RAW only?

neilmac

neilmac

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,053
Name
Neil McLeland
Edit My Images
Yes
This has probably asked many times on here.....

Once you get used to processing from RAW is there any point in shooting JPEGs any more?

At the moment I shoot in RAW + JPEG so have 2 images of each shot and in every case so far I prefer the finished article from RAW in preference to the JPEG version, which with my 400D looks flat and dull by comparison. So should I just shoot in RAW?

I use Adobe Bridge CS3 to convert to dng then Camera RAW or Lightroom to process and PS to resize, usually with a final sharpen and save for web etc.

Just concerned that I might be missing something by not having a JPEG version at all.

What do you do?

Cheers,

Neil
 
I only ever shoot RAW :)
 
RAW all the way....unless its a one off shot which would be very hard to fluff up!
 
I give up :D
 
Unless there's any particular reason why you need to deliver the shot very quickly (ie no time to do any PP) or you're using a computer that can't handle the raw, then having the additional jpg doesn't really serve any purpose - it just takes up space
 
mobilevirgin said:
Unless there's any particular reason why you need to deliver the shot very quickly (ie no time to do any PP) or you're using a computer that can't handle the raw, then having the additional jpg doesn't really serve any purpose - it just takes up space
Click to expand...

Thank you, a good answer to my question ;). Sorry if the question was a bit 'old hat' but I just wondered what the purpose of using RAW + JPEG was, now I understand - simple really :D

Cheers,

Neil
 
If you use DPP, you can convert the raw files to exactly the same JPEGs as the camera would produce.
 
Another vote for RAW only.

If you think of the RAW file as the negative, you can tweak it at your leisure to produce the best possible "print" - i.e. a JPEG, TIFF etc. - altering the white balance, colour saturation etc. to suit the subject.

Shooting JPEGS in-camera is a bit like taking Polaroids - you end up with a finished "print", dependent on the white-balance and other camera settings, that you have little scope for adjusting afterwards.

So to answer your question, you're not losing anything by shooting in RAW only. The RAW file contains all the information necessary to create a JPEG file, and it has the potential to be better than a JPEG created in-camera.

Reasons I can think of for shooting in JPEG mode in-camera:

  • For whatever reason, it isn't possible/practical to edit RAW files. I read an interview with a pro sports photographer who said that he didn't have time to process the 1000's of RAW files he would create during a shoot, and that he shot in JPEG for this reason, preferring to trust his technique and the camera settings. After a match he would tag the JPEGs on his laptop and upload them straight to the client.
  • Space on your card. RAW files typically take up 10+ mb each, where as a hi-res JPEG would be 2-3 mb
  • Using JPEGs as a means of previewing shots, or to give away to a third-party - again if there is no opportunity to process the RAW files.

When I first got my 5D I shot in RAW and JPEG, but I quickly changed it to RAW only.

A.
 
Anorakus said:
Another vote for RAW only.

If you think of the RAW file as the negative, you can tweak it at your leisure to produce the best possible "print" - i.e. a JPEG, TIFF etc. - altering the white balance, colour saturation etc. to suit the subject.

Shooting JPEGS in-camera is a bit like taking Polaroids - you end up with a finished "print", dependent on the white-balance and other camera settings, that you have little scope for adjusting afterwards.

So to answer your question, you're not losing anything by shooting in RAW only. The RAW file contains all the information necessary to create a JPEG file, and it has the potential to be better than a JPEG created in-camera.

Reasons I can think of for shooting in JPEG mode in-camera:

  • For whatever reason, it isn't possible/practical to edit RAW files. I read an interview with a pro sports photographer who said that he didn't have time to process the 1000's of RAW files he would create during a shoot, and that he shot in JPEG for this reason, preferring to trust his technique and the camera settings. After a match he would tag the JPEGs on his laptop and upload them straight to the client.
  • Space on your card. RAW files typically take up 10+ mb each, where as a hi-res JPEG would be 2-3 mb
  • Using JPEGs as a means of previewing shots, or to give away to a third-party - again if there is no opportunity to process the RAW files.

