Must I shoot in raw?

[travelfoodphoto]

I just bought a Z50 with the 2 kit lenses. I'm an experienced photographer, but have used small sensor cameras for the past decade as I've travelled a lot and didn't want the hassle of carrying cameras/lenses.

I'm likely to spend most of my time now around home in California. I shoot primarily outdoors and during the day, landscapes, architecture, flowers, birds street stuff. I don't print much and view on my 27" 5K iMac. I don't pixel peep but am quite serious about good IQ. One of the reasons I bought the Nikon Z50 is that I've read how good Nikon colors are and how good the jpegs are OOC. I'm fine doing a bit of post processing, but hope well composed and well exposed images will look quite good without having to shoot in raw or raw/jpeg.

Your input and experience shooting jpeg and or jpeg/raw with Nikon cropped sensor cameras would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

TFP

An example of 3 of my better images, shot with small sensor cameras, minimal jpeg processing.


Cotswolds, England


Chianti, Italy



Iris with dew

 

[Jrobe]

I always shoot with RAW + JPEG so I have both. There is no downside for me and I always have the RAW image for the 5% of the time that I use it.

 

[travelfoodphoto]

I always shoot with RAW + JPEG so I have both. There is no downside for me and I always have the RAW image for the 5% of the time that I use it.

Thanks, so may I interpret that 95% of the time you are satisfied with the jpeg output?

Thanks,

TFP

 

[PLShutterbug]

Nice images!

JPG is a lossy format: it prioritizes smaller file sizes by analyzing the image and throwing away some data that is close to other data. That is a gross oversimplification, but I hope you and others realize what it means. You end up not having all of the information the sensor saw.

Additionally, since JPG re-analyzes the image data every time you save, each editing session will result in a degraded image compared with the last unless every editing session starts with the JPG the camera originally delivered. It’s the old problem of each copy of a copy looking worse.

Finally, JPG is an 8-bit storage format meaning you have far fewer gradations from no data to saturation (think: white to black) (only 256) per pixel, so you can see color banding in some images. I just looked at my Z7 reference guide, and it says it encodes in JPG-baseline format. I don’t know what that means.

If you really only look at your images on a display, and you really only do one-time light editing of your images, JPG will be fine and save you space on your storage medium.

My workflow has evolved so I always shoot in RAW unless I am know for sure I will not care about the quality of the images, for instance for samples to illustrate something in a post here. I also cull images more than I used to and end up with a fraction of those taken. This reduces space requirements. Then I edit lightly in NX Studio for things I pass to friends, and in Affinity Photo or Photoshop for images I intend to print. The 14-bit images I get with RAW provide a richer palette to start from.

I hope this helps.

 

[PerL]

I just bought a Z50 with the 2 kit lenses. I'm an experienced photographer, but have used small sensor cameras for the past decade as I've travelled a lot and didn't want the hassle of carrying cameras/lenses.

I'm likely to spend most of my time now around home in California. I shoot primarily outdoors and during the day, landscapes, architecture, flowers, birds street stuff. I don't print much and view on my 27" 5K iMac. I don't pixel peep but am quite serious about good IQ. One of the reasons I bought the Nikon Z50 is that I've read how good Nikon colors are and how good the jpegs are OOC. I'm fine doing a bit of post processing, but hope well composed and well exposed images will look quite good without having to shoot in raw or raw/jpeg.

Your input and experience shooting jpeg and or jpeg/raw with Nikon cropped sensor cameras would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

TFP

An example of 3 of my better images, shot with small sensor cameras, minimal jpeg processing.

Iris with dew

I shot lots of images with my Z50 for my pleasure in jpeg only and tweak those very little, often not at all.

 

[travelfoodphoto]

Nice images!

JPG is a lossy format: it prioritizes smaller file sizes by analyzing the image and throwing away some data that is close to other data. That is a gross oversimplification, but I hope you and others realize what it means. You end up not having all of the information the sensor saw.

Additionally, since JPG re-analyzes the image data every time you save, each editing session will result in a degraded image compared with the last unless every editing session starts with the JPG the camera originally delivered. It’s the old problem of each copy of a copy looking worse.

Finally, JPG is an 8-bit storage format meaning you have far fewer gradations from no data to saturation (think: white to black) (only 256) per pixel, so you can see color banding in some images. I just looked at my Z7 reference guide, and it says it encodes in JPG-baseline format. I don’t know what that means.

If you really only look at your images on a display, and you really only do one-time light editing of your images, JPG will be fine and save you space on your storage medium.

