The great RawPeg Debate !

Andrew Davies Photography

Andrew Davies Photography

Suspended / Banned
Messages
761
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
Jpeg or Raw or Both ?

Following on from a recent topic i thought it would be interesting if everyone could put forward their factual reason for each rather than opinions and arguments.

Heres what i use when and why..
Wedding Photography documentary fast on the fly shooting - Always RAW as i need the ability to play with maximum exposure and white balance in PP, also shoot a jpeg backup to the second card
Product Photography for my Ebay site - shot with umbrellas composed in camera - no need for RAW so always shot in medium Jpeg so can be uploaded to ebay from card - fastest easiest route - least storage
Landscape Photography - Shot in RAW for pure size and detail of image
Wedding Photos supplied to clients - converted from RAW to Jpeg as most people cannot get prints and do not have access to RAW software hence no need and the PP has already been done - RAW files are still kept in case of need later on
Wildlife and action photography -personal not business , mainly shot in Jpeg for better shooting rate and less card wastage
Posting to my website forums social media etc - has to be Jpeg
Sending to labs for printing etc , sometimes TIFF PDF and often Jpeg normally converted from the RAW file

So from my point of view they both have a definite place and there is a need for both.

Many moons ago as a beginner RAW scared me to death so i never used it !
 
No problem , however just because you have read things before does not mean people other people dont want to discuss them again ( you are not obliged to read or reply ) . There are new members ( like me ) who rather than troll through hundreds of forums would just like to 'Talk Photography' and since it is always a big talking point with new users i see no reason it should not be discussed regularly.
 
I took a long time to covert to raw,had a Jpeg session a few weeks ago and felt so limited when they where on the computer,the only reason i tried Jpeg again was the poor buffer size on the D7000/7100 i use,decided to do what i could with the buffer and transfer rate to improve things and stick with raw.
 
Andrew Davies Photography said:
No problem , however just because you have read things before does not mean people other people dont want to discuss them again ( you are not obliged to read or reply ) . There are new members ( like me ) who rather than troll through hundreds of forums would just like to 'Talk Photography' and since it is always a big talking point with new users i see no reason it should not be discussed regularly.
Click to expand...

OR you could just use the SEARCH facility on this forum, to establish this is a topic that's been covered so many times, its actually getting quite boring to see it crop up time and time again

Just a thought

Les ;)
 
mikew said:
I took a long time to covert to raw,had a Jpeg session a few weeks ago and felt so limited when they where on the computer,the only reason i tried Jpeg again was the poor buffer size on the D7000/7100 i use,decided to do what i could with the buffer and transfer rate to improve things and stick with raw.
Click to expand...

I was the same when i first started Mike did not understand RAW or how it was processed and it seemed a long way round things , when you are just shooting for fun jpeg does the job well. Once you start into the world of paid photography then things change and you need the best, i have to say however still in this day and age if someone was to say you were only allowed one format RAW or Jpeg then i would keep Jpeg as most of the end results of printing and net use are where our images end up and this normally needs Jpeg.
 
Like everyhting else on or in your camera.. both RAW and JPG have there uses.. why argue one against the other?
 
Welcome Andrew.

Just by searching for Raw VS jpeg in titles only gave me 18 threads on this subject with a lot of information in them if that is what you are after.

Unfortunately, what tends to happen is that these threads get out of hand and end up locked.
 
The problem with 'new users' who might find the discussion useful, is that they can't easily ascertain who's opinion is worth anything either.

So 20% of contributors will explain that there's a genuine reason why some people choose either Raw or JPEG, and 40% each on raw vs JPEG talking mostly nonsense backed up with either reasonable arguments or bullpoop.

The newbies will be lucky indeed if they can sort the wheat from the chaff. For more experienced members, filtering the answers is easy. But then they don't need an answer, because they've already fallen into one of the above camps.
 
As sometimes happens with forum posts, the original OPs (me) asks a question and instead of attempting to answer it ( which if done correctly WOULD be very useful to newbies ) people would rather discuss the merits of whether the question is worthy in the first place !!

It would have taken you all just the same amount of time to answer the question and it would have been much more useful.
 
No, it's not a great debate*. There are enough threads on this topic already - and even a cursory examination of them would see that they always end the same way and no useful consensus ever emerges.

Each format is a tool, and every tool has their uses.



* it's a great topic for someone wanting to rack up their post count in circular arguments though. Or maybe that's just me being cynical.
 
Yep thats you being cynical.

If you had read the post you would see i asked people for facts and not a consensus , all these Raw v Jpeg debates end up in loads of technobabble arguing which is why newbie find it hard to understand, so for once it would be nice for people to actual just explain why and when they use it. As a beginner i read loads on the subject and no one really ever bothered to put it in real world context. Lots of armchair photographers and pixel peepers and not enough real world experience.

