raw or jpeg

M

matty198111

Suspended / Banned
Messages
701
Name
mat
Edit My Images
Yes
now i understand that raw is a "catch all" and the jpeg is a little less but do u shoot in raw for everythin g or do you swap between the 2, i.e one for portraits one for landscape ect

could look it up on the net but everything i search on the net to do with cameras is in some weird language that i cant get my head around, but you guys say it in good old simple english lol


mat
 
I think that once you start shooting RAW most folk will stick to only that unless they have a reason to shoot in jpeg. There's no advantage to shoot jpeg for different styles that I can see.:shrug:
 
Personally it's just RAW for me (gives the most leeway in changing things like white balance in post processing, amongst several other things).
 
Doog said:
I think that once you start shooting RAW most folk will stick to only that unless they have a reason to shoot in jpeg. There's no advantage to shoot jpeg for different styles that I can see.:shrug:
Click to expand...

I know that many studio, sports/journalists, event togs etc will shoot jpeg, cos it's probably easier to deal with in their professions. Wedding toggers, Landscapes toggers, for example will probably prefer to shoot Raw. Amateurs/hobbyists, well it's up to them, but probably will want to shoot raw if they can.
 
Always raw.

However that means they'll always need playing with and converting, before any sort of presentation, which works out most of the time. However on occasion it might be quicker and easier to just use jpg if I am taking snapshot type images, that won't need playing with.
 
Almost always JPEG (large, fine)., I trust the cameras' meters to get the exposure pretty much spot on so no rescuing (as is easier with raw files) is usually necessary. If I'm unsure, I'll have a good look on the review screen and reshoot immediately if necessary.
 
I always shoot raw but I use View NX2 or Capture NX2 to process my shots. These apply all the camera settings so if I am happy with the result I just save as JPEG, if not I can do a bit of editing.
One thing about editing afterwards, in raw or JPEG, is that you can do local edits e.g. sharpen just the eyes, lighten just the shadows, recover the highlights etc which you cannot do in camera.
JPEG can be edited quite a bit but Raw gives you more info to start with and can take greater changes without giving poor results.
 
And the week before, I think, Joe.
 
Most (if not all) allow you to shoot both at the same time. So I have a RAW copy to allow me to PP it if I decide it needs it, however I also have a lower quality JPEG if I want to share the photos with someone before I can get round to the PP.
 
raw for me.
take me to your leader. you will obey me. :bang:
 
I don't trust my camera meter one bit!

So I shoot RAW ;)

Might seem like an odd reply but just go and shoot snow and see if you then trust your camera meter. It tries to pull everything to 18% grey so unless every image you take is 18% grey there will be an element of error in there.

Take Saturday's wedding, backlit bride, flaring all over the shop, moved position to counteract the flare but my exposure comp was at +1.7 stops. Still trust that meter? I dont!

THAT's why I don't trust it and why I shoot RAW.
 
Nod said:
Almost always JPEG (large, fine)., I trust the cameras' meters to get the exposure pretty much spot on so no rescuing (as is easier with raw files) is usually necessary.
Click to expand...
You can shoot in M and jpeg and meter yourself, unless you talking about using auto modes :shrug:
 
There are endless arguments about this, and some people have strong opinions. I don't, because they're your photographs and you can use whatever suits you best.

FWIW, RAW is an electronic negative and retains all the information captured by the camera. You have more latitude and flexibility for editing, and can edit them as many times as you like without impacting their quality, but you do have to save them as JPEGs (or TIFFs - huge file sizes) whether you edit them or not, to print or display them on the web. The original RAW images are not changed at all.

JPEGs apply the camera settings, and discard any other information at this stage. This is irreversible. You can still edit them, but you don't have the same degree of flexibility - you can't change the white balance if it's not quite correct for one thing - and the quality of the images will deteriorate very slightly each time you edit and save the same image. The best option is to save a copy of each image you want to edit first, and work off that, leaving the originals untouched. You can always make another copy if things go pear shaped.

