RAW or JPEG in th studio ?

PeteMo

PeteMo

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,521
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
No
Just been re-reading the March edition of "PhotoPlus" magazine and "The Apprentice" article.

In the article, the "Pro" suggested shooting in JPEG.

Personally, I always shoot in RAW and never consciously change to JPEG.

Just curious as to how many of you shoot JPEG or RAW in the studio ?

If JPEG, is that purely due to the smaller file size ?

Just wondered.......
 
We always shoot RAW in the studio in work. With the product images we could probably get away with JPEGs on occasions, but it's nice to have the extra scope that RAW provides.

Also anything that is shot for the advertising department is always RAW because they usually want it purposely under exposed and then like to bring the levels up later on in PP.
 
If the in-camera JPEG processing does what you need, there is no need to shoot RAW. If it doesn't do what you need, it's better to shoot RAW. There seems to be an element of machismo in shooting JPEGs direct (the "I can get everything set up to shoot the perfect picture for me using JPEG, so there is no need of anything else" brigade) as well as machismo to shooting RAW (the "I shoot RAW as I want to impart my artistic flair onto the picture, and JPEG doesn't allow me to do that" - or even worse the "I shoot RAW as it's a manly thing to do" brigade).

Truth is, they are just data formats. RAW gives you more wiggle room, but neither is right or wrong.
 
It completely depends what you're doing. I'd imagine events type shooting with thousands of similar images, it'd be mental to go to a RAW workflow. Whereas advertising, fashion, art etc, the post time probably exceeds the shoot time, so RAW is obvious.

Which one of these is the 'studio' in the question?
 
Portrait studio Phil.

I agree with most, there is no single or correct answer, I was just interested on what the majority choose.
 
If it is almost a shoot and burn job such as schools or any similair high qty job then just jpg, with family type shoots generally jpg, but anything which I may be looking to get the detail bang on or looking to composite then raw. You can throw yr jpg through your raw converter if you want, so all is not lost if you feel an image shot only in jpg needs some raw-type treatment.
 
treeman said:
"wiggle room" is good :)

No right or wrong, personally I'd rather get the optimum out of my image, RAW allows me to do that.
Click to expand...

How much 'wriggle room' do you need in a studio shot?

Pros often shoot jpegs simply because they know what they're doing and don't need the extra workload that comes with raw files. In a studio scenario where the photographer has control over everything there's no real need to shoot raw at all, especially if shooting tethered and being able to immediately see the results on a big screen.
 
What extra work load? The only downside to RAW is file size and transfer speed, which is negated if you're shooting tethered.

Even shooting Jpeg I'd be running the files through Lightroom, and with a decent computer RAW hardly takes any longer at all.

Especially relevant is the extra leeway that RAW gives you in LR with lens profiles (Jpeg ones are limited) and easier WB manipulation. As ACR 7 is released that will also become more relevant in a Photoshop workflow.

Jpeg has its place to counter buffer bottlenecks, where data size and volume matter (event work) and for ultimate speed of transmission, but in a controlled environment? That's just lazy!
 
I only shoot RAW. THe reason is simple for me. I can convert RAW to lots of other formats, including JPEG. I cannot convert a JPEG to raw.
Also, I like the "wiggle room" as previous posters have said.
 
DemiLion said:
What extra work load? The only downside to RAW is file size and transfer speed, which is negated if you're shooting tethered.
Click to expand...

All raw files need adjustment, that's why they're called raw files. Jpegs come adjusted, complete with sharpening. Provided these adjustments suit the requirements of job, the file is ready to use straight from camera. For many photographers, they are.

Even shooting Jpeg I'd be running the files through Lightroom, and with a decent computer RAW hardly takes any longer at all.
Click to expand...

Well that's great for you, but there are hundreds of pros out there happily shooting jpegs.

Especially relevant is the extra leeway that RAW gives you in LR with lens profiles (Jpeg ones are limited) and easier WB manipulation. As ACR 7 is released that will also become more relevant in a Photoshop workflow.
Click to expand...

Being able to apply lens profiles that may or may not be appropriate has never got me a job yet. Being able to turn around shots very quickly has.

And if a pro photographer can't get the white balance right in camera in the studio they should hang their head in shame.

Jpeg has its place to counter buffer bottlenecks, where data size and volume matter (event work) and for ultimate speed of transmission, but in a controlled environment? That's just lazy!
Click to expand...

The attitude of the photographer dictates whether a working practice is "lazy"
or not, not the practice itself. I doubt few pros use jpegs because they can't be arsed, whereas many shoot jpegs because they deliver the results they need in a more efficient workflow for them.
 
DemiLion said:
What extra work load? The only downside to RAW is file size and transfer speed, which is negated if you're shooting tethered.
Click to expand...

NorthernNikon said:
All raw files need adjustment, that's why they're called raw files. Jpegs come adjusted, complete with sharpening. Provided these adjustments suit the requirements of job, the file is ready to use straight from camera. For many photographers, they are.
Click to expand...

maybe, but many workflows don't actually differ between RAW and JPEG nowadays. I can get a high volume job processed just as quickly using RAW as using JPEG and I'd rather have the wriggle room if needed
 
boyfalldown said:
maybe, but many workflows don't actually differ between RAW and JPEG nowadays. I can get a high volume job processed just as quickly using RAW as using JPEG and I'd rather have the wriggle room if needed
Click to expand...

