Any reason not to shoot in RAW only?

[AESamuel]

Hey,

I am currently using a fujifilm X10 in JPEG+RAW but I have read that shooting RAW only will be faster. I have also found that I am importing my RAW's into Lightroom and leaving the JPEGs alone. Is there any reason I shouldn't shoot in RAW only?

Cheers,
Asa

 

[niv2]

None at all.

 

[viewfromthenorth]

Depends if you want to do an element of post processing on every shot you take. Personally I'm very happy with the X10's jpegs and don't tend to use raw at all, although it's not my primary camera so the stuff I use it for isn't stuff I want to spend time working on.

 

[specialman]

You've pretty much answered your own question - if you don't touch the JPEGs then just shoot in raw.

I suppose in a general sense, one time when people would work solely in JPEGs would be if raw limits their ability to shooting in a burst (because of write speeds) or when the shots have to be transferred quickly, say to an agency, or uploaded directly to a sales website. I take it you're not doing ether of those.....

 

[markmullen]

No reason at all, I always shoot in raw only, no need to fill your drive with extra jpegs if you're not going to use them.

 

[simonblue]

I would say no reason,most people who shoot both raw & j-peg,say need the jpeg file,so that it can be if need be,used or sent of quickly

 

[mrjames]

I shoot semi professionally and have nearly 300gb of RAW files, with a 10mp 1dmk3, had I been shooting with a d800 i'd have well over 1tb of raw files, that's one reason not to shoot in raw...


edit: misread the question, yeah just shoot in RAW- jpeg+raw is for journalist who need to get the photos to the paper using their mobile internet, while archiving the RAW files

 

[MartynK]

Agreed. I shot raw + JPEG for a while but only use raw now. It works very well for me, but it's not a deal breaker, and you're not giving up anything by saving the images to both formats.

There's more controversy on these forums about shooting JPEG only.

 

[AESamuel]

Thanks a lot for all the replies!

Yes it does sound like I made my own mind up doesn't it! I just wanted to be sure I wasn't missing out on anything before making the switch.

Thanks again,
Asa

 

[magicaxeman]

The only time I have found it of benefit to shoot JPG was when I needed to rattle of a lot of shots very fast... the shooting rate of most camera's tends to be lower with raw files than jpg's due to the raws larger file size..
But in that situation you would only shoot jpg, not both

 

[macvisual]

I shoot 100% J-Peg. Suits me fine. No duplicating files and long time spent at the computer = result.

 

[bensambrook]

I've never shot RAW before but I tend to tweak nearly every image in PS before uploading to Flickr. I'm guessing it will probably be worth while me shooting RAW only instead?

 

[philthejuggler]

I've never shot RAW before but I tend to tweak nearly every image in PS before uploading to Flickr. I'm guessing it will probably be worth while me shooting RAW only instead?

Yes!

 

[Noah_]

I'm in an identical frame of mind as the original poster ~ shooting in RAW & JPEG but pretty much leaving the JPEGs untouched lately. I'm definitely beginning to get to grips with RAW shooting recently so it might be an idea to make the decision to shoot in RAW alone.

 

[KIPAX]

I used RAW once.. couldnt see the point..

 

[Noah_]

I used RAW once.. couldnt see the point..

Photography's personal & it's all about personal preferrances which tools we prefer to use :}

 

[KIPAX]

Photography's personal & it's all about personal preferrances which tools we prefer to use :}

Correct... and I tried it.. didnt see the point so stuck wiht JPG ...

Sorry..didn't quite see your point ?

 

[Lbm]

I just shoot RAW now.

It used to be just jpeg.

For me, if I need to email or upload a jpeg, only then do

I do a conversion.

If not, I can see all my Raw files presented as a Jpeg in Lightroom.

With batch processing available, it takes no time to pp any shots taken in Raw.

 

[KIPAX]

With batch processing available, it takes no time to pp any shots taken in Raw.

Yeagh I think the old excuse of takes too long is a bit.. well old now... software has come on leaps and bounds and its just as easy and quick to process raw..

 

[Noah_]

Correct... and I tried it.. didnt see the point so stuck with JPG ...

Sorry..didn't quite see your point ?