My workflow has evolved so I always shoot in RAW unless I am know for sure I will not care about the quality of the images, for instance for samples to illustrate something in a post here. I also cull images more than I used to and end up with a fraction of those taken. This reduces space requirements. Then I edit lightly in NX Studio for things I pass to friends, and in Affinity Photo or Photoshop for images I intend to print. The 14-bit images I get with RAW provide a richer palette to start from.

I hope this helps.

Thank, I greatly appreciate your response. I did know all that you stated, but the real question is, do you think any of my displayed images would have been significantly better when viewed on a high quality monitor if they were shot and processed in raw? I actually posted the foggy castle image on a board or two a couple of years ago (after it won photo of the day at Imaging-Resources) and asked that question, and the vast majority of responses were no, it wouldn't, other than noise reduction.

My hope is that with a much better sensor (Z50 vs small sensor fixed zoom lens cameras I previously used) than I am used to using, the jpeg images I produce with good exposure and composition (my responsibility as a photographer) will be very acceptable in most situations and that raw shot and processed images will really not be noticeably better in most circumstances unless one pixel peeps.

Hope I'm correct, and thanks for the kind words on the images posted as examples.

Best,

TFP

 

[michaeladawson]

"Must I shoot in RAW?" The answer should be an obvious "of course not".

But the answer is going to depend on what you ultimate goal is. If you want the highest IQ possible, regardless of how you get there, then yes you need to shoot in raw.

Some images will need better processing than will be accomplished in-camera. You can do most of the same edits in post processing on a jpeg, but the results will not be as good. Most of the time most people won't be able to tell the difference. But the difference is there.

However, I've seen plenty of images out there where people shoot in raw but they really don't know what they're doing in post processing. These images can end up looking worse than if they just shot jpeg in the first place and let Nikon do the post processing.

The bottom line is what do you want out of your photographs? How much time do you want to put into post processing, how are you going to view them, etc.?

If you're an experienced photographer I suspect you already know the answer to these questions.

 

[michaeladawson]

Nice images!

JPG is a lossy format: it prioritizes smaller file sizes by analyzing the image and throwing away some data that is close to other data. That is a gross oversimplification, but I hope you and others realize what it means. You end up not having all of the information the sensor saw.

Additionally, since JPG re-analyzes the image data every time you save, each editing session will result in a degraded image compared with the last unless every editing session starts with the JPG the camera originally delivered. It’s the old problem of each copy of a copy looking worse.

That's true but it isn't quite accurate without a fuller explanation. It depends totally on what program you are using.

If you use Lightroom or ACR you can open the jpeg as many times as you want and continue to make edits. The original file is left unchanged. It's only when you actually save all of your edits to a new jpeg file and then open that file for further editing that you are losing quality.

You are technically correct in what you said. But the point is that LR and ACR do not save the actual jpeg file each time you edit it.

 

[BasilG]

It is not that you "must" - you can get perfectly fine output from JPEGs. However, RAW gives you a lot more options in post processing and more latitude for larger adjustments without visible image degradation (e.g. posterisation). I suggest you try it, and if you like it, you will keep doing it. For me, once I started shooting RAW, there was no way back because I saw the benefits immediately.

 

[dacrema]

I always shoot RAW. But I work at getting the picture I want right in camera. I do post with NX Studio and most often only change from Neutral to Landscape, Vivid or some other mode. That could be done in camera. So to answer your question I vote no. As long as you like the photos what does it mater what others say.

Nice colors!

 

[Bob A L]

Personal opinions will run rampant here I'm sure. Personal opinion for sure is what I can offer. My take NO, absolutely no reason in the world to shoot raw with modern equipment that just continues to produce better and better images straight from the camera. That added to the fact that many of the newer cameras have availability of much more ways to adjust the in-camera processing to the operators personal preferences if they wish. I have never felt the need to shoot raw, but the newest camera I have (Nikon Zfc) gives me even more reason to never consider raw. It has much more flexibility for operator customization if desired, and in-camera processing is so much more advanced to give huge increases in high iso image quality without need for post processing.

I honestly believe that some of those who refuse to consider sooc jpeg processing are missing out on many of the advances in modern camera design.

 

[Big Bro]

I am interested in acquiring my 1st Nikon full frame system. This is one of my questions. I tend not doing a lot of post processing. How is Nikon's Jpeg (compare to Fuji)? Can Nikon do 10 bits EXIF instead of Jpeg? Thanks

 

[ANAYV]

Personal opinions will run rampant here I'm sure. Personal opinion for sure is what I can offer. My take NO, absolutely no reason in the world to shoot raw with modern equipment that just continues to produce better and better images straight from the camera. That added to the fact that many of the newer cameras have availability of much more ways to adjust the in-camera processing to the operators personal preferences if they wish. I have never felt the need to shoot raw, but the newest camera I have (Nikon Zfc) gives me even more reason to never consider raw. It has much more flexibility for operator customization if desired, and in-camera processing is so much more advanced to give huge increases in high iso image quality without need for post processing.

