Raw, JPEG, Both?

JPEG, RAW, or Both?

  • Total voters
    102
Skyline On Fire

Skyline On Fire

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,391
Name
Luke
Edit My Images
Yes
Just curious as to what people shoot here. I'd imagine predominantly raw, still curious to see some numbers though, and how many shoot raw plus jpeg.

I, as most probably did, started out shooting JPEG, then moved to RAW once I saw the benefits and figured out a good workflow. Now I find myself shooting Raw - JPEG, I find it much more convenient.

Anyway, look forward to seeing the results.
 
Ive always shot in JPEG as its quick and easy and to be honest, i dont see a huge advantage of shooting RAW unless i want to edit/manipulate my photos later. Straight out camera and onto my website or internet and jpeg is spot on.
 
only jpeg
I want to shoot raw but dont see the point

persuade me please:thumbs:
 
I tried to shoot just Raw but to display straight onto a tv screen through my dj software won't work.
 
Original Poster said:
Just RAW.

Really don't see the benefit of shooting RAW+JPEG.
Click to expand...

Only time I do is at Rugby, because I can import the smaller jpg files into my ipad whilst I walk back to the clubhouse, then they are ready for browsing whilst having a beer after the game. It's increased sales slightly that way as well.

Otherwise it's Raw all the way. I still try and get everything right in camera but it's nice to have the flexability
 
obscurity said:
Ive always shot in JPEG as its quick and easy and to be honest, i dont see a huge advantage of shooting RAW unless i want to edit/manipulate my photos later. Straight out camera and onto my website or internet and jpeg is spot on.
Click to expand...

.
:plusone:
 
davep90 said:
only jpeg
I want to shoot raw but dont see the point

persuade me please:thumbs:
Click to expand...

I used to shoot jpg but when I changed to raw I wondered why I hadn't done from the start. Yes, there's more work to convert, but then YOU get to do it, not let the engineers at Nikon etc make that choice for you. Hell, they don't know what you are going to be shooting, do they? For point and shoot, jpg is OK, but for more serious photography, why would you not? Its a bit like you spend £000s on a swanky new kitchen but only ever use out-of-the-packet meals.
 
Always raw here.

I'm not currently into post processing shots, (lack of time, more than a desire not to do it), but it's always good to have the scope to change things if I need to.

Also, there's no real advantage for me, to using jpeg. I don't shoot sports and memory cards are quite cheap, so why not keep the format that gives me the ultimate flexibility.
 
I shoot Raw and small Jpg as the Jpg satisfies the immediate needs when taking/downloading pictures and lets me sort out the chaff before any processing begins on the Raw.
 
I can not see the point of RAW+JPEG, either one or the other and I can understand the need for just JPEG's if speed is the essence, else why not just do a bulk convert of the RAW files later if you want JPEG's as well.
 
Just jpeg. No advantages to RAW for me, just a bigger file with a wider colour space. I don't print or enlarge and my web space displays images smaller than their actual size. I PP a lot and have no deteriation in jpeg quality.
 
Danny_Two said:
Just jpeg. No advantages to RAW for me, just a bigger file with a wider colour space. I don't print or enlarge and my web space displays images smaller than their actual size. I PP a lot and have no deteriation in jpeg quality.
Click to expand...

If you PP a lot you will have deterioration compared to RAW. As above, we spend so much on lenses and cameras, why settle for a lower quality output. RAW all the way for me.
 
RAW all the time, particularly for its greater dynamic range. No need for RAW + jpeg as viewers such as Faststone can display the embedded jpeg anyway.

I can be generous with exposure - although highlights may look burnt out in the jpegs the details are all present in the RAW file, while there is less noise in the shadows. It just takes a little experience when checking the camera histogram (which is from the jpeg) to know how much to allow the highlights to appear to clip.
 
Always RAW. If they're just 'snaps' like at a recent birthday meal, I just delete the duffers, and batch convert to JPEG. But you've always got the option to go back to them and make adjustments if there's a really nice shot. Makes me review & delete more too - If I just had jpegs I'd probably just copy them and end up keeping more.

In the example above it meant that I didn't need to worry about the WB at the time (no flash used). Sorted one RAW file, applied to the others, job done.

That's just my preference. I like having the option of returning to a RAW file for tinkering.

PITA though after a holiday when you've got hundreds of shots to wade through.

via TP Forums for iPhone
 
I've answered raw and jpeg but it really depends on the circumstances.

Most of my photography is done in zoos and wildlife parks, in decent light, so I shoot in jpeg only.

When the circumstances are difficult, such as photographing children inside the house, I shoot in raw and jpeg so I can tinker around with the image afterwards.
 
it depends on what im shooting. if it is any action shots like rugby, football or any thing fast moving i will use jpeg. but for landscapes, scenery etc i will use RAW
 
The reason I shoot RAW+Jpeg is if I am happy with the Jpeg Ill have it without further processing, if not I'll work on the RAW.
 
grum said:
If you PP a lot you will have deterioration compared to RAW. As above, we spend so much on lenses and cameras, why settle for a lower quality output. RAW all the way for me.
Click to expand...

Only if you keep hitting the same jpeg. If I need to do more I just create a copy, not that I do as I only PP once.
 
I dunno, I just find especially with the G1/GF1 - I often like to boost contrast quite a bit - on a jpeg this very quickly starts to make the colours look weird and wrong, whereas often on a RAW file it brings out lovely deep colours.
 
Generally shoot JPEG for all magazine work, only going to raw in situations where I know tweaks will benefit from raw data, which is probably about 5 per cent of my shooting.
 
madhouse said:
I shoot Raw and small Jpg as the Jpg satisfies the immediate needs when taking/downloading pictures and lets me sort out the chaff before any processing begins on the Raw.
Click to expand...

Same here.
 
Usually raw but sometimes raw plus jpeg for quick review of shots.
 
Mainly raw but sometimes change to jpeg depending on shoot
 
Used to be just JPEG.

Now just RAW. Nothing ever gets seen by anyone unless I've checked it over, so I just export to JPEG later on while im doing that.
 
RAW. Gives you more options and you can always export to jpeg
 
Raw every time as has already been said I use FastStone image viewer to have a quick look at them as Raw files delete the ones out of focus etc (around 97% of them:lol:) it's possible to batch convert them to jpeg in FastStone or choose to play with them in either CS5 or Lightroom.

Keeping them as Raw adds so much more flexablity IMHO
 
Raw all the time.

  • It is always possible to process a raw image to be identical to the jpeg the camera would have produced.
  • It is nearly always possible to process a raw image to give a result that looks better than the jpeg the camera would have produced.
  • If the original camera settings were close to being totally correct then the best processing of the raw file will produce a result nearly indistinguishably better than the jpeg the camera would have produced.

So, it's raw all the time for me until I can get my camera settings (exposure, colour balance, sharpening, noise reduction, colour profile) perfectly correct each time. When that happens I'll switch to jpeg. And the first thing I'll shoot will be the squadrons of pigs flying over the ice-fields of Hell.
 
Last edited:
Depends what I'm shooting. If I'm doing a shoot where I have plenty of time to get a shot through my work flow, I'll just shoot RAW. If I need to rush off proofs or something like that, I'll shoot RAW + JPEG.

JPEG will never give you the same quality as a RAW file, I see shooting RAW as wasting the potential of the camera in all honesty. Plus the fact that I can recover +-4 stops with RAW without loosing detail allows me to underexpose a shot and use post production to get it finished, allowed me to get some brilliant shots at night without a flash.

The other thing is that sometimes I will forget to change camera settings (White balance etc), with RAW it doesn't matter, with JPEG it does. That and the fact that AWB doesn't always get it right. I'd rather remove the white balance settings later than have any post production done over them.
 
Last edited:
Whichever is the most appropriate given the circumstances.
 
I'm a recent convert to RAW. And when I mean recent, I mean like last week. Lol.

i will now shoot RAW for virtually anything! You just feel your shots are safer, because you know if you cock a shot up (due to dodgy exposure, wrong WB etc) , you have the confidence that you will be able to retrieve it!

Plus I feel like I'm Using my camera to it's full potential.

:D
 
which ever is right use at the time.

JPG if I am shooting things moving quickly be it local rugby or motor sport and raw for landscapes, never done both at the same time though.
 
RAW when its important and JPEG for my own images like landscapes etc
 
raw + jpeg for me (although i don't shoot commercially) as it suits the type of photography I do.

As for letting nikon or whoever decide how your pics should look I don't accept that. I understand why people would only use raw due to the flexibility it offers but you have a great deal of control over the jpeg treatment through the picture controls (possibly not on all models of camera tbf). I personally don't have the time to process every image I take.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top