Poll: Which Format do you shoot in?

Which Format do you usually shoot in?

  • JPEG

    Votes: 52 13.9%

  • Raw

    Votes: 221 59.1%

  • Raw + JPEG

    Votes: 94 25.1%

  • Other

    Votes: 7 1.9%
  • Total voters
    374
Large jpegs here.

I've not needed to do any serious manipulation to my photos as of yet apart from lighting so I dont see the point in shooting RAW just yet.
 
I switched to RAW recently and was pleasantly surprised. My mind always pictured it to be a big hassle.

Never being truly happy with the jpegs despite trying various settings I tried it out and realised it was actually quicker and easier to process the RAW files, which I found for the large part had better tones to start with. In fact I'd say some of my RAW files are better than the jpegs.
 
RAW + Small jpg,

The RAW saved to a CF card in Slot one, the Small Jpg to an EyeFi SD card in Slot 2, the Small jpg is immediately transfered from the Eyefi card to an ipad where the assistant can decide to

a: Send direct to news desk / agency or b: delete

The RAWs are then archived at the end of the event and give a back up in case there is a foul up on the Wifi link between Camera/iPad or 3G connection between iPad/Desk
 
Medium format film
 
Snapsh0t said:
RAW + large fine JPEG. If I can use the JPEG I will but the RAW's there if I need to give any meaningful manipulation. Disk space is cheap......
Click to expand...

:plusone: although perhaps without the meaningful manipulation!
 
RAW here. Apart from Timelapse snapping, I haven't found a use for JPG yet :)
 
RAW, RAW Crikey!!!!!! You lot must spend more time sat on the PC.


Guess the old days of training togs to get it right first time in the cameara are well gone......

Hardly ever use RAW. Except on Weddings to double up on personal shots.

I would ask the question why you all shoot RAW?

It takes too long to buffer on burst mode(motordrive) and far too long to transfer info.

Shoot = Downlode = Feet up = Beer! = collect Cheque! = buy beer.
 
Last edited:
The 'other' should have been TIFF, but i use RAW = Landscapes & JPEG = Motorsports, basically for 7fps because on RAW - CH the buffer really slows down it down to CL (speeds)
 
raw + jpeg i liek to view files before i open them plus if i know i need to pull a file quick i jsut find it via jpeg but if not for that it is always raw if you make a mistake you can not rectifiy it easily in with a peg it is easyier in raw to adjust so i use both then best of both worlds
 
Daryl said:
RAW, RAW Crikey!!!!!! You lot must spend more time sat on the PC.


Guess the old days of training togs to get it right first time in the cameara are well gone......

Hardly ever use RAW. Except on Weddings to double up on personal shots.

I would ask the question why you all shoot RAW?

It takes too long to buffer on burst mode(motordrive) and far too long to transfer info.

Shoot = Downlode = Feet up = Beer! = collect Cheque! = buy beer.
Click to expand...

You shoot RAw + JPEG at weddings? or just Raw?
 
Daryl said:
Guess the old days of training togs to get it right first time in the cameara are well gone......
Click to expand...

Fair enough if all you ever shot was slide film and didn't push or pull it, but if you used negs, I guess you only ever printed on one grade of paper (Ilford Multigrade, what's that?) and never, ever did anything like dodging and burning, or toned a print.

Daryl said:
It takes too long to buffer on burst mode(motordrive) and far too long to transfer info.
Click to expand...

Guess the old days of training togs to get the picture at the right moment and not 'spray and pray' with a motor drive are well gone.

How many rolls of 120 or 220 film do you get through with a motor drive when you're shooting a wedding, anyhow?

;)
 
Last edited:
RAW + JPEG for me, eats my memory but I like to have both :)
 
JPEG, with Contrast, Saturation, Sharpness and Noise reduction all turned down to the minimum. And AWB adjusted towards Amber on the Amber-Blue axis and towards Magenta on the Magenta/Green axis.

Because of the way I work, my subject matter and the type of pictures I like to produce, some of my images can be problematic out of the camera (e.g. noisy, underexposed, desaturated, needing shadows brought up or highlights brought down, needing things cloned out or non-subject areas stretched or squashed). By and large I have not found JPEG unduly limiting in what I can do to them, although I expect some extra headroom for highlight recovery would occasionally be useful.

I am trying some RAW + JPEG sessions with comparison processing of RAW and JPEG versions of the same image. I know that because of the increased bit-depth of the RAW images, and the lack of JPEG conversion, that the RAW versions must contain more information. However in my (very limited) experience to date I have not been able to exploit this to produce better-looking results.

This might change of course with more experience of RAW processing, but I'm not sure I'm going to get that experience. The reason is that I shoot mainly close-ups in the field and I need the camera to stay responsive, including when I take a lot of shots quite quickly. Odd as it may seem, the same applies to my other main subject matter, sunsets, where many of the images are panoramas and I also need to work quickly and continuously.

With RAW the camera becomes unresponsive and the shooting experience is punctuated with delays that break the flow of my shooting, reviewing and concentration, and I sometimes lose control for opportunity-losing periods.

There are some other issues that I could mitigate by spending more on PC equipment, although I would rather not. Uploading to the PC the 1,000 - 1,500 images that I capture in a busy day does take a long time. And RAW + JPEG takes a lot more storage than JPEG. Also, I'm finding Lightroom (and Silkypix) frustratingly unresponsive and slow compared to Freestone and Photoshop, both for reviewing/comparing/selecting images and for processing the selected images.
 
inlineadam said:
If only the buffer didn't fill up so fast on RAW :(
Click to expand...

Sorry what do you mean by 'buffer'?
 
jimmy83 said:
Sorry what do you mean by 'buffer'?
Click to expand...



Buffer is essentialy the same as a computers RAM, determines how many photos you can take in sucession.


So the bigger the buffer, the faster it's going to process the images so you can take more at the one the one time.

Just like a computer, the More RAM, the faster/more easily it's going to run a program.


RAW images are larger files and hence the camera's buffer can't process very many at a time, so it fills up quikcly. ( reaches maximum capacity)
 
Last edited:
havent quiye got the hang of RAW yet but I'm learning
 
JPEG, but need to force myself to get to grips with RAW. I just changed over to using RAW plus large fine JPEG today.
 
Last edited:
Raw, and only RAW, 35mm, 6x7, 8x10
 
RAW + JPEG small.
I use the jpegs to select which pictures to edit, then use the RAW to actually edit. My PC is in need of replacement so it struggles to scroll through lots of RAW files.
 
RAW unless I am shooting continuous bursts in which case I switch to JPEG.
 
Raw mainly but if I need images from a shoot quickly I will shoot RAW + JPEG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top