JPEG or RAW, when/where/why

[RaysJ]

It really is very simple.

Shoot JPEG when the camera produced JPEGs meet your needs. Shoot RAW when additional processing is required in order to get the desired result. If you are not sure, shoot RAW+JPEG to hedge your bets.

.

People can argue all day about the additional options offered by raw. But that misses the fundamental point. Different photographers have different needs and goals.

For some photographers, in some situations, shooting JPEG is absolutely the right choice. For some photographers, in other situations, only raw will do.

The trick is knowing what situation you are in. Be wary of taking someone else's advice, as they may have different needs.

The camera produced JPEG may be the exact image one photographer wanted, yet it can be totally unacceptable to another.

.

The rule of thumb is that if you are happy with camera produced JPEGs, and they are meeting your needs, then you can shoot JPEG. If you are unhappy with camera JPEGs and you don't mind processing the images yourself, then shoot raw.

If you can't make up you mind, then shoot RAW+JPEG.

You may not know until after the image has been taken. So best to take both if you may use either. I'm glad l don't rely on JPEGs not being overexposured. I exposure to the right, so l want as much dynamic range as l can get. Most JPEG's are overexposed but most RAWs are not.

If that's something you worry about, then shoot raw.

However, if you are shooting JPEG, and don't run into that problem, then you are OK.

Now, one can argue that even if you are routinely happy with JPEG, you might run into a situation where you would benefit from having the raw file.

Part of that discussion should be a consideration of the consequences of not getting the shot. If you are shooting a one time, extraordinary event (such as a building being knocked down), then there is a significant downside to not getting the shot. If you are shooting a static subject in your studio, it may be trivial to change settings (or lighting) and reshoot.

In some situations the advantage of preventing an occasional missed shot does not warrant the additional overhead of shooting raw.

Again, if you happy with your results when shooting JPEG, then there is no need to change. Obviously, not everyone is happy with camera produced JPEGs.

.

By the way, some photographers prefer to fix things "in the camera" rather than in post processing.

For instance, suppose a shadow is too deep. Some photographers will shoot raw and lift the shadow in post processing. Other photographers may prefer to add additional light to the shadows before taking the shot. Of course, sometimes post processing isn't an option, and sometimes adding more light isn't an option.

There is no single workflow that is best for all situations. There are many reasonable workflows to choose from.

I shoot RAW all the time. I understand why some people only use JPEG, that is up to them.

Changing shadows is so easy in raw, takes seconds. I take photos outdoors, no chance using lighting, l would never use it any, l only use natural light.

 

[Michael Fryd]

Bringing this back to cameras, it's not a question of whether or not raw is "better". The question is whether the increase is enough to justify the increased overhead. The answer is going to depend on multiple factors, including the photographer's budget, his goals, and the abilities of his/her gear.

There is no much of an overhead with RAW. You need storage, which is cheap. You can generate JPEGs in batch mode if you do not want to process all the RAWs individually.

Yes, one can batch process raw files with the manufacturer's software and get JPEGs that are an exact match for camera produced JPEGs. Of course, if that is what you are doing, then you can save some steps by just shooting JPEG.

It's true that shooting raw gives you more options should you not like the in-camera JPEG. An important question is how often are you unhappy, and what are the consequences of those images not being to your liking?

If you rarely have an in-camera JPEG that you don't like, and the consequences of that are minor, then you may not need to shoot raw.

On the other hand, if you often find that you prefer to hand adjust, or it's a major problem if the JPEG has issues, then you may want to shoot raw.

I only shoot RAW + JPG occasionally, and that is when I need to deliver quick look images for slide show presentations at an event. But those get deleted after, and my RAW product is what gets delivered for posterity.

I suggest that if you want to preserve your images for posterity then you save a copy in a standard format such as TIFF or JPEG.

Raw files reflect the data reaching the sensor. Typically, they don't specify color for any single pixel in the image. Color is determined by how the data is processed. If you are using something like LightRoom, then your edits are not stored in the raw file. The raw file is unchanged, and your edits are stored separately. There is no guarantee that future versions of Lightroom will process the raw data the same way as the current version. If they roll improvements into Lightroom, then your old images may very well be processed under the new rules, resulting in an image that differs from what you wanted.

Actually, LR keeps the old processes as an option. Not that this is a consideration because, as I said, you can, and most likely will process your images shortly after the shootout.

It doesn't matter when you do the processing. If you only keep the raw, and not a JPEG or TIFF, then you need to maintain a working version of the software in order to get at the edited image.

Suppose Adobe decided to dramatically raise the subscription fees for their software. If you don't export a your image in a standard format. you may be locked out of your edited images unless you pay the price.

Perhaps you decide that you like a competing product, and want to move away from LightRoom. Do you want to continue paying Adobe just to maintain access to your images?

I am not saying that one shouldn't use LightRoom. All I am saying is that if you do want to preserve your carefully edited images for posterity, then you should export them to a standard format, and keep those.

This suggestion is in response to a comment that suggested to me that the author kept the raw files, but not JPEG or TIFF versions of his adjusted/edited images.

You also run the risk that in the future, Lightroom may no longer be supported and you won't be able to access any of your images.

That is why you should keep the RAWs, not RAWs converted to DNG.

Back when I had a darkroom, I would make manual adjustments when printing in the darkroom. I could dodge and burn to light/darken various parts of the image.

If I wanted to preserve my art for posterity, I would want to save a print, not just the negative. The negative was helpful if I wanted to make a new print (which would not be the same as the old one).

Keeping a JPEG/TIFF allows you to keep the result of your edits.

Keeping the raw file allows you to start fresh and redo your work. By keeping the raw file you have the otpion of creating a new image, that can vary wildly from previous versions.

Suppose I have a raw file of a backlit model at the beach. Working from the raw file I can create:

• an image where the model is in silhouette with a blue ocean behind her
• an image where the model looks good, and the ocean behind her is close to blown out
• an image where both the model and the ocean look good

If all I save is the raw file, posterity may not know which version is the one a printed.

I have some raw files taken 25 years ago with a Canon DSLR. Canon's dropped support for that camera, and their software will no longer open those raw files.

I just downloaded a RAW file from the first Canon dSLR, the D30, and DPP opened it without problems. The image is low resolution (pixel count) but it looks really good, BTW.

If you are keeping images for posterity, I strongly urge you to use a file format that actually specifies the color for every pixel in the file. Ideally, it should be a format that is common enough, that it is likely to be supported in the future.

That means tripling the file sizes without even keeping the original RAW data.

High quality JPEGs tend to be smaller than raw files. But you are correct in that saving everything takes up more resources.

This brings up an interesting question. If you can save only one version of an image, are you better off saving the original raw data, or the carefully edited image?

 

[Michael Fryd]

...

I shoot RAW all the time. I understand why some people only use JPEG, that is up to them.

Changing shadows is so easy in raw, takes seconds. I take photos outdoors, no chance using lighting, l would never use it any, l only use natural light.

There is nothing wrong with your workflow. If it works for you, then I see no reason for you to change it.

I disagree that everyone has the same set of skills and the same set of requirements. Things that you find easy or hard may not line up with what others find to be easy/hard.

Personally, I have no problem using reflectors (or perhaps flash) to fill shadows when shooting outdoors. I have no problem with using scrims to keep harsh sunlight off a model at the beach.

I've had jobs where I needed to shoot dozens of shots of model in various swimsuits for the swimsuit manufacturer's catalog. They wanted every model in the same pose in the same location. My choice was to use scrims, reflectors and flash so I didn't have to adjust shadows, etc. in post production.

Every situation is unique. I am not suggesting that this is what you should do. I am suggesting that your workflow is not the best for every situation. I don't deny that it might be the best for the situations you shoot in.

 

[J A C S]

Actually, LR keeps the old processes as an option. Not that this is a consideration because, as I said, you can, and most likely will process your images shortly after the shootout.

It doesn't matter when you do the processing. If you only keep the raw, and not a JPEG or TIFF, then you need to maintain a working version of the software in order to get at the edited image.