When I first got my 5D I shot in RAW and JPEG, but I quickly changed it to RAW only.

A.
Click to expand...

Thanks Anorakus - another good explanation :thumbs:. For my purposes I see no need to continue with JPEGs....

Neil
 
jpegs for me, for the very reason that I spent so much money on a camera which is supposed to be able to adjust WB / exposure etc. so I'm going to do just that! If I get it wrong I can very easily use the LCD screen to see and reshoot.

But of course each to their own, I just like to spend more time shooting then twiddling
 
Horses for courses. Shooting sports or Press Work is a good example of where I can run out of buffer quite quickly on my 30D - switching to JPG's allows me to keep the hammer down for a lot longer :-)

This also applies for events where your going to be snapping one or two frames a second over a period of time - Its quite surprising how quickly you need to switch to JPG some times.

but for typical one shot arty photos - raw every time
 
ryank said:
But of course each to their own, I just like to spend more time shooting then twiddling
Click to expand...

I quite like the PP side of this digital photography, and with my camera (400D) the JPEG images do seem a bit 'flat'.

hyakuhei said:
but for typical one shot arty photos - raw every time
Click to expand...

That's my sort of photography I guess. ;)

Neil
 
I shoot both because I like to quickly look through my pictures on Windows software. Or If I want to upload it somehwere, attach it to an email, the RAW images won't show up in the 'browse' window. And if I quickly want a file to pop in PS then I just look through the little jpeg icons and pick out the corresponding picture.

Taking the 'negatives are RAW and finished ones are photos' analogy: It's quicker for me to look through the photos and select one that I want to do some further stuff on and then find it in RAW.
 
RAW only for me (normally) If I need loads and loads of pics (rally events, sprints etc) I use JPEG Fine on my D300, gives me 3 or 4 times the number of pics on a memory card. The D300 JPEGs are of such a high quality, I've made a plan...

RAWs for portraits and landscapes, JPEGs for sports and action....
 
RAW only - except where jpegs are more suitable

And if I'm shooting jpegs, sometimes a 'raw' moment will arrive

Same argument with WB - auto WB is great, except where it isn't

All you need to know/decide upon is what & when - there is no 'rule' here

HTH

DD
 
I shot RAW plus jpeg for a while to see whether I could PP the shots to be as good as the camera produced jpegs or better. Once I decided that I could I then switched to RAW only for most of my photos. However, on a recent holiday I shot mainly jpegs alone to save memory card space and PP time when I got back, and switched to RAW when I knew I would need to do a lot of PP on the shot or thought I might like to try HDR on the photo when I got back (the cheats version you can do with a single RAW file!). I have to say I wish I had more of those shots in RAW and hopefully as my photography gets better I will be able to take half as many shots and still get as many good ones, then I'll have the space to take them all in RAW!
I don't see much use for RAW + jpeg once you can PP your RAW images to a standard you are happy with.
 
i am a RAW girl, its great fun! and why choose JPEG when you can create one from RAW and not Vice-Versa?
 
Unless the images are time critical or I don't care about then it's always raw. So much more flexibility in PP it just seems silly not to.
 
I mainly shoot in RAW unless there is a specific reason I need an image to be used straight out of the camera. When using my hot shoe flash I used to use Jpeg because I could not control the flash and would revert to fully automatic mode - still do occasionally, but more and more now I am also using my flash in creative modes where RAW is available. Comes down to practicing skills.

I use lightroom to quickly process the RAWs' and do not find the additional time PP'ing creatively a significant disadvantage. if I did not have this tool I might not shoot so many RAW images.
 
im raw only person - however when gonig on trips wih family they want a copy of pics etc then i shoot raw+jpg so they can have the jpg's and i have the raws/
 
Hi,

I only ever shoot in the RAW ;)

Mike.
 
Is there anyway i can shoot in raw & jpeg at the same time?