I honestly believe that some of those who refuse to consider sooc jpeg processing are missing out on many of the advances in modern camera design.

That last line is kinda funny to me.

Its shooting SOOC jpegs that are missing the full data and image quality.

Jpeg has to toss lots of info out, and also cooks the jpeg with in camera processing.

Those who shoot RAW have added options to process the image their way.

We can always process the already baked jpeg, so nothing missing there.

We just Also have the option to process differently....or wait a few years and process those RAW files, but with better software than in previous years. So our images have chance to look even better!

Quite a few of us have improved I.Q. from older cameras...just by processing the RAW files, only with better results.

My cameras all now can shoot at higher ISO that before, all because of improvements to the RAW conversion software.

At the end of the day, we have options.

Those shooting RAW dont miss anything...we can still produce the jpeg using Nikons software...but do have another option that SOOC jpeg shooters don't.

I like to control the outcome of my images. Nikon uses too much NR , and smears fine details like hair and feathers, when shooting jpeg.IMHO.

Those not taking time to learn to process RAW should not claim those who do are missing out, lol.

Seems the opposite is true.

Enjoy taking images.

Choosing to shoot RAW and process them is always optional.

I have done both, and after 20 + years shooting digital, RAW gives me the better results.

Its not for everyone, especially those not wanting to spend any more time after they take a photo.

One thing for sure, it seems we all will have a bit more time to shoot, as these doors will be here no more, after April 10th



ANAYV

 

[ANAYV]

Nice images!

JPG is a lossy format: it prioritizes smaller file sizes by analyzing the image and throwing away some data that is close to other data. That is a gross oversimplification, but I hope you and others realize what it means. You end up not having all of the information the sensor saw.

Additionally, since JPG re-analyzes the image data every time you save, each editing session will result in a degraded image compared with the last unless every editing session starts with the JPG the camera originally delivered. It’s the old problem of each copy of a copy looking worse.

Easy way around that. Just save using different name, and each save is not a recompression of the jpeg. Each only have one time compression and data loss.

ANAYV

Finally, JPG is an 8-bit storage format meaning you have far fewer gradations from no data to saturation (think: white to black) (only 256) per pixel, so you can see color banding in some images. I just looked at my Z7 reference guide, and it says it encodes in JPG-baseline format. I don’t know what that means.

If you really only look at your images on a display, and you really only do one-time light editing of your images, JPG will be fine and save you space on your storage medium.

My workflow has evolved so I always shoot in RAW unless I am know for sure I will not care about the quality of the images, for instance for samples to illustrate something in a post here. I also cull images more than I used to and end up with a fraction of those taken. This reduces space requirements. Then I edit lightly in NX Studio for things I pass to friends, and in Affinity Photo or Photoshop for images I intend to print. The 14-bit images I get with RAW provide a richer palette to start from.

I hope this helps.

 

[BasilG]

Personal opinions will run rampant here I'm sure. [...]

I honestly believe that some of those who refuse to consider sooc jpeg processing are missing out on many of the advances in modern camera design.

Prediction was spot on, I'd say.

 

[travelfoodphoto]

Personal opinions will run rampant here I'm sure. Personal opinion for sure is what I can offer. My take NO, absolutely no reason in the world to shoot raw with modern equipment that just continues to produce better and better images straight from the camera. That added to the fact that many of the newer cameras have availability of much more ways to adjust the in-camera processing to the operators personal preferences if they wish. I have never felt the need to shoot raw, but the newest camera I have (Nikon Zfc) gives me even more reason to never consider raw. It has much more flexibility for operator customization if desired, and in-camera processing is so much more advanced to give huge increases in high iso image quality without need for post processing.

I honestly believe that some of those who refuse to consider sooc jpeg processing are missing out on many of the advances in modern camera design.

That last line is kinda funny to me.

Its shooting SOOC jpegs that are missing the full data and image quality.

Jpeg has to toss lots of info out, and also cooks the jpeg with in camera processing.

Those who shoot RAW have added options to process the image their way.

We can always process the already baked jpeg, so nothing missing there.

We just Also have the option to process differently....or wait a few years and process those RAW files, but with better software than in previous years. So our images have chance to look even better!

Quite a few of us have improved I.Q. from older cameras...just by processing the RAW files, only with better results.

My cameras all now can shoot at higher ISO that before, all because of improvements to the RAW conversion software.

At the end of the day, we have options.