I cannot imagine why someone would keep RAW files only. I know that some people do that, and use LR to view their photos, but I cannot understand the rationale for that. I process all my RAWs and have JPEGs for viewing.

This brings up an interesting question. If you can save only one version of an image, are you better off saving the original raw data, or the carefully edited image?

Why would I have that option only? I do not view the RAWs as images, they are data files. The equivalent of the shoebox filled with negatives.

 

[GeoffRG]

Bringing this back to cameras, it's not a question of whether or not raw is "better". The question is whether the increase is enough to justify the increased overhead. The answer is going to depend on multiple factors, including the photographer's budget, his goals, and the abilities of his/her gear.

There is no much of an overhead with RAW. You need storage, which is cheap. You can generate JPEGs in batch mode if you do not want to process all the RAWs individually.

Yes, one can batch process raw files with the manufacturer's software and get JPEGs that are an exact match for camera produced JPEGs. Of course, if that is what you are doing, then you can save some steps by just shooting JPEG.

Er, not necessarily. I shoot with Nikon D5s in the years since the D5 was launched Nikon has improved the raw converter. It is entirely possible that the 2025 converter will do a better job than the version in the camera. That might also be true for the Z8 and Z9. Given that the conversion is achieved by an ASIC which can't be updated, only replaced, even a Z9 coming off the production line on Monday won't have the same raw converter as NX Studio 1.9.1.

 

[GeoffRG]

Actually, LR keeps the old processes as an option. Not that this is a consideration because, as I said, you can, and most likely will process your images shortly after the shootout.

It doesn't matter when you do the processing. If you only keep the raw, and not a JPEG or TIFF, then you need to maintain a working version of the software in order to get at the edited image.

I cannot imagine why someone would keep RAW files only. I know that some people do that, and use LR to view their photos, but I cannot understand the rationale for that. I process all my RAWs and have JPEGs for viewing.

You are aware that raw files contain an embedded JPEG?

This brings up an interesting question. If you can save only one version of an image, are you better off saving the original raw data, or the carefully edited image?

Why would I have that option only? I do not view the RAWs as images, they are data files. The equivalent of the shoebox filled with negatives.

 

[MimiVivi]

Since mirrorless camera EVFs give you a preview of the exact JPEG you're about to shoot before you shoot it, in most circumstances, you've got ample occasion to tailor the look of in-camera JPEGs (exposure? white balance? contrast? saturation? color balance? etc.) before you trip the shutter.

(I was about to begin this post with "Since modern mirrorless camera EVFs . . . " but I decided to drop the "modern" part because this power has been available to us for a long time--it's the way we were shooting Olympus OM-Ds in 2012 and Sony A7s in 2013, among others.)

Not that any of this was all that different in the late DSLR era. Rear system camera viewscreens have been pretty good for a long time. You shoot a test frame, take a look at it on the rear screen, change what's not working. (Is it bright out? Cup your hand into a visor around the screen or stand with your back to the sun.) Or you flip the DSLR into live-view, take a look at the live preview of the JPEG you're about to shoot on the rear viewscreen, change what's not working, then either shoot the photo right then and there in live-view or close live-view and snap it through the viewfinder with your newly-adjusted exposure / wb / JPEG settings. There's nothing wrong with shooting test frames or taking a live-view peep. I see the pros do it all the time. If you're worried about wasting precious seconds of a portrait subject's time (reasonable!), then just take a few seconds and do it before the subject shows up.

I imagine people will argue, "that doesn't work for grab shots," except that concert and sports photographers shoot reams and reams of grab-shot JPEGs they send out during and immediately after their events. They begin with test shots and sights to establish the venue, then plan ahead, watch for white balance / color / contrast changes as they develop, watch the light, keep track of the patterns, keep their minds in the game.

I'm probably writing something here that everyone already knows? Except that people here so often complain about shooting over-exposed / under-exposed results, or they complain about poor color balances from in-camera JPEGs. And when I see those posts, I always wonder: didn't the image look over- or under-exposed in the EVF during composition? Didn't the color look skunky there, too? If it looked bad, why shoot it? Why not change exposure or white balance or JPEG color options before tripping the shutter? Well, you wouldn't realize any of this was an option if you didn't fully understand what you're being shown by your what-you-see-is-what-you-get viewfinder or viewscreen. I suspect some people don't realize it, or, if they do, haven't really thought through what the perspective allows them to do.

None of this is a rejection of shooting RAW, by the way, which can allow you to shoot and process images in a myriad of useful and creative ways that simply aren't available through manufacturer on-camera JPEG approaches. I'm just pointing out that today's photographers have a whole lot of power to shape camera JPEGs to their liking, if that route's the way.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Bob A L]

It really is very simple.

Shoot JPEG when the camera produced JPEGs meet your needs. Shoot RAW when additional processing is required in order to get the desired result. If you are not sure, shoot RAW+JPEG to hedge your bets.

.

People can argue all day about the additional options offered by raw. But that misses the fundamental point. Different photographers have different needs and goals.

For some photographers, in some situations, shooting JPEG is absolutely the right choice. For some photographers, in other situations, only raw will do.

The trick is knowing what situation you are in. Be wary of taking someone else's advice, as they may have different needs.

The camera produced JPEG may be the exact image one photographer wanted, yet it can be totally unacceptable to another.

.

The rule of thumb is that if you are happy with camera produced JPEGs, and they are meeting your needs, then you can shoot JPEG. If you are unhappy with camera JPEGs and you don't mind processing the images yourself, then shoot raw.

If you can't make up you mind, then shoot RAW+JPEG.

Best answer so far.

 

[RaysJ]

Bringing this back to cameras, it's not a question of whether or not raw is "better". The question is whether the increase is enough to justify the increased overhead. The answer is going to depend on multiple factors, including the photographer's budget, his goals, and the abilities of his/her gear.

There is no much of an overhead with RAW. You need storage, which is cheap. You can generate JPEGs in batch mode if you do not want to process all the RAWs individually.

Yes, one can batch process raw files with the manufacturer's software and get JPEGs that are an exact match for camera produced JPEGs. Of course, if that is what you are doing, then you can save some steps by just shooting JPEG.

It's true that shooting raw gives you more options should you not like the in-camera JPEG. An important question is how often are you unhappy, and what are the consequences of those images not being to your liking?

If you rarely have an in-camera JPEG that you don't like, and the consequences of that are minor, then you may not need to shoot raw.

On the other hand, if you often find that you prefer to hand adjust, or it's a major problem if the JPEG has issues, then you may want to shoot raw.

I only shoot RAW + JPG occasionally, and that is when I need to deliver quick look images for slide show presentations at an event. But those get deleted after, and my RAW product is what gets delivered for posterity.

I suggest that if you want to preserve your images for posterity then you save a copy in a standard format such as TIFF or JPEG.

Raw files reflect the data reaching the sensor. Typically, they don't specify color for any single pixel in the image. Color is determined by how the data is processed. If you are using something like LightRoom, then your edits are not stored in the raw file. The raw file is unchanged, and your edits are stored separately. There is no guarantee that future versions of Lightroom will process the raw data the same way as the current version. If they roll improvements into Lightroom, then your old images may very well be processed under the new rules, resulting in an image that differs from what you wanted.

Actually, LR keeps the old processes as an option. Not that this is a consideration because, as I said, you can, and most likely will process your images shortly after the shootout.

It doesn't matter when you do the processing. If you only keep the raw, and not a JPEG or TIFF, then you need to maintain a working version of the software in order to get at the edited image.

Suppose Adobe decided to dramatically raise the subscription fees for their software. If you don't export a your image in a standard format. you may be locked out of your edited images unless you pay the price.

Perhaps you decide that you like a competing product, and want to move away from LightRoom. Do you want to continue paying Adobe just to maintain access to your images?

I am not saying that one shouldn't use LightRoom. All I am saying is that if you do want to preserve your carefully edited images for posterity, then you should export them to a standard format, and keep those.

This suggestion is in response to a comment that suggested to me that the author kept the raw files, but not JPEG or TIFF versions of his adjusted/edited images.