Just that we posted two different answers to the original posters' question & I thought that it was a decent example of how personal prefferances come into deciding which to shoot in or both, so there are no reasons why one should or shouldn't choose to stick with only RAW. I think it's interesting when different individuals have different experiences.

 

[KIPAX]

Just that we posted two different answers to the original posters' question .

right... makes sense now... didnt when you only quoted mine

 

[HoppyUK]

Isn't the whole point of JPEGs that you don't have to use a computer to post process at all? There are many advantages to that, though not as many as there used to be (when memory was expensive).

But if you're going to upload and post process them anyway, then you might as well leave all the options open and shoot Raw.

 

[Noah_]

Oops ignore this post, mistake on la iPhone!

 

[Iris]

Is there any reason you can't just shoot jpeg?

I tend to shoot in raw if it's for someone else or a landscape but jpeg if I'm pottering about with the kids at the park or things like that

 

[MartynK]

Is there any reason you can't just shoot jpeg?

I tend to shoot in raw if it's for someone else or a landscape but jpeg if I'm pottering about with the kids at the park or things like that

There's no reason at all why you can't just shoot JPEGs - most compacts don't give you any choice, and you can set up the camera the way you prefer and edit the images if you want to. A lot of people choose raw though, because it retains all the information in the file, gives you more flexibility in post processing and it's very easy to alter the white balance.

It's completely up to you, but there have been a lot of arguments on these forums about it. Probably right up there with the question of using UV filters for protection. I don't understand why people get so agitated about it, just do use whatever suits you best.

 

[Steve82]

Its totally your choice depending on whether you want to PP all your images or not. Personally I only shoot RAW as I quite like the editing process and the flexibility of RAW.

 

[KIPAX]

But if you're going to upload and post process them anyway, then you might as well leave all the options open and shoot Raw.

If your prolific an shoot thousands of pictures a week as I do then space does become an issue.. cards and HD .. yes you can buy more.. but .. also why? i dont need RAW to straighten horizons and hit auto this/that

I dont use RAW because i dont need RAW but i do need fast shooting to cards and as much space as I can..

I really hope people dont take this the wrong way and its not meant to sound as bad as I know some of you are going to read it... I am even thinking of not asking this but ...nagh thats not me.....

RAW Shooters...Are all your pictures so bad that you need to do so much work on them ?

Sorry... I know some people are going to take that the wrong way ...but hey ho

 

[MikeDB]

I use both though not at the same time. It's no different than changing ISO or any other setting on your camera, use what you need to get the result you want.

Mike

 

[HoppyUK]

If your prolific an shoot thousands of pictures a week as I do then space does become an issue.. cards and HD .. yes you can buy more.. but .. also why? i dont need RAW to straighten horizons and hit auto this/that

I dont use RAW because i dont need RAW but i do need fast shooting to cards and as much space as I can..

I really hope people dont take this the wrong way and its not meant to sound as bad as I know some of you are going to read it... I am even thinking of not asking this but ...nagh thats not me.....

RAW Shooters...Are all your pictures so bad that you need to do so much work on them ?

Sorry... I know some people are going to take that the wrong way ...but hey ho

Very valid points Tony. I think that in general sports professionals and press guys tend to shoot JPEG as they generate vast numbers of images and can't be doing with anything that slows down the camera or delays remote wireless upload times.

It's also true that you can do far more to a decent JPEG than many folks seem to believe. There is still considerable scope to adjust colour and exposure. It's not set in stone at all.

The turning point for me was when I got Lightroom. I've never got on with any post processing software before, but lightroom is a) so easy and intuitive, b) allows you to do things like lift shadows and retain highlights so easily, and that usually improves even the best exposures IMHO, c) LR is lossless, d) LR is a complete image management package.

LR has transformed the way I work. I now shoot Raw, using ETTR technique, all the time - and my output has improved in way that JPEGs can't match. LR is really cheap now they've halved the price to £100. Download a free 30 days trial here https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/tdrc/index.cfm?product=photoshop_lightroom

 

[KIPAX]

The turning point for me was when I got Lightroom.

you might laugh... i tried lightroom.. whatever my thoughts on anything.. i will always try... but i couldnt even get to grips wiht the file handling... I am used to photoshop... heres the files.. load and save.. for RAW i used BIBBLE PRO .. heres the files.. load and save..