Those shooting RAW dont miss anything...we can still produce the jpeg using Nikons software...but do have another option that SOOC jpeg shooters don't.

I like to control the outcome of my images. Nikon uses too much NR , and smears fine details like hair and feathers, when shooting jpeg.IMHO.

Those not taking time to learn to process RAW should not claim those who do are missing out, lol.

Seems the opposite is true.

Enjoy taking images.

Choosing to shoot RAW and process them is always optional.

I have done both, and after 20 + years shooting digital, RAW gives me the better results.

Its not for everyone, especially those not wanting to spend any more time after they take a photo.

One thing for sure, it seems we all will have a bit more time to shoot, as these doors will be here no more, after April 10th



ANAYV

Hi ANAYV,

Hope you are well. I didn't want to bother you by writing you directly, as we've spoken about the Z50, and its ability to shoot birds with its short 50-250 zoom lens in the past.

Thanks for your input here and keep producing your excellent images. Perhaps what's most logical for me is just to begin by shooting jpeg/raw, learn enough about using a good raw editor and see if the difference in the end results is worth the extra time and effort, IMHO.

Very best,

Den, aka TFP

 

[Michael Firstlight]

I always shoot in RAW, but I put my clothes back on afterward.

Actually, I've always shot RAW+JPEG. If the JPEGS are good, it saves time to just use them and not process the RAW images. But I've been doing that since my Nikon D1x - back in 2021 - storage has always been plentiful and I am glad I did. With all of the advances in post-processing, I was able to go back and do an even better job on many images. Now it also depends on the value of your images. If I'm shooting something where the images are critical, the conditions are not always optimal - maybe a really important image is extreme in dynamic range and there's no matching the ability to recover shadows for example. Getting essential or valuable captures the best they can be is not always possible to do in-camera.

No, you don't have to shoot RAW, but if you are competent with RAW processing even good images can be even better with the latitude RAW provides over JPEG.

Finally if you shoot RAW and import your images into a non-destructive editing program like Lightrroom - you can always go back to the RAW original to reprocess an image for a different result or undo things you fouled up. I guess you could also make a copy of your JPEGs initially, but if you are going to do that, then why not just capture RAW+JPEG?

Mike

 

[tko]

I honestly believe that some of those who refuse to consider sooc jpeg processing are missing out on many of the advances in modern camera design.

I'm sure ChatGPT and others will bring even further advances. However, some of us like to think on our own.

For one thing, color science is a misnomer. Color depends on view and mind and feelings. Same with grain and sharpness and feel. Some photos are okay. Some need human input.

I think the OP is good enough to take advantage of raw or not, depending on his needs. His photos are good, 1 out of 10 might be made better by raw.

Feel free to respond in the form of photograph evidence, using you think stand out straight of of camera. Here are some photos I think benefited from raw.





























--
no, I won't return to read your witty reply!
professional cynic and contrarian: don't take it personally

500px

500px.com

 

[michaeladawson]

Nice images!

JPG is a lossy format: it prioritizes smaller file sizes by analyzing the image and throwing away some data that is close to other data. That is a gross oversimplification, but I hope you and others realize what it means. You end up not having all of the information the sensor saw.

Additionally, since JPG re-analyzes the image data every time you save, each editing session will result in a degraded image compared with the last unless every editing session starts with the JPG the camera originally delivered. It’s the old problem of each copy of a copy looking worse.

Easy way around that. Just save using different name, and each save is not a recompression of the jpeg. Each only have one time compression and data loss.

ANAYV

I'm not sure you meant exactly what you wrote. Saving under a different name is not going to help you if each time you open up the file you saved last, make changes, save to a new file. Then come back later, open the last saved file, repeat process.

If you do literally what you say then you will end up with significant data loss downstream.

The way around it is to use a program like LR or ACR to edit your jpeg files. Then all of the edits are not actually saved to the original jpeg file.

 

[BasilG]

Nice images!

JPG is a lossy format: it prioritizes smaller file sizes by analyzing the image and throwing away some data that is close to other data. That is a gross oversimplification, but I hope you and others realize what it means. You end up not having all of the information the sensor saw.

Additionally, since JPG re-analyzes the image data every time you save, each editing session will result in a degraded image compared with the last unless every editing session starts with the JPG the camera originally delivered. It’s the old problem of each copy of a copy looking worse.

Easy way around that. Just save using different name, and each save is not a recompression of the jpeg. Each only have one time compression and data loss.

If you save under different names and go back to the original for the next attempt (meaning you have to re-do all processing steps), this is correct. If you open your last edit, keep going, and save it under a new name, to then pick it up again, this will result in multiple compression cycles and you'll start accumulating artefacts.