You also run the risk that in the future, Lightroom may no longer be supported and you won't be able to access any of your images.

That is why you should keep the RAWs, not RAWs converted to DNG.

Back when I had a darkroom, I would make manual adjustments when printing in the darkroom. I could dodge and burn to light/darken various parts of the image.

If I wanted to preserve my art for posterity, I would want to save a print, not just the negative. The negative was helpful if I wanted to make a new print (which would not be the same as the old one).

Keeping a JPEG/TIFF allows you to keep the result of your edits.

Keeping the raw file allows you to start fresh and redo your work. By keeping the raw file you have the otpion of creating a new image, that can vary wildly from previous versions.

Suppose I have a raw file of a backlit model at the beach. Working from the raw file I can create:

• an image where the model is in silhouette with a blue ocean behind her
• an image where the model looks good, and the ocean behind her is close to blown out
• an image where both the model and the ocean look good

If all I save is the raw file, posterity may not know which version is the one a printed.

I have some raw files taken 25 years ago with a Canon DSLR. Canon's dropped support for that camera, and their software will no longer open those raw files.

I just downloaded a RAW file from the first Canon dSLR, the D30, and DPP opened it without problems. The image is low resolution (pixel count) but it looks really good, BTW.

If you are keeping images for posterity, I strongly urge you to use a file format that actually specifies the color for every pixel in the file. Ideally, it should be a format that is common enough, that it is likely to be supported in the future.

That means tripling the file sizes without even keeping the original RAW data.

High quality JPEGs tend to be smaller than raw files. But you are correct in that saving everything takes up more resources.

This brings up an interesting question. If you can save only one version of an image, are you better off saving the original raw data, or the carefully edited image?

If you save as jpeg then you lose all the layers. You don't need LR to open PSD files. I use Photoshop CS6. I don't do subscriptions. So you think l should save all my edited PSD files as Tiffs? I would not save them as JPEGs.

DNG "You can also use the standalone Adobe DNG Converter to view them, and other image editors like GIMPand PaintShop Pro also support the format"

l save my Sony RAWs that have been converted by DxO, then l can open them in Photoshop.

You can open Raw files with many software programs.
lf l save only version of an image, l usually save the RAW. If l have that l can always rework that.

 

[Ysarex]

Since mirrorless camera EVFs give you a preview of the exact JPEG you're about to shoot before you shoot it, in most circumstances, you've got ample occasion to tailor the look of in-camera JPEGs (exposure? white balance? contrast? saturation? color balance? etc.) before you trip the shutter.

(I was about to begin this post with "Since modern mirrorless camera EVFs . . . " but I decided to drop the "modern" part because this power has been available to us for a long time--it's the way we were shooting Olympus OM-Ds in 2012 and Sony A7s in 2013, among others.)

Not that any of this was all that different in the late DSLR era. Rear system camera viewscreens have been pretty good for a long time. You shoot a test frame, take a look at it on the rear screen, change what's not working. (Is it bright out? Cup your hand into a visor around the screen or stand with your back to the sun.) Or you flip the DSLR into live-view, take a look at the live preview of the JPEG you're about to shoot on the rear viewscreen, change what's not working, then either shoot the photo right then and there in live-view or close live-view and snap it through the viewfinder with your newly-adjusted exposure / wb / JPEG settings. There's nothing wrong with shooting test frames or taking a live-view peep. I see the pros do it all the time. If you're worried about wasting precious seconds of a portrait subject's time (reasonable!), then just take a few seconds and do it before the subject shows up.

I imagine people will argue, "that doesn't work for grab shots," except that concert and sports photographers shoot reams and reams of grab-shot JPEGs they send out during and immediately after their events. They begin with test shots and sights to establish the venue, then plan ahead, watch for white balance / color / contrast changes as they develop, watch the light, keep track of the patterns, keep their minds in the game.