LR I couldnt figure out what the heck it was doing.. wheres my files? I cant handle libraries.. no idea I just want to load and save.. plus the interface mad eit look like i was using a toy but thats just me the file handling got me and put me off..

 

[Photodiva]

RAW Shooters...Are all your pictures so bad that you need to do so much work on them ?

I think its more about 'developing' your own picture, rather like in darkroom days. Not about letting the camera do it all. Doesn't fit the sports shooter workflow, but does for other genre.

you might laugh... i tried lightroom.. whatever my thoughts on anything.. i will always try... but i couldnt even get to grips wiht the file handling... I am used to photoshop... heres the files.. load and save.. for RAW i used BIBBLE PRO .. heres the files.. load and save..

LR I couldnt figure out what the heck it was doing.. wheres my files? I cant handle libraries.. no idea I just want to load and save.. plus the interface mad eit look like i was using a toy but thats just me the file handling got me and put me off..

I agree about Lightroom. I have it, couldn't figure it out! And I don't think I'm a dummy when it comes to learning software. One day I'll try again ... :bonk:

 

[redhed17]

RAW Shooters...Are all your pictures so bad that you need to do so much work on them ?

Sorry... I know some people are going to take that the wrong way ...but hey ho

No, my pictures are not that bad that I 'need' to drastically change or do loads of work on eevery one. But, I want the option to. And a RAW file gives me more latitude for changes with the least degradation to the image.

I think most of your images are in context to your work, where as you said, speed is of primary concern, and computer space is a resource you want to fill up as slowly as possible. You want to record what is/was in front of you. The more accurate you can be at capture, the less work there is for you after the fact. I know that 'should' be the aim of every Photographer, but my livelihood is not governed by how quickly my workflow is. :shrug: Once taken, I would imagine the images are left with minimal editing, bar lighten/darken/sharpen/colour correct/crop until you put them on your website, or somebody wishes to buy them. I may be wrong. You also aim to sell as many pictures as possible, so all need to be as close to perfect with the least amount of processing just in case you need to sell them all. If I go out taking pictures, say on holiday, and I wander round taking 300+ images, I may be changing all manner of settings while experimenting, and so there may not be the consistancy of a sporting event. If I get 10-20 captures that I want to turn into images from RAW files it's a good day. I don't need them all to be print quality, so I only process the 10-20. They can have the time spent on them, if needed. All 300+ don't need to be ready to print. :shrug:

Also, your aim is to show the reality of the sporting event, and any artistic interpretation (should there be any) is done with creative use of exposure and composition rather than changing the reality of the situation which is normally a no no :nono: for Sports and Journalism, and to a lesser extent, Landscape Photographers.

For those of us that are not Sports Photographers or Journalists, we can do what we want. :shrug: If I want to enhance a sky with colour or add drama with large amounts of contrast or whatever, I can, it's for my pleasure. Nobody is buying my pictures, nobody is in my pictures (that I expect to purchase because of that) and so can't say 'it didn't look like that', so I can process or edit to what I think I want the picture to look like, either reality as I remembered it, or a reality I wanted it to be. I'm not saying that I'm making huge changes to all of my images, but if I do, I have more lattitude for changes with a RAW file.


Use whatever format gives you the options that you want. Or use both. It's not as if you're wasting film and spending loads of money.

 

[KIPAX]

I agree about Lightroom. I have it, couldn't figure it out! And I don't think I'm a dummy when it comes to learning software. One day I'll try again ... :bonk:

I thought it was maybe an age thing for me... like what i like ... spent too many years learning new technology and now i just wanna use stuff.. not have to jump through hoops

 

[KIPAX]

For those of us that are not Sports Photographers or Journalists, we can do what we want. :shrug: If I want to enhance a sky with colour or add drama with large amounts of contrast or whatever, I can, it's for my pleasure.

top answer...I didnt think of it like that You have enlightened me...ta..

 

[fracster]

I thought it was maybe an age thing for me... like what i like ... spent too many years learning new technology and now i just wanna use stuff.. not have to jump through hoops

Amen to that. Tried lightroom so many times and ,other than when I have loads to do at once,quickly, I really don`t like it.