Of course if you do not want to answer the questions thats fine, I just cant get my head around everyones need to join in a debate they seem to find pointless. Sort of makes your point null as you are expanded the thread by adding to it.
 
If I'm understanding you correctly Andrew, it sounds like you're after advice about which format to use for different real-world situations.

So, in situation A use jpeg, in situation B use RAW.

What people are trying to point out to you is that many threads exist which demonstrate there is little agreement on the matter. For any given real-world situation, some will use jpeg and some will use RAW. Some are happy for people to use whatever they prefer, some will argue that their method is "right."

It's pointless.

My advice to a newbie would be to try both, then use whichever works for them.
 
The technobabble are the facts as it's a very technical question - it's not an easy question, there are no right answers and what's best varies with what you're doing, what you want to achieve and even what camera you use. All of which are considered in all of the previous threads on the topic.

I only wandered into this thread because the concept of the great rawlplug debate intrigued me (presumably the merits of red vs. brown and what on earth the yellow ones are for).
 
Any topic is valid, any number of discussions on those topics are valid. This is a free forum and as long as it doesn't break the rules I see no harm. It may be that a new angle comes up in the discussion that is useful for someone.

Personally, I shoot exclusively in RAW because I want more data to play with in PP. Jpegs are fine and dandy if you like them though.
 
Ok, I'm bored so I'll bite :)

Firstly it looks like you're not just talking about capturing an image in either RAW or jpeg, but also converting images to jpeg for different uses, which of course we all do.

Imo, there are only two logical reasons for anyone to capture in jpeg these days, one to save space, either on your cards or HD's, and the other for shaving a few seconds of your processing time.

Storage is cheap so why not take the opportunity to get the best from your files, and unless you're a press Photographer, the few seconds you spend converting from RAW to Jpeg is irrelevant.
 
the end result is the image. How you get there is utterly irrelevant. People seem far too worried that they're missing out on something.
 
Some say RAW is a crutch for photographers who don't know how to set up their camera properly. :) :exit:.

Rhodese.
 
Andrew Davies Photography said:
As sometimes happens with forum posts, the original OPs (me) asks a question and instead of attempting to answer it ( which if done correctly WOULD be very useful to newbies ) people would rather discuss the merits of whether the question is worthy in the first place !!

It would have taken you all just the same amount of time to answer the question and it would have been much more useful.
Click to expand...
So I'll tell you that I always shoot Raw.

Now you tell me, if you're a newbie, and I've said I always shoot raw because it gives me the best amount of data from which to create a finished image, and he says this...
Rhodese said:
Some say RAW is a crutch for photographers who don't know how to set up their camera properly. :) :exit:.

Rhodese.
Click to expand...
Who's opinion is valid?
Both?
Neither?
Mine because I've got a 'professional website' in my signature?
His because you've looked at my 'professional website' and you don't like any of my pictures?
Mine because I gave some reasoning?
His because it comes from a superior position, being that he's suggesting superior photographic skills?
Mine because his appears to be tongue in cheek?
etc. etc.

At the risk of labouring the point, but because you only half read my previous answer:
I wasn't being facetious or belittling your argument. My point isn't that the question has been done to death, it's that anyone who actually needs the answer will have no way of knowing how to find it due to the nature of the question. For the newbie a forum is like dumbed down TV without the bylines. An idiot who picked up a camera for the first time a month ago :snaphappy: has one opinion, and so does that bloke who writes technical reviews for photography magazines :notworthy:. I know which one is which, so I can weight the validity of the opinions. The newbie doesn't have that knowledge, and even if they did, they might still believe that a 'fresh pair of eyes' was worth more than some old fuddy duddy who left college 30 years ago :confused:.
 
If you are happy using software and understanding a little about image formats, you would go for RAW.

I shoot RAW because I know I have that flexibility of fine tuning an image or in the case of a underexposed or exposed image (within reason).

If I shoot in JPEG, I'm not going to have that much flexibility with the image and my white balance would have to be correct before I start taking photographs. You can still adjust warmth of a JPG image, you just don't have that much to work with, compared to a RAW file.
I would recommend RAW.
 
For me raw almost killed the hobby. I loved going out and shooting but the dread of coming home and having to process tons of raws bugged me to the point where id eventually not bother with the camera.

I changed to JPEG and with appropriate in camera settings I saw no harm. If I were a pro, obviously I'd use raw, but as a non pro I found JPEG fine and helped restore some of my interest, as all I had to do when I came home was dump the contents of the memory card.

IMO doing something that kills it isn't worth an extra nanometer of sharpness or quarter stop of exposure that you may or may not get from raw.

*mobile phone reply.
 
If you were in a position where you could compose, balance the lighting and white balance and get the best quality in camera with no processsing, would you still use RAW ?