I'm probably writing something here that everyone already knows? Except that people here so often complain about shooting over-exposed / under-exposed results, or they complain about poor color balances from in-camera JPEGs. And when I see those posts, I always wonder: didn't the image look over- or under-exposed in the EVF during composition? Didn't the color look skunky there, too? If it looked bad, why shoot it? Why not change exposure or white balance or JPEG color options before tripping the shutter? Well, you wouldn't realize any of this was an option if you didn't fully understand what you're being shown by your what-you-see-is-what-you-get viewfinder or viewscreen. I suspect some people don't realize it, or, if they do, haven't really thought through what the perspective allows them to do.

None of this is a rejection of shooting RAW,

But if you're serious about saving raw files and getting the best quality out of them you don't want to rely on the WYSIWYG EVF image. The exposure you would set for a JPEG using the EVF display is almost never the best exposure for the raw file. See this post in this thread: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/68418784 Almost all of the JPEGs from my cameras have blown highlights and are basket cases of overexposure. That's one indication I've nailed the raw file exposure.

by the way, which can allow you to shoot and process images in a myriad of useful and creative ways that simply aren't available through manufacturer on-camera JPEG approaches. I'm just pointing out that today's photographers have a whole lot of power to shape camera JPEGs to their liking, if that route's the way.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[gary0319]

...

I shoot RAW all the time. I understand why some people only use JPEG, that is up to them.

Changing shadows is so easy in raw, takes seconds. I take photos outdoors, no chance using lighting, l would never use it any, l only use natural light.

There is nothing wrong with your workflow. If it works for you, then I see no reason for you to change it.

I disagree that everyone has the same set of skills and the same set of requirements. Things that you find easy or hard may not line up with what others find to be easy/hard.

Personally, I have no problem using reflectors (or perhaps flash) to fill shadows when shooting outdoors. I have no problem with using scrims to keep harsh sunlight off a model at the beach.

I've had jobs where I needed to shoot dozens of shots of model in various swimsuits for the swimsuit manufacturer's catalog. They wanted every model in the same pose in the same location. My choice was to use scrims, reflectors and flash so I didn't have to adjust shadows, etc. in post production.

Every situation is unique. I am not suggesting that this is what you should do. I am suggesting that your workflow is not the best for every situation. I don't deny that it might be the best for the situations you shoot in.

And not all camera JPEGS are the same. My Canon JPEGS weren’t anything like my Olympus JPEGS which, again, were different from my Lumix or Sony JPEGS. so any blanket statements about JPEG settings are of little value, IMO.

 

[RaysJ]

Since mirrorless camera EVFs give you a preview of the exact JPEG you're about to shoot before you shoot it, in most circumstances, you've got ample occasion to tailor the look of in-camera JPEGs (exposure? white balance? contrast? saturation? color balance? etc.) before you trip the shutter.

(I was about to begin this post with "Since modern mirrorless camera EVFs . . . " but I decided to drop the "modern" part because this power has been available to us for a long time--it's the way we were shooting Olympus OM-Ds in 2012 and Sony A7s in 2013, among others.)

Not that any of this was all that different in the late DSLR era. Rear system camera viewscreens have been pretty good for a long time. You shoot a test frame, take a look at it on the rear screen, change what's not working. (Is it bright out? Cup your hand into a visor around the screen or stand with your back to the sun.) Or you flip the DSLR into live-view, take a look at the live preview of the JPEG you're about to shoot on the rear viewscreen, change what's not working, then either shoot the photo right then and there in live-view or close live-view and snap it through the viewfinder with your newly-adjusted exposure / wb / JPEG settings. There's nothing wrong with shooting test frames or taking a live-view peep. I see the pros do it all the time. If you're worried about wasting precious seconds of a portrait subject's time (reasonable!), then just take a few seconds and do it before the subject shows up.

I imagine people will argue, "that doesn't work for grab shots," except that concert and sports photographers shoot reams and reams of grab-shot JPEGs they send out during and immediately after their events. They begin with test shots and sights to establish the venue, then plan ahead, watch for white balance / color / contrast changes as they develop, watch the light, keep track of the patterns, keep their minds in the game.