 

[MatBin]

I thought it was maybe an age thing for me... like what i like ... spent too many years learning new technology and now i just wanna use stuff.. not have to jump through hoops

According to EOS magazine the 1dMk4 Jpegs are a bit different to other Canon body Jpegs, that might be another reason why you dont feel you need to shoot in RAW, the Mk4 files are apparently configured specifically for the pros who shoot in Jpeg mode, one thing being they are sharper than on other bodies. As you shoot a 1DMk4 you might be getting a "better" (in terms of IQ etc) image straight out of the camera than others.

Matt

 

[redhed17]

you might laugh... i tried lightroom.. whatever my thoughts on anything.. i will always try... but i couldnt even get to grips wiht the file handling... I am used to photoshop... heres the files.. load and save.. for RAW i used BIBBLE PRO .. heres the files.. load and save..

LR I couldnt figure out what the heck it was doing.. wheres my files? I cant handle libraries.. no idea I just want to load and save.. plus the interface mad eit look like i was using a toy but thats just me the file handling got me and put me off..

When I've used LightRoom I never bother with the file handling. I know where my files are, I'll browse to find them. I was aware that I wasn't even scratching the surface of what the file handling options are, but I used what I needed. I mainly use Adobe Bridge and Adobe Camera Raw, and I treated LR like that, which at its most basic, is what it is.

I stopped using LR because of its implementation of straightening, which is just not as good as ACR. :bang: Plus it's a duplication of the programs I have and use them.

According to EOS magazine the 1dMk4 Jpegs are a bit different to other Canon body Jpegs, that might be another reason why you dont feel you need to shoot in RAW, the Mk4 files are apparently configured specifically for the pros who shoot in Jpeg mode, one thing being they are sharper than on other bodies. As you shoot a 1DMk4 you might be getting a "better" (in terms of IQ etc) image straight out of the camera than others.

Matt

On all DSLRs you can alter the in camera amount of Sharpening (amongst other things) applied to the Jpeg as part of the Picture Style, or whatever it's called by different manufacturers. Whether the 1DIV is doing anything above and beyond that is another thing. :shrug:

I've read reviews of some cameras where they have advised that the Sharpening be turned down because it was set too high in the factory.

Another reason why, if you have the time and the inclination, shooting RAW is a positive, because you apply the amount of sharpening to the image, and not just a preset amount, which may or may not need to be sharpened again. :shrug:

 

[HoppyUK]

<snip>

I agree about Lightroom. I have it, couldn't figure it out! And I don't think I'm a dummy when it comes to learning software. One day I'll try again ... :bonk:

Amen to that. Tried lightroom so many times and ,other than when I have loads to do at once,quickly, I really don`t like it.

That's interesting - can't get on with LightRoom! And I respect you both. It can't be an age thing Tony, if I can use it

One thing that puzzled me at first, you don't save anything with LR! Spent ages looking for that save button LOL

You upload files, and they're automatically saved in their native state. Adjustments are made and automatically listed and saved on a separate file as you go, then only applied to the native file when you output - with whatever adjustments were set when you last tweaked it. That's how it always stays lossless. Brilliant system

 

[HoppyUK]

According to EOS magazine the 1dMk4 Jpegs are a bit different to other Canon body Jpegs, that might be another reason why you dont feel you need to shoot in RAW, the Mk4 files are apparently configured specifically for the pros who shoot in Jpeg mode, one thing being they are sharper than on other bodies. As you shoot a 1DMk4 you might be getting a "better" (in terms of IQ etc) image straight out of the camera than others.

Matt

Hmmm... Not heard that before

 

[MartynK]

One thing that puzzled me at first, you don't save anything with LR! Spent ages looking for that save button LOL

You upload files, and they're automatically saved in their native state. Adjustments are made and automatically listed and saved on a separate file as you go, then only applied to the native file when you output - with whatever adjustments were set when you last tweaked it. That's how it always stays lossless. Brilliant system

I struggled with LR ever time I tried it, but made a bit more effort when I downloaded the beta of LR4, and I decided that I like it after all. It still puzzles me a bit though. Could you explain how the upload and application of the adjustments works? I assume the original raw files aren't touched, or can be restored to their original state? Thanks.