By the way for those who have mentioned i started the subject in order to build a picture of how different photographers differ in the way they see and use raw jpeg etc , I am not looking for advice myself as i have my methods as i explained at the beginning, more looking to get a rounded view of others experience. My own experience being heavily weighted by wedding photography leaves me in a position where i have to use RAW most all of the time. It is nice to see others feel they have the freedom to move between both. I bet there are some wedding photographers out there ( better than me ) who can shoot in jpeg and get the whole lot right.
 
Andrew Davies Photography said:
If you were in a position where you could compose, balance the lighting and white balance and get the best quality in camera with no processsing, would you still use RAW ?
Click to expand...
Despite the fact that this is a hypothetical option which is never going to happen (as no two photographers would ever agree on what was the ideal), then if the option was JPEG or RAW then yes, I would still use RAW as JPEG is a lossy format.
 
trencheel303 said:
For me raw almost killed the hobby. I loved going out and shooting but the dread of coming home and having to process tons of raws bugged me to the point where id eventually not bother with the camera.

I changed to JPEG and with appropriate in camera settings I saw no harm. If I were a pro, obviously I'd use raw, but as a non pro I found JPEG fine and helped restore some of my interest, as all I had to do when I came home was dump the contents of the memory card.

IMO doing something that kills it isn't worth an extra nanometer of sharpness or quarter stop of exposure that you may or may not get from raw.

*mobile phone reply.
Click to expand...
I completely understand this. Been there myself. My solution is a decent preset in Lightroom. Apply it at import then just tweak the keepers as necessary.
 
Dan_uk_mids said:
I completely understand this. Been there myself. My solution is a decent preset in Lightroom. Apply it at import then just tweak the keepers as necessary.
Click to expand...

My solution was to switch to Fuji - unless the white balance is particularly difficult (multiple sources with different temperatures) I really struggle to beat the on-board jpg processing capabilities of the X-series - a complete revelation compared to my old Canon 40D. I now shoot raw+jpg, but the raw files are only retained "negatives" so that I can re-visit a shot and apply an alternative in-camera processing option. LR is reduced to a pre-print sharpening and re-sizing engine.
 
Andrew Davies Photography said:
If you were in a position where you could compose, balance the lighting and white balance and get the best quality in camera with no processsing, would you still use RAW ?

...
Click to expand...
No
There'd be no point. At the end of the process I'm sending a JPEG to print. Most of us do?

The in camera JPEG in a static environment has the capability of being the finished product. Why add a step, in much the same way you'll not find many landscape artists or fashion photographers shooting JPEG, you'll not find volume shooters shooting Raw, because no matter how little time the Raw processing adds, it's needless.
 
If i am going to correct a raw to produce a jpeg , then if the jpeg is correct in the first place how does that make jpeg a lossy format ? For me the key is in how much time you have to take the shot and where the final product is aimed at.

For me to take my ebay product shots for instance in raw would be a waste of time and space there is absolutely no need.
 
Phil V said:
No
There'd be no point. At the end of the process I'm sending a JPEG to print. Most of us do?

The in camera JPEG in a static environment has the capability of being the finished product. Why add a step, in much the same way you'll not find many landscape artists or fashion photographers shooting JPEG, you'll not find volume shooters shooting Raw, because no matter how little time the Raw processing adds, it's needless.
Click to expand...

Spot on
 
Dan_uk_mids said:
I completely understand this. Been there myself. My solution is a decent preset in Lightroom. Apply it at import then just tweak the keepers as necessary.
Click to expand...

Yup.

I import into CS5 and apply my presets and after that I look at each image in turn and do whatever I feel is necessary. Processing a shot after the presets have been done takes me at the most 30 seconds maybe... usually.

As to a reason to shoot raw rather than an opinion, actually I can think of two reasons to shoot raw...

If you have the raw file you can return to it time after time and make many versions of the same image with no loss in quality.

Also as new and better software comes out you can revisit shots and make them look better... and this is not a lazy way of doing things as sometimes you simply can not get it 100% right in camera. Certainly I've reprocessed shots with newer software and ended up getting a better result. For example boosting shadows, recovering highlights, reducing noise... these things are often easier and produce a better final image when done with newer software and then of course with newer software you have more artistic choices such as filters etc that may not have been available with older software.
 
Andrew Davies Photography said:
If i am going to correct a raw to produce a jpeg , then if the jpeg is correct in the first place how does that make jpeg a lossy format ? For me the key is in how much time you have to take the shot and where the final product is aimed at.

For me to take my ebay product shots for instance in raw would be a waste of time and space there is absolutely no need.
Click to expand...

Yup. But in the real world you can't get it right in camera all the time and with the JPEG that's it... you're stuck with it :D and if you want to make changes later for whatever reason the quality may start to fall apart.

I agree about shooting JPEG ebay shots but then again if something as simple as your WB is screwed it's a lot easier to correct it if it's a raw, IMVHO :D
 
:agree:

Especially the “out of focus” ones. Them be lost, nothing can save them. :(.

Rhodese.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top