That's fine, I shoot raw on 99.9% of my jobs, but they're my jobs so that works for me.

I'm not putting one method above the other and I'm not saying that people should jpegs, just that many pros do and some of the reasons why.
 
NorthernNikon said:
That's fine, I shoot raw on 99.9% of my jobs, but they're my jobs so that works for me.

I'm not putting one method above the other and I'm not saying that people should jpegs, just that many pros do and some of the reasons why.
Click to expand...

Just catching up here, your original post in this thread quoted me, and either I've miss-read it or something, but you said "Pros often shoot jpegs simply because they know what they're doing" which suggests I don't know what I'm doing, and by the sounds of it, neither do you now :shrug:

Not that I give a flying fig what other pros do, I suspect only a small percentage of Pros shoot jpeg only.
 
NorthernNikon said:
How much 'wriggle room' do you need in a studio shot?
Click to expand...

NorthernNikon said:
Being able to apply lens profiles that may or may not be appropriate has never got me a job yet. Being able to turn around shots very quickly has.

And if a pro photographer can't get the white balance right in camera in the studio they should hang their head in shame.
Click to expand...
Ahahahaha... Classic... IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT WHITE BALANCE. If you want accurate colours, you also want to calibrate the way the camera records them. Just because you have your white balance correct doesn't mean you have the way your camera record colours correct. This is very important for product shots - for example.

RAW processing time can be equally as short as JPEG - if you take the time to calibrate (and save) the processing done on a single image. This can include non-linear boosts to brightness (to raise near-black levels out of a crush zone for example) as well as manipulating colours so they are correct. This can all be applied at import to all your photos apart from the first (where you set up the "standard" workflow for that shoot). JPEG is just about applying a fixed set of develop settings so you get an output. Tweaking those settings is where RAW comes in really useful.

But then as a pro... you'd know that ;)
 
treeman said:
Just catching up here, your original post in this thread quoted me, and either I've miss-read it or something, but you said "Pros often shoot jpegs simply because they know what they're doing" which suggests I don't know what I'm doing, and by the sounds of it, neither do you now :shrug:

Not that I give a flying fig what other pros do, I suspect only a small percentage of Pros shoot jpeg only.
Click to expand...

I quoted you only to ask the question.

My second para was a general response to thread re why some pros shoot jpegs. Pros who shoot jpegs know what they're doing ie they're doing so for a reason.
 
arad85 said:
Ahahahaha... Classic... IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT WHITE BALANCE. If you want accurate colours, you also want to calibrate the way the camera records them. Just because you have your white balance correct doesn't mean you have the way your camera record colours correct. This is very important for product shots - for example.
Click to expand...

Nice. Except that I was responding to a post that referred to white balance so actually in this context it is just about white balance.

Blah, blah, blah ...

But then as a pro... you'd know that
Click to expand...

So what? As I've said before, I'm not putting one method over another, just explaining some reasons why many pros shoot jpegs which was one of the questions the OP asked.
 
NorthernNikon said:
Nice. Except that I was responding to a post that referred to white balance so actually in this context it is just about white balance.
Click to expand...

Except that you missed the rather important word 'manipulation' in my comment. It's especially important when you are mixing colour temperatures.

I'd say that I shoot in Jpeg 60% of the time, however I can still turn round RAW files and file within ten minutes of shooting. What sort of speed did you have in mind?
 
DemiLion said:
I'd say that I shoot in Jpeg 60% of the time, however I can still turn round RAW files and file within ten minutes of shooting. What sort of speed did you have in mind?
Click to expand...

I didn't. One pro's requirements will be different to another's, just as one client's requirements will be different to another's.
 
This always happens when people discuss jpg and raw. It's like a lot of debates that occur on here where perhaps there isn't one right or wrong answer and they will repeat themselves over and over. I used to only shoot jpg and it worked well enough for me and suited my workflow, but some of the output I started to consider needed the ease of raw and smart objects in CS5, and so can hugely see the benefit of shooting raw and having the flexibility of the raw editor, but still recognise that jpg shooting has its benefits.
 
Last edited:
Raw full time in M, average shutter count around 2500/3000 clicks per day/event, 3 day turnaround for finished converted results = cool, I'm happy I don't shoot film lol.
 
PerfectSpeed said:
Raw full time in M, average shutter count around 2500/3000 clicks per day/event, 3 day turnaround for finished converted results = cool, I'm happy I don't shoot film lol.
Click to expand...

Slowcoach! :D
 
DemiLion said:
Slowcoach! :D
Click to expand...

hush, just cos you press guys have a deadline of 5 minutes ago ;)

Anyone arguing JPEG either shoots precisely the same thing day in day out, or hasn't discovered import presets for lightroom/capture/photoshop...

Have the software process the data how YOU want, not how the camera wants to process JPEGs.

Space concerns are frankly negligible for photography...hard drives are cheap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top