant Senior Member • Posts: 2,376
Re: Should I go RAW only?

IGotShot wrote:

I've been shooting RAW+JPEG and now after seeing the ability of the Adobe RAW converter, I'm considering whether to just shoot RAW. What do you guys think?

If you want creative control over your images shoot RAW, if you are happy with the creative decisions made by the programmers at Canon shoot JPEG.

-- hide signature --

Dan
-
f/2.8 is a smaller number than f/22 in the same way that 100 is a smaller number than 20.
I am learning photo graphee - see the results at www.danmarchant.com

 Dan Marchant's gear list:Dan Marchant's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM +1 more
LoneReaction Contributing Member • Posts: 554
Re: Should I go RAW only?

I shoot raw, even for "Facebook" photos. You can set a preset during import, so there is no need to pp every shot. Probably just using the white balance tool and + - keys for exposure. Plus Lightroom has plug-ins to upload to Facebook.

-- hide signature --
 LoneReaction's gear list:LoneReaction's gear list
Sony FE 35mm F2.8 Sony Alpha 7R II Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 28-70mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS +2 more
Colin Franks
Colin Franks Senior Member • Posts: 1,285
Re: Should I go RAW only?
2

The enormous latitude for adjusting exposure alone is reason enough to shoot Raw only (except maybe for fluffy, unimportant quickie shots).

 Colin Franks's gear list:Colin Franks's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G3 Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS 7D Mark II Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM +20 more
salla30
salla30 Senior Member • Posts: 2,596
IMHO - Keep both

The main reason I keep the jpg's is as a guide to lens corrections.

I don't often compensate using LR, sometimes its good to have the camera corrected JPG handy to guide me to adjust for distortions.

And also in case I need to quickly transfer to tablet or someone else's PC or need to quickly send a jpg off to someone without fiddling with conversions.

Disc space is so cheap these days, why throw out any information you may regret later?

-- hide signature --
 salla30's gear list:salla30's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX1 Sony RX100 II Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony a5000 +1 more
(unknown member) Senior Member • Posts: 1,324
that's only
1

salla30 wrote:

The main reason I keep the jpg's is as a guide to lens corrections.

I don't often compensate using LR, sometimes its good to have the camera corrected JPG handy to guide me to adjust for distortions.

And also in case I need to quickly transfer to tablet or someone else's PC or need to quickly send a jpg off to someone without fiddling with conversions.

Disc space is so cheap these days, why throw out any information you may regret later?

-- hide signature --

only if you shoot JPG in the first place, then you can keep it.

I have lens distortion profiles (perfect correction) for all my lenses in my raw processing software, the distortion can be corrected with one click. I have the same profiles in all my software that supports it, so I can correct it at any point along my workflow, at RAW, tiff, png or jpg stage, whenever I please, or leave it uncorrected, it's just as simple either way. like someone already mentioned, import/developing presets make life a lot easier and raw development quicker.

salla30
salla30 Senior Member • Posts: 2,596
Re: that's only

Understood, but i can't seem to find one for the RX100 or RX100ii. any pointers?

-- hide signature --
 salla30's gear list:salla30's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX1 Sony RX100 II Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony a5000 +1 more
Ron Poelman
Ron Poelman Veteran Member • Posts: 5,208
If you have to ask, No. (NT)
2

No text.

 Ron Poelman's gear list:Ron Poelman's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H2 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-R1 Sony SLT-A57 Sony Alpha 7R Sony DT 55-300mm F4.5-5.6 SAM +13 more
Mike CH Veteran Member • Posts: 5,906
Long time since last JPG....
1

IGotShot wrote:

I've been shooting RAW+JPEG and now after seeing the ability of the Adobe RAW converter, I'm considering whether to just shoot RAW. What do you guys think?

I only use RAW. With a good tool which supports the workflow, I see no reason to do anything else. In my case, LR5.

But I like post-processing. I like having the leeway in post. And I chuck out about 60-80% of my images before I start on post-processing.

Regards, Mike
--
Wait and see...

 Mike CH's gear list:Mike CH's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.5 1-5x Macro +11 more
newmikey Veteran Member • Posts: 4,374
Only you can tell
1

Nobody here feels what you feel or does what you do. I like having both raw and jpeg. Sometimes the jpeg is simply good enough for direct use on FB or in emails and having JPEGs allows me to make a selection before I convert the raws, cutting down on processing time.

A jpeg can also provide you with a target to aim for in raw conversion with intent to improve upon in several areas.

Storage is cheap nowadays and the camera doesn't care...

-- hide signature --
 newmikey's gear list:newmikey's gear list
Ricoh GR Pentax K-5 IIs Pentax smc DA* 50-135mm F2.8 ED (IF) SDM Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HSM +5 more
Dareshooter Senior Member • Posts: 1,828
Re: Should I go RAW only?

I've shot Raw for many years and this thought has crossed my mind occasionally but I never succumb.The reason being is that if just want quick jpegs I just select all in Canons DPP, batch convert them  and just use Lightroom 5 when I have more ambitious conversions to do.It's a good compromise that works well for me. Maybe give it some thought yeah ?

mclewis Contributing Member • Posts: 553
Re: that's only

salla30 wrote:

Understood, but i can't seem to find one for the RX100 or RX100ii. any pointers?

Lightroom automatically corrects the distortion in RX100 files (and I would assume it would do for the RX100 ii as well) and does not need a lens profile.  You can of course create a lens profile for use in Lightroom if you wish and there are at least two profiles for the RX100 available in the Lens Profile downloader that people have created.

PhotoHawk Contributing Member • Posts: 772
Re: Should I go RAW only?

When I first started in digital photography I shot JPEG only. At least for the first year. I then switched to raw. At the time I thought that as convertors got better over time I could revisit particularly interesting photographs, reprocess them and get better results. That was back when CS3 was current. Now I have DXO and the latest copy of ACR not to mention some excellent CS6 plugins for noise.

I have periodically gone back and reconverted older raw photographs with the tools I now have and I've pretty much been able to fix the photographs that I liked but had something odd to them - like some lens aberration, noise or colour profiling issues.  I expect that the technology will continue to improve as it has year over year.

I now shoot raw+jpeg. When I ingest them into my computer the subfolder for the shoot has one for raw and one for jpeg. I have a third I create for jpegs converted from the raw - the ones I want to something special with.

I recommend for flexibility and for your future self that you shoot raw or raw+jpeg. In other words always have the raw available. If you are serious about photography and want the flexibility in approach. If you are not and you don't care for that flexibility go ahead a shoot jpeg.

Its a pretty poor place to be in the future knowing that if you had that raw of that past once in lifetime shot never to be repeated or revisited you could fix a particular fault in the photograph but couldn't because all you had was the jpeg.

-- hide signature --

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads