Is it really worth shooting in RAW for most shots?

[Michael Fryd]

First of all, I'm not talking about difficult shots that require high DR or high ISO or... I am talking more of the Instagram-style shots a mobile phone camera can take. I personally used to shoot RAW-only, adjusting the colors a bit later. However, I begin thinking, that I just waste my time converting the majority of shots from RAW, as the auto-WB is mostly correct and I still have the ability to "play" with colors and adjust them.

We are all making tradeoffs when we choose our gear. The various factors to consider include: time, convienince, cost and quality. If all we cared about was quality, then none of us would be shooting with anything less than 50 megapixels.

The question is not whether one should shoot raw or JPEG, but when one should shoot raw and when one should shoot JPEG.

The answer is both simple and complex: "one should shoot raw when the advantages of shooting raw outweigh the disadvantages." It's a simple rule of thumb, but evaluating the advantages and disadvantages in a particular situation can be very subjective.

The disadvantages of shooting raw include increased post processing, slower processing, slower transfer, and more data to deal with.

The advantages of shooting raw include more control in post processing, and more latitude for post processing adjustments.

As to which you should choose, it depends on the needs of the task at hand, and your skill level.

If you (and your clients) are very happy with the results from shooting JPEG, then there may be no need to shoot RAW. If you aren't happy with camera produced JPEGs then, you may want to shoot RAW.

I did a shoot the other day for a charity event to benefit children in foster care. We had a fun day planned for them. We had a number of photographers running around taking photos of the kids. We made prints on site, and gave them to the kids as they were leaving. For this job shooting in JPEG was the right choice. Our need for fast turnaround outweighed the need for maximizing quality. It was far more important to get the prints to the kids before they left then to have perfect shadow detail and perfect color balance.

When I do fine art reproductions, I shoot raw. In that case, the need for maximizing quality outweighs the added workflow of dealing with raw files.

There's a whole range of jobs between the two, and sometimes shooting raw is best, and sometimes shooting JPEG is all that you need.

The bottom line is that as long as you and your clients are happy, then whatever you are doing is good.

 

[techjedi]

First of all, I'm not talking about difficult shots that require high DR or high ISO or... I am talking more of the Instagram-style shots a mobile phone camera can take. I personally used to shoot RAW-only, adjusting the colors a bit later. However, I begin thinking, that I just waste my time converting the majority of shots from RAW, as the auto-WB is mostly correct and I still have the ability to "play" with colors and adjust them.

For me, I will import every photo into Lightroom for culling and adjustments regardless if it was .ARW or .JPG file. As such, there is no convenience in .JPG for me, only a loss of quality.

 

[knickerhawk]

First of all, I'm not talking about difficult shots that require high DR or high ISO or... I am talking more of the Instagram-style shots a mobile phone camera can take. I personally used to shoot RAW-only, adjusting the colors a bit later. However, I begin thinking, that I just waste my time converting the majority of shots from RAW, as the auto-WB is mostly correct and I still have the ability to "play" with colors and adjust them.

We are all making tradeoffs when we choose our gear. The various factors to consider include: time, convienince, cost and quality. If all we cared about was quality, then none of us would be shooting with anything less than 50 megapixels.

The question is not whether one should shoot raw or JPEG, but when one should shoot raw and when one should shoot JPEG.

The answer is both simple and complex: "one should shoot raw when the advantages of shooting raw outweigh the disadvantages." It's a simple rule of thumb, but evaluating the advantages and disadvantages in a particular situation can be very subjective.

The disadvantages of shooting raw include increased post processing, slower processing, slower transfer, and more data to deal with.

The advantages of shooting raw include more control in post processing, and more latitude for post processing adjustments.

As to which you should choose, it depends on the needs of the task at hand, and your skill level.

If you (and your clients) are very happy with the results from shooting JPEG, then there may be no need to shoot RAW. If you aren't happy with camera produced JPEGs then, you may want to shoot RAW.

I did a shoot the other day for a charity event to benefit children in foster care. We had a fun day planned for them. We had a number of photographers running around taking photos of the kids. We made prints on site, and gave them to the kids as they were leaving. For this job shooting in JPEG was the right choice. Our need for fast turnaround outweighed the need for maximizing quality. It was far more important to get the prints to the kids before they left then to have perfect shadow detail and perfect color balance.

When I do fine art reproductions, I shoot raw. In that case, the need for maximizing quality outweighs the added workflow of dealing with raw files.

There's a whole range of jobs between the two, and sometimes shooting raw is best, and sometimes shooting JPEG is all that you need.

The bottom line is that as long as you and your clients are happy, then whatever you are doing is good.

For me, the much more interesting question to ask these days isn't when to shoot JPEG and when to shoot raw on a camera capable of both but, rather, when to use that camera and shoot JPEG instead of simply relying on your mobile phone. There is an ever-narrowing envelope for bothering with dragging around a dedicated camera and consciously compromising its IQ by exposing for and shooting JPEG. That war has already been waged and lost to mobile phones...

 

[robgendreau]

For me, the much more interesting question to ask these days isn't when to shoot JPEG and when to shoot raw on a camera capable of both but, rather, when to use that camera and shoot JPEG instead of simply relying on your mobile phone. There is an ever-narrowing envelope for bothering with dragging around a dedicated camera and consciously compromising its IQ by exposing for and shooting JPEG. That war has already been waged and lost to mobile phones...

Yeah, I kinda agree. It's like if you had a choice of driving the Lambo to pick up groceries or the Focus. If you accept all the arguments here about just using JPEG over RAW for Instagram, family snaps, etc, why bother with some lumbering DSLR? Yeah, if it's what you got, fine (frankly I'm one of those who runs everything into the computer so there isn't any reason for any of those shots to be JPEG originals). Or if you need to share on the spot (although most camera wifi systems share JPEGs anyway, even if the originals are RAW).

And it's not just the hardware; I find my iPhone 7+ has better software tools for making JPEGs and doing that sharing and so on than any of my real cameras. If all those tools were in my DSLR then maybe I'd be more inclined. But if it's a JPEG-kinda event, the JPEG shooter of choice for me is a phone.

But of course now that's more complicated since my iPhone DOES shoot raw.....

 

[knickerhawk]

For me, the much more interesting question to ask these days isn't when to shoot JPEG and when to shoot raw on a camera capable of both but, rather, when to use that camera and shoot JPEG instead of simply relying on your mobile phone. There is an ever-narrowing envelope for bothering with dragging around a dedicated camera and consciously compromising its IQ by exposing for and shooting JPEG. That war has already been waged and lost to mobile phones...

Yeah, I kinda agree. It's like if you had a choice of driving the Lambo to pick up groceries or the Focus. If you accept all the arguments here about just using JPEG over RAW for Instagram, family snaps, etc, why bother with some lumbering DSLR? Yeah, if it's what you got, fine (frankly I'm one of those who runs everything into the computer so there isn't any reason for any of those shots to be JPEG originals). Or if you need to share on the spot (although most camera wifi systems share JPEGs anyway, even if the originals are RAW).

And it's not just the hardware; I find my iPhone 7+ has better software tools for making JPEGs and doing that sharing and so on than any of my real cameras. If all those tools were in my DSLR then maybe I'd be more inclined. But if it's a JPEG-kinda event, the JPEG shooter of choice for me is a phone.

But of course now that's more complicated since my iPhone DOES shoot raw.....

True enough, but then the question flips around: Why bother using raw mode on a mobile phone that supports it instead of a dedicated camera? Of course, there are always some exceptions to the rule (e.g., the event shoot that Michael Fryd cited or maybe a unique situation when all you have with you is your mobile phone), but overall I find these endless JPEG vs. RAW debates here on DPR to be beside the point.

 

[Michael Fryd]

...

For me, the much more interesting question to ask these days isn't when to shoot JPEG and when to shoot raw on a camera capable of both but, rather, when to use that camera and shoot JPEG instead of simply relying on your mobile phone. There is an ever-narrowing envelope for bothering with dragging around a dedicated camera and consciously compromising its IQ by exposing for and shooting JPEG. That war has already been waged and lost to mobile phones...

It sounds to me that you think quality is an all or nothing decision. By that reasoning, why buy a interchangeable lens camera at all, unless it has at least 50 megapixels?

It isn't an all-or-nothing decision. It's a balancing act of finding the right trade off between convenience and quality.

There are compromises even when shooting raw with a good interchangeable lens camera. Do you shoot with the available light, or do you use a flash? Do you pre-plan and find a good location for the best shots, or do you shoot from where ever you happen to be? Do you preplan and try to adjust the room lights for the best image or go with whatever lights happen to be on? Do you direct the person where to stand and pose, or just point and click? Do you compromise quality by hand holding your camera or do you insist on using a tripod?

There are lots of levels. Shooting JPEG with an interchangeable lens camera is sometimes the right choice.

 

[knickerhawk]

...

For me, the much more interesting question to ask these days isn't when to shoot JPEG and when to shoot raw on a camera capable of both but, rather, when to use that camera and shoot JPEG instead of simply relying on your mobile phone. There is an ever-narrowing envelope for bothering with dragging around a dedicated camera and consciously compromising its IQ by exposing for and shooting JPEG. That war has already been waged and lost to mobile phones...

It sounds to me that you think quality is an all or nothing decision. By that reasoning, why buy a interchangeable lens camera at all, unless it has at least 50 megapixels?

It isn't an all-or-nothing decision. It's a balancing act of finding the right trade off between convenience and quality.

There are compromises even when shooting raw with a good interchangeable lens camera. Do you shoot with the available light, or do you use a flash? Do you pre-plan and find a good location for the best shots, or do you shoot from where ever you happen to be? Do you preplan and try to adjust the room lights for the best image or go with whatever lights happen to be on? Do you direct the person where to stand and pose, or just point and click? Do you compromise quality by hand holding your camera or do you insist on using a tripod?

There are lots of levels. Shooting JPEG with an interchangeable lens camera is sometimes the right choice.

I didn't say otherwise. I said that "envelope" has narrowed. The "convenience" side of the equation is no longer mostly about JPEG vs raw, it's about mobile phone vs any dedicated camera.

 

[Dennis]

For me, the much more interesting question to ask these days isn't when to shoot JPEG and when to shoot raw on a camera capable of both but, rather, when to use that camera and shoot JPEG instead of simply relying on your mobile phone. There is an ever-narrowing envelope for bothering with dragging around a dedicated camera and consciously compromising its IQ by exposing for and shooting JPEG. That war has already been waged and lost to mobile phones...

That's kind of like saying if you're going to get a Corvette with an automatic transmission, you might as well drive a minivan.

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

 

[John_A_G]

For me, the much more interesting question to ask these days isn't when to shoot JPEG and when to shoot raw on a camera capable of both but, rather, when to use that camera and shoot JPEG instead of simply relying on your mobile phone. There is an ever-narrowing envelope for bothering with dragging around a dedicated camera and consciously compromising its IQ by exposing for and shooting JPEG. That war has already been waged and lost to mobile phones...

Lots of media outlets require jpeg. And, most editing is considered no-no. All you have to do to evaluate a claim like this poster suggests is to look at shots from the Olympics - say. Getty images and others require jpeg save.

Somehow, these photographers come up with images more compelling than what a cell phone can capture.

If you are taking photos on your ILC in jpeg and you can't distinguish the photo quality from those taken with a cell-phone, the problem is YOU, not jpeg software on the camera.

 

[knickerhawk]

For me, the much more interesting question to ask these days isn't when to shoot JPEG and when to shoot raw on a camera capable of both but, rather, when to use that camera and shoot JPEG instead of simply relying on your mobile phone. There is an ever-narrowing envelope for bothering with dragging around a dedicated camera and consciously compromising its IQ by exposing for and shooting JPEG. That war has already been waged and lost to mobile phones...

That's kind of like saying if you're going to get a Corvette with an automatic transmission, you might as well drive a minivan.

I generally dislike attempts to analogize camera usage to driving cars, but if you really must do it, then the better analogy would be to say it's like buying a Corvette with a power-sapping economy mode option and always driving it with that option just to save gas money. Oh, and by the way, you could save more money and also avoid the hassle of getting your Corvette out of the parking garage simply by taking the subway, taxi or Uber.

 

[knickerhawk]

For me, the much more interesting question to ask these days isn't when to shoot JPEG and when to shoot raw on a camera capable of both but, rather, when to use that camera and shoot JPEG instead of simply relying on your mobile phone. There is an ever-narrowing envelope for bothering with dragging around a dedicated camera and consciously compromising its IQ by exposing for and shooting JPEG. That war has already been waged and lost to mobile phones...

Lots of media outlets require jpeg. And, most editing is considered no-no. All you have to do to evaluate a claim like this poster suggests is to look at shots from the Olympics - say. Getty images and others require jpeg save.

Somehow, these photographers come up with images more compelling than what a cell phone can capture.

If you are taking photos on your ILC in jpeg and you can't distinguish the photo quality from those taken with a cell-phone, the problem is YOU, not jpeg software on the camera.

...that's the sound of the point I was making flying over your "tripe" argument.

 

[Rex Block]

First of all, I'm not talking about difficult shots that require high DR or high ISO or... I am talking more of the Instagram-style shots a mobile phone camera can take. I personally used to shoot RAW-only, adjusting the colors a bit later. However, I begin thinking, that I just waste my time converting the majority of shots from RAW, as the auto-WB is mostly correct and I still have the ability to "play" with colors and adjust them.

I shoot exclusively RAW for a couple reasons:
(1) I do not have to worry about WB
(2) I use Matrix metering so no bracketing (unless there is a small target of interest)
(3) I find HDR mostly unnecessary when shooting RAW
(4) It moves most of the judgements/decisions from critical shoot time to PP time.
(5) I enjoy the PP in LightRoom
(6) With no effort, I can get a set of 100 JPGs from LR by simply importing 100 RAWs then click AUTO -- takes a few seconds and LR processes using my previously defined presets. So "I can have my cake and eat it too".

my 0.02 YMMV
Bert

This pretty much answers it for me as to why I am always in RAW mode. If something emerges suddenly and it's all I can do to simply photograph it, I am thankful to be in raw mode and not trying to switch from JPG.

Another reason: an image I might see today as one-star at best might have something in it, and as my post skills develop, in the future I might want to go back and play with it, so it ends up on an external drive until that day.

Storage and processing is cheap.

btw, with some/most/all/? cameras, you can do both, and simply scrog the throw-away raw images.

 

[Kung Fu]

For me, the much more interesting question to ask these days isn't when to shoot JPEG and when to shoot raw on a camera capable of both but, rather, when to use that camera and shoot JPEG instead of simply relying on your mobile phone. There is an ever-narrowing envelope for bothering with dragging around a dedicated camera and consciously compromising its IQ by exposing for and shooting JPEG. That war has already been waged and lost to mobile phones...

Lots of media outlets require jpeg. And, most editing is considered no-no. All you have to do to evaluate a claim like this poster suggests is to look at shots from the Olympics - say. Getty images and others require jpeg save.

Somehow, these photographers come up with images more compelling than what a cell phone can capture.

If you are taking photos on your ILC in jpeg and you can't distinguish the photo quality from those taken with a cell-phone, the problem is YOU, not jpeg software on the camera.

You completely missed his point.

 

[John_A_G]

You completely missed his point.

Possibly. Let us examine what was written:

For me, the much more interesting question to ask these days isn't when to shoot JPEG and when to shoot raw on a camera capable of both

OK, here my interpretation of the post is - "Should I shoot RAW or JPEG on my camera capable of both" isn't an interesting question. Fine.

but, rather, when to use that camera and shoot JPEG instead of simply relying on your mobile phone.

Here, I interpret the poster to be saying "why would you shoot with a camera in jpeg instead of a cell phone. Not, specifically, the question is only interesting to the poster when the camera is in JPEG. The inference being - an image captured in jpeg from a dedicated camera is close to the quality of an image captured from a cell phone. By leaving it out of the discussion, I infer to the poster to mean an image from a dedicated camera captured in RAW is still significantly better in quality than a phone captured picture.

There is an ever-narrowing envelope for bothering with dragging around a dedicated camera and consciously compromising its IQ by exposing for and shooting JPEG.

Now it becomes more specific. Stating that the image quality of an image captured in a modern camera in JPEG is closer and closer in quality to the image quality of a phone captured image. And, by inference, I believe the poster to be saying - capturing those same images in RAW provides enough benefit to clearly justify the camera's use over the phone.

In other words, the poster infers that the jpeg capture so cripples the benefits achieved from the optics and processor and focus capability of the camera.

Perhaps you can educate me on where I misread the intent of his post

 

[Richard B99]

I am talking more of the Instagram-style shots a mobile phone camera can take.

If I'm taking instagram-style shots a mobile phone can take I use a mobile phone with jpeg output.

Anything else is a DSLR or a Sony RX100 iii and RAW depending on the subject.

 

[Dennis]

I generally dislike attempts to analogize camera usage to driving cars, but if you really must do it, then the better analogy would be to say it's like buying a Corvette with a power-sapping economy mode option and always driving it with that option just to save gas money.

The differences in our analogies simply show that we believe different things about jpeg versus raw. You suggest that the compromise in IQ you make by shooting jpeg is great enough that it might be worth shooting with a phone instead. To me, that's ridiculous. Professionals in many fields shoot jpegs all the time. You're not going to find wedding photographers, or sports photographers streaming images to their publishers, saying "you know, I might as well just use a phone, since I'm already shooting jpeg".

Take an average hobbyist using a DSLR or mirrorless and then a sampling of his pictures ... you might have portraits, sports, events, street, underwater, wildlife, birds, most anything. Slow shutter speed waterscapes on a tripod, handheld stuff requiring IS, action shots at 1/1000s and high ISO, stuff focused carefully, stuff focused quickly.

Take all those pictures shot in raw and processed carefully and print them.

Take a similar batch of pictures taken in jpeg and print them.

Take a batch of pictures shot with an iPhone and print them.

Then try convincing any photographer that shooting jpeg is anywhere close to as big a compromise as shooting with a phone.

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

 

[asr10user]

JPG at home. Raw +JPG for travel/work. Shouldn't be complicated.

 

[Dennis]

I didn't say otherwise. I said that "envelope" has narrowed. The "convenience" side of the equation is no longer mostly about JPEG vs raw, it's about mobile phone vs any dedicated camera.

So here's how I look at that. The average person was never an ILC user anyway, but someone shooting with a p&s - back in the day, maybe they shot with disposables. The phone obsoleted the p&s for most by being more convenient. The compromise isn't in IQ at all ... people are getting far, far better pictures out of their phones than they used to get in 4x6 prints from Gold Max out of a disposable or a p&s with an f/9-f/12 zoom lens. The compromises are mostly in what they shoot, going from digicams with 3x zooms to fixed focal length lenses. That's likely to change, but people have already been willing to make that compromise.

When we're talking about people still shooting dedicated cameras, these are people who want something more than phones offer. It might be IQ for some. Zoom range for others. Ergonomics, whatever. Something that phones don't offer. And at the top of this pyramid you have the enthusiasts who shoot raw. I'm sure that anyone shooting raw today could switch to in-camera jpegs tomorrow and consider that a trivial compromise compared to shooting with a phone.

I see no overlap between the decision to use a phone versus camera and the decision to shoot raw or jpeg. Your exact quote was:

There is an ever-narrowing envelope for bothering with dragging around a dedicated camera and consciously compromising its IQ by exposing for and shooting JPEG.

and I don't see what jpeg has to do with it. I can't imagine any case where it's better to shoot something with a camera than with a phone, but only if you shoot it in raw. If it's better to use a camera, it's better whether you shoot raw or jpeg.

• Dennis
  --
  Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

 

[fedway]

Seems you already answered your own question. As for me, I shoot in raw always with my dedicated cameras. I shoot in jpeg with my phone then adjust them anyway in Snapseed. As you know there is a fair scope of adjustment that you can do with jpegs especially if your viewing media are smartphone and tablet screens. However. once you try to print or view on a 27in monitor or 55in 4k TV an adjusted jpeg the result can be bad.

I find that most sooc jpegs that I shoot with my Nikon, Sony or Olympus bodies do not come out as good as I can make from a raw file. Maybe 5% come out just fine but it depends on your taste really. If you are fine with the sooc jpeg from your camera then carry-on and don't worry about other people's practices.

 

[GossCTP]

First of all, I'm not talking about difficult shots that require high DR or high ISO or... I am talking more of the Instagram-style shots a mobile phone camera can take. I personally used to shoot RAW-only, adjusting the colors a bit later. However, I begin thinking, that I just waste my time converting the majority of shots from RAW, as the auto-WB is mostly correct and I still have the ability to "play" with colors and adjust them.

Like you, I used to shoot RAW back when I was unhappy with the jpeg output of my camera. I upgraded my DSLR and found the jpegs and auto white balance much better and kind of got lazy.

The best argument I can see for always shooting raw right now pertains to the future of displays. Modern sensors can capture a wider gamut than any current display tech that I am aware of. Once 4k is ubiquitous and 8k fails to take off, manufacturers are going to have to go for wider gamut displays with greater saturation. It would really stand out on the display floor, which is what every company wants to do in a bricks and mortar environment. The current jpeg color spaces do not support such gamuts, so new ones with greater bit depth will be necessary. If you have raw photos then you will be able to redevelop them and see them anew with more vivid colors than ever before. If you only have the jpegs, then that info is lost and the photos will not look any better on the new displays.