I'm probably writing something here that everyone already knows? Except that people here so often complain about shooting over-exposed / under-exposed results, or they complain about poor color balances from in-camera JPEGs. And when I see those posts, I always wonder: didn't the image look over- or under-exposed in the EVF during composition? Didn't the color look skunky there, too? If it looked bad, why shoot it? Why not change exposure or white balance or JPEG color options before tripping the shutter? Well, you wouldn't realize any of this was an option if you didn't fully understand what you're being shown by your what-you-see-is-what-you-get viewfinder or viewscreen. I suspect some people don't realize it, or, if they do, haven't really thought through what the perspective allows them to do.

None of this is a rejection of shooting RAW, by the way, which can allow you to shoot and process images in a myriad of useful and creative ways that simply aren't available through manufacturer on-camera JPEG approaches. I'm just pointing out that today's photographers have a whole lot of power to shape camera JPEGs to their liking, if that route's the way.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It does not work if you are using Bulb. Also on my camera the EVF and lcd are not good enough to see all those things. How would you change the WB? By the time you have done all that the photo has gone.



lf you underexpose so jpeg does not burn out, you will get more noise. More noise sharpened is not a good thing.

 

[RaysJ]

...

I shoot RAW all the time. I understand why some people only use JPEG, that is up to them.

Changing shadows is so easy in raw, takes seconds. I take photos outdoors, no chance using lighting, l would never use it any, l only use natural light.

There is nothing wrong with your workflow. If it works for you, then I see no reason for you to change it.

I disagree that everyone has the same set of skills and the same set of requirements. Things that you find easy or hard may not line up with what others find to be easy/hard.

Personally, I have no problem using reflectors (or perhaps flash) to fill shadows when shooting outdoors. I have no problem with using scrims to keep harsh sunlight off a model at the beach.

I've had jobs where I needed to shoot dozens of shots of model in various swimsuits for the swimsuit manufacturer's catalog. They wanted every model in the same pose in the same location. My choice was to use scrims, reflectors and flash so I didn't have to adjust shadows, etc. in post production.

Every situation is unique. I am not suggesting that this is what you should do. I am suggesting that your workflow is not the best for every situation. I don't deny that it might be the best for the situations you shoot in.

Well l don't shoot models. Some of my subjects are out in the sea, using reflectors and flash would not be any use. Anyway l don't need them. Flash for landscapes l don't think so.

l know a wedding photographer, he used flash for weddings but when he did travel photos, he never used it, he preferred natural lighting.

 

[Bob A L]

So for RAW you don't use the metering system in your camera? How does that work? Do you need to just estimate the exposure to shoot RAW?

 

[Michael Fryd]

Actually, LR keeps the old processes as an option. Not that this is a consideration because, as I said, you can, and most likely will process your images shortly after the shootout.

It doesn't matter when you do the processing. If you only keep the raw, and not a JPEG or TIFF, then you need to maintain a working version of the software in order to get at the edited image.

I cannot imagine why someone would keep RAW files only. I know that some people do that, and use LR to view their photos, but I cannot understand the rationale for that. I process all my RAWs and have JPEGs for viewing.

We agree.

My comment was directed at john isaacs who said: "I only shoot RAW + JPG occasionally, and that is when I need to deliver quick look images for slide show presentations at an event. But those get deleted after, and my RAW product is what gets delivered for posterity."

Perhaps I misinterpreted him. But my impression was that he keeps only his raw files. JPEGs are temporary files used for specific purposes then deleted.

If I misunderstood, then I apologize.

If indeed he only keeps raw files, then my recommendation stands. I suggest that he also keep JPEG, TIFF, or similar standard format versions of his edited images

This brings up an interesting question. If you can save only one version of an image, are you better off saving the original raw data, or the carefully edited image?

Why would I have that option only? I do not view the RAWs as images, they are data files. The equivalent of the shoebox filled with negatives.

 

[Michael Fryd]

Bringing this back to cameras, it's not a question of whether or not raw is "better". The question is whether the increase is enough to justify the increased overhead. The answer is going to depend on multiple factors, including the photographer's budget, his goals, and the abilities of his/her gear.

