Do you shoot RAW or Jpeg?

M

Mike410

Suspended / Banned
Messages
134
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
No
Just curious to see how many people shoot in RAW vs Jpeg?
 
Jpeg at the moment but switching to RAW tomorrow for my class photoshoot.
 
If im taking pictures of my kids then its RAW as I want the best possible file at the end.
If im at a local football match then its large JPEG just because i may fire off 500 - 700 photos in one game and processing that many RAW files is horrendus
 
Raw for important keepers.:)
 
Depends what I'm shooting, if I'm helping my bro shoot equine (horse jumping) then jpeg for a quick turn around, keepers in raw.
 
Always Raw. I make far too many mistakes to shoot jpeg!
 
I used to shoot nothing but JPEG, then went to RAW and now I'm back to JPEG. For me the results I get from JPEG's I'm perfectly happy with and even major editing doesn't require the 16-bit RAW files I thought I'd need :)
 
I'm taking both at the moment as I've not tried playing with RAW and I like the instantness of JPEG on any computer.

I've not got round to installing Elements 10, so I still haven't opened a RAW file.
 
RAW unless I'm taking a lot of sport and then I use jpeg.
 
Forever RAW but not for maximum keeper rate, more for maximum flexability in post processing.
 
A raw is like having a negative when shooting film and a jpeg is like shooting film and having prints made but binning the negatives. A jpeg can be created from a raw in about 3 seconds so may as well shoot raw.
 
boliston said:
A raw is like having a negative when shooting film and a jpeg is like shooting film and having prints made but binning the negatives. A jpeg can be created from a raw in about 3 seconds so may as well shoot raw.
Click to expand...

Polaroid would be a better analogy.

To answer the question- whichever suits the situation best.
 
DemiLion said:
Polaroid would be a better analogy.

To answer the question- whichever suits the situation best.
Click to expand...

I'd say a polaroid print is kind of like an "original", a bit like a negative, but a jpeg would still have been produced from "raw" output from the camera's sensor, but it's processed and saved as a jpeg without the raw output being saved, hence my analogy of "binning" the negative.
 
RAW & jpeg as a norm. Just jpeg if I'm playing with the cameras functionality
 
Raw because I edit my keepers every time but to be honest I dont know if it makes that much difference.

Can someone explain how much difference it makes to edit raw rather than JPEG?
 
Raw for me every time, raw is like an artists canvas with all the paints n brushes next to the picture, so you make little changes to make it better, Jpeg is going to Athena and buying the same print. With raw all or most camera decisions are correctable, with Jpeg you have allowed the camera to fatally lock every decision in. I understand partially when people say , I will click 500 photos n that horrendous in raw, it's not that bad these days with bridge or Lightroom. Think of the flip side what is take a cracking picture but don't realise it at the time on camera, you get home realise its in jpeg med or large, you will possibly regret not having the raw version to get the very best out of the picture.
These are my own opinions, I guess others will have theirs, however if I'm spending £1-5k on good kit and I then set it to shoot jpeg, is that not like buying a porche then putting remoulds on? Yes it will still drive but you will never get the best out of it
 
RAW, as in its name has all the raw data whereas jpeg is a compressed file I.e all similar colours etc are joined together and only recorded once thus saving space. So when you want th edit a picture it is better to have all the data to play with rather than similar data.
 
I don't get the people that say "RAW for keepers" or "RAW for good shots", do you think "I'm going out to take crap photos today" and shoot jpeg then say to yourself "I'm going to take a decent photo now" and change to RAW? Or do you shoot jpeg, chimp at the back of the camera, think, "ooh thats half decent" then reshoot in RAW?
 
Raw its worth it just for the ability to adjust the white balance afterwards:)
 
Use shoot in jpeg now shoot in Raw so I can correct white balance and colour etc...
 
LCPete said:
Raw its worth it just for the ability to adjust the white balance afterwards:)
Click to expand...
hyeongsoong said:
Use shoot in jpeg now shoot in Raw so I can correct white balance and colour etc...
Click to expand...


You can do that with Jpegs.
 
DemiLion said:
You can do that with Jpegs.
Click to expand...

You can reprocess a jpeg (which is a rendering based on an assumed white balance) to produce the effect of altering the white balance. With a RAW, you get the opportunity to reapply a white balance to the original unprocessed data.

With modern software the difference may be very slight, but you are editing what is in effect an edited image if you use jpg.

Personally, unless space is an issue, with programs like Lightroom, RAW provides the most editing options.
 
fixedimage said:
do you think "I'm going out to take crap photos today" ?
Click to expand...


Standard thought for me :-D

Raw 90% of the time, jpeg if I'm shooting high speed AND im not terribly fussed about it.
 
Raw as my PC is now fast enough to process them without too much delay,also, have watched too many internet comparisons brainwashing me into thinking Raw is best :)
 
Unless I want to shoot a 120 frame burst mainly raw. If I'm going to be away from the PC for any length of time I'll shoot raw + Jpeg so I've got some instant results.

I can't see the issue about time taken to process raw images. If I want the results quickly I'll just look through the images, flag the ones I want and batch process. This still gives me the option of returning to the raw file at a later date and carrying out more processing it also slows me down a fraction and makes me look at the images before doing anything with them.
 
Raw have more data to work with
vs
Jpeg have compressed data

It;s Raw for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top