I shoot RAW, but I have no argument with people who prefer JPEG. Memory is cheap, and most DSLRs let you shoot both simultaneously. Why not try that and see how you get on?
 
I watched a video yesterday, where this guy prefers shooting in JPEG if he shoots a sunset as the contrast and colors are alot better. Is this correct?
 
lolage said:
I watched a video yesterday, where this guy prefers shooting in JPEG if he shoots a sunset as the contrast and colors are alot better. Is this correct?
Click to expand...
You can edit a shot a whole lot more in an editing program, the camera works from the same raw file we work from and converts to jpeg, it's a matter of preference, so no, this is not correct.

Perhaps his PP skills are not that good.
 
lolage said:
I watched a video yesterday, where this guy prefers shooting in JPEG if he shoots a sunset as the contrast and colors are alot better. Is this correct?
Click to expand...

Nope, totally wrong. It is always possible to process a raw file to look identical to the jpeg the camera would have produced. It is nearly always possible to process a raw file to look better, albeit not always noticeably better, than the jpeg.
 
Truth is that there's no right or wrong format to shoot in - some will always prefer to shoot in raw while others will continue to use JPEG. For extra bit depth, I could use TIFF.

Shooting snow and brides in meringues, the meter will get confused but a quick fiddle with the wheel on review can sort the discrepancy but the same goes for shooting raw as it does for JPEG. IF I had dual memory slots, I would probably have one for TIFF and one for JPEG and go to the TIFFs or even raw files if I needed to. Since almost all my shooting is for me (and what isn't is a long way from this machine which is the only one with a raw converter installed!), I'll stick with what I know and understand/trrust!
 
I swap depending on what I am shooting. Family gatherings and such, where people just want images for use on Facebook and the like, I can't see the point of shooting RAW, given what the end result will be used for.

When shooting for myself though, I usually shoot RAW.
 
ok thanks for the help and im sorry to create another post that has already been done


1 question i do have though

im prob gonna be shooting in raw most of the time, can i just drag the raw file straight into ps and then do the ps magic, im not sure as the word convert keeps cropping up

if that is how it done can i still get them printed in raw file or do they have to be changed before i go to the shop

this is prob a silly question and im sure its obvious but i cant work it out

cheers guys
 
It will open in Adobes Raw converter first. Here you can make some adjustments...exposure, WB, etc. Then you can open it in PS as a jpeg.
 
NigelPaul said:
It will open in Adobes Raw converter first. Here you can make some adjustments...exposure, WB, etc. Then you can open it in PS as a jpeg.
Click to expand...

thanks mate

not sure if im doin it right cause when i put them in to a folder on the computer it has them all there but there just logo's so unless you opn it u cant tell what picture it is, if i shoot in jpeg its fine it shows each picture so you know what your clicking on, but raw it dont, is there away round this
 
yay i figured it out before a reply lol

damn i getting good at this computer stuff lol


mat
 
Always RAW for me aswell, used to do RAW + JPEG fine but they take up alot of space, so RAW only, pushes me to process pictures and not just take Jpegs
 
matty198111 said:
thanks mate

not sure if im doin it right cause when i put them in to a folder on the computer it has them all there but there just logo's so unless you opn it u cant tell what picture it is, if i shoot in jpeg its fine it shows each picture so you know what your clicking on, but raw it dont, is there away round this
Click to expand...

Another reason it's nice to have JPEG's and RAW (as I can't be bothered to get it to show the picture rather than file icon), is as the file names will be the same when you take the picture, you'll be able to look at the JPEG's to see which you want, then he RAW will be right next to it ;)
 
Im using raw and jpeg now as its nice to change the ones that need it but jpeg is fine for standard shots I cant be bothered processing
 
raw + basic jpeg for me. Then i can easily scan through myself / show the jpegs to people and work on any of the ones that catch my eye by opening the raw file in lightroom (or aperture if i'm on my mac).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top