There is no much of an overhead with RAW. You need storage, which is cheap. You can generate JPEGs in batch mode if you do not want to process all the RAWs individually.

Yes, one can batch process raw files with the manufacturer's software and get JPEGs that are an exact match for camera produced JPEGs. Of course, if that is what you are doing, then you can save some steps by just shooting JPEG.

Er, not necessarily. I shoot with Nikon D5s in the years since the D5 was launched Nikon has improved the raw converter. It is entirely possible that the 2025 converter will do a better job than the version in the camera. That might also be true for the Z8 and Z9. Given that the conversion is achieved by an ASIC which can't be updated, only replaced, even a Z9 coming off the production line on Monday won't have the same raw converter as NX Studio 1.9.1.

Not every photographer considers technical perfection to be the major factor in judging an image.

If a photographer is happy with the JPEGs produced by his camera, why is it important that he go to extra effort to get a marginal improvement in quality? For many images the difference may be measurable, but not visible to the naked eye.

One can make a reasonable argument that if a change in workflow doesn't make a visible difference, then any quality improvement from that change is inconsequential.

 

[Michael Fryd]

Actually, LR keeps the old processes as an option. Not that this is a consideration because, as I said, you can, and most likely will process your images shortly after the shootout.

It doesn't matter when you do the processing. If you only keep the raw, and not a JPEG or TIFF, then you need to maintain a working version of the software in order to get at the edited image.

I cannot imagine why someone would keep RAW files only. I know that some people do that, and use LR to view their photos, but I cannot understand the rationale for that. I process all my RAWs and have JPEGs for viewing.

You are aware that raw files contain an embedded JPEG?

Some cameras embed a lower resolution JPEG in the raw file.

If you have edited/adjusted the image in LightRoom, those changes will not be reflected in the embedded JPEG.

 

[J A C S]

Actually, LR keeps the old processes as an option. Not that this is a consideration because, as I said, you can, and most likely will process your images shortly after the shootout.

It doesn't matter when you do the processing. If you only keep the raw, and not a JPEG or TIFF, then you need to maintain a working version of the software in order to get at the edited image.

I cannot imagine why someone would keep RAW files only. I know that some people do that, and use LR to view their photos, but I cannot understand the rationale for that. I process all my RAWs and have JPEGs for viewing.

You are aware that raw files contain an embedded JPEG?

Yes, and this changes nothing.

 

[Michael Fryd]

...

If you save as jpeg then you lose all the layers. You don't need LR to open PSD files. I use Photoshop CS6. I don't do subscriptions. So you think l should save all my edited PSD files as Tiffs? I would not save them as JPEGs.

DNG "You can also use the standalone Adobe DNG Converter to view them, and other image editors like GIMPand PaintShop Pro also support the format"

l save my Sony RAWs that have been converted by DxO, then l can open them in Photoshop.

You can open Raw files with many software programs.
lf l save only version of an image, l usually save the RAW. If l have that l can always rework that.

I think we both agree that if you have made edits or adjustments to the raw file, one should archive the edited file.

Whether or not one should save the raw and/or PhotoShop files is a different question. It all depends on your needs and situation.

Some photographers like to go back and revisit old images. For them it is helpful to save the raw file, the .PSD file, etc.

Other photographers like to move on. Once an image is finished, they have no interest in re-working it. Those that fall into that category may want to save only the final finished image.

Personally, When I am tempted to go back and edit old images, I usually find that my photographic skills have improved to the point where I now consider the old image not worth revisiting. But that could be all in my head. It may be that I haven't gotten better, but that my tastes have changed.

 

[Ysarex]

So for RAW you don't use the metering system in your camera? How does that work? Do you need to just estimate the exposure to shoot RAW?

The only component of the camera's metering system that I use is the highlight alert. My exposure goal is always to fully utilize the sensor if possible. I take one of two exposures: (preferred) Place the brightest diffuse highlight in the scene at the sensor's saturation threshold and click. If I can do that, and I usually can, then that is the best possible exposure. (fall back) When circumstances prohibit a best possible exposure (low light) I then fall back to expose as much as possible.