If the subjest is stationary ie a parked car etc then settings
can be changed but how about a moving object?

I have a Fuji s9600 so this may not be a suitable camera to start
with.
 
snoop69 said:
Is there anyway i can shoot in raw & jpeg at the same time?

If the subjest is stationary ie a parked car etc then settings
can be changed but how about a moving object?

I have a Fuji s9600 so this may not be a suitable camera to start
with.
Click to expand...

Canon 400D has the option to shoot both at the same time and I'm sure many other cameras do the same, not sure about your model though :shrug:

Neil
 
I use RAW only and always have.. except once when shooting at a village show and needed to print out on the spot.

Once home I noticed that any whites that were a bit high were almost impossible to sort out without them going silver and looking horrible.

I believe some people use Raw plus a small jpg so they can look at them quickly on a pc without having to need a RAW converter to look thru.

But Im a RAW girl too!! :naughty:
 
Janice said:
I believe some people use Raw plus a small jpg so they can look at them quickly on a pc without having to need a RAW converter to look thru.

But Im a RAW girl too!! :naughty:
Click to expand...

Could be a useful option although on my 400D I think I can only have a large JPEG with RAW, so I will stick to RAW only unless the situation requires different, as others have described.

Nice to get good and varied feedback from everyone...:thumbs:

Neil
 
I shoot jpegs all the time for work.

I can't be bothered and don't have the time to individually edit a minimum of 50 shots every evening!
 
I switched to RAW only last year but I got fed up of not being able to quickly preview them so reverted to using RAW + basic jpg, purely to quickly preview all my photos and get rid of really rubbish photos.
 
If you shoot RAW + jpeg, you have 2 rubbish shots to delete...or did you mean in camera? Because you can review RAW in camera and edit them just as easily.

Back on the computer you wil have 2 sets of files, RAW set and jpeg set. If you delete the jpegs, you still have the full set of RAW to go through.

I think that shooting RAW helps you to retain your discipline though - instead of a machine gun approach, you stop and think about the shot before you take it. Even at motorsport, you should assess the picture before it happens. You select your corner on the angle of the light at that time of the practise/race and shoot the picture that you imagine first.

Shooting away willy nilly just gets lots of crap to sift through. Be more selective, get the shot and then you might have a sequence of 2 where the motor continued before you lifted your finger. I rarely shoot sequences of more than 4 or 5 frames - and that is only because of keeping the camera swinging to make sure number 1 and 2 are right. 3,4 and 5 are invariably at the wrong angle. Shooting head on - you only need the 1 or 2 at most.

jpegs and motordrives make for lazy photographers. Shoot just the same as you would have with film, on medium format. Think the shot through, set up, take the shot. Shoot in RAW (unless time dependent) and get the best quality image you can, regardless of subject.
 
Lensflare said:
jpegs and motordrives make for lazy photographers. Shoot just the same as you would have with film, on medium format. Think the shot through, set up, take the shot. Shoot in RAW (unless time dependent) and get the best quality image you can, regardless of subject.
Click to expand...

I'd probably argue the opposite, shooting RAW and the belief that you can fix anything in PS, leads people to be lazy in assessing exposure. :shrug:
 
neilmac said:
Thank you, a good answer to my question ;). Sorry if the question was a bit 'old hat' but I just wondered what the purpose of using RAW + JPEG was, now I understand - simple really :D

Cheers,

Neil
Click to expand...
I use Raw+Jpg and the main reason is to be able to have a quick view via windows picture & fax viewer
I can then delete any unwanted no good images with out having to go through the loading through PShop. Personally i am not ready to believe each shot i take is going to be good, and what you see on your camera screen is not always what they look like when loaded on to your PC......
Just my opinion and it works for me...
 
Dod - RAW is better quality than jpeg. The shot will be the same surely? Only a 14 bit image has got to be better than an 8 bit version.

My post said think, take the best quality - not fix mistakes. Shoot RAW for quality, not fixability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top