what do you shoot raw,jpeg or both?

S

snipershooter

Suspended / Banned
Messages
67
Name
wasim wazir
Edit My Images
Yes
I feel like im the only one using jpeg. I have tried editing my raw images and didnt seem like much i can do with the raw image other than remove noise.im using photoshop elements 9. I think i just dont know its full potential as im still learning to use the program.


Thanks
 
Last edited:
I shoot Motorsport and aviation so not bothered with Raw, achieve the images I want with jpegs
 
snipershooter said:
I feel like im the only one using jpeg. I have tried editing my raw images and didnt seem like much i can do with the raw image other than remove noise.im using photoshop elements 9. I think i just dont know its full potential as im still learning to use the program.

Thanks
Click to expand...

Just moved over to Raw for the power and control of editing. Using Lightroom 4 is so helpful in achieving improved final images. I prefer shooting portraits...
 
If you use Lightroom, working with RAW is fine, if you are using files /folders and manually organising images with the odd bit of Photoshopping JPG is easier.
 
RAW all the time for me, and has been since 2005. :)

Whether you shoot with Jpegs and/or RAW the ACR plugin with Elements is still good for editing Jpegs.
 
I can't remember how many times I've answered this question - but I reckon my answer is always raw & large fine jpeg. If I've got a very good reason to shoot jpeg only (including reducing the file size/quality) , I will do. If I've got a very good reason to forsake the jpeg and have the raw files only, I will do. Mostly I have no need to make the choice before the shot so I don't. Sometimes the camera jpeg suits my needs, sometimes it doesn't - I tend to make the choice after the shoot.

I don't relish hours of PC pp (I don't get enough time and opportunity to get out with the camera, let alone work on the captures) but I'll gladly do it to get the end result that I want. I'm a 'for pleasure' photographer with no one expecting or relying on a professional product so I can stick a thumb in both pies and then choose whichever I want or just leave them and move on to the next two pies - it's not always a big deal to me and 99 times out of 100 I will work on a raw file to get the result I want but I don't always have a high bar to reach and I do like to have the easier (and often quite adequate) option available :).

If you feel that you're not improving on the camera jpeg when working on your raw files then I dare say that you're not alone but it will take time and practice to start to get the result you want. I often find that the more I work on a raw file, the less satisfied I get with anything to do with the picture - but I show a few versions to my partner and she immediately points out the pros and cons of each effort (though she wouldn't know what a blown highlight or white-balance is, she can still see and appreciate the differences between the versions).

Imho, if you identify and practise a few basic steps to put in to your raw work-flow, you will start to feel more useful with raw pp and to enjoy the freedom and the determination/control that you have in getting to the end result.

I would suggest that some basic steps to consider are white-balance, colour balance/saturation, brightness/contrast (and get to play with levels/curves) and sharpening.

Here's a beginners guide to RAW

and here there are loads of guides for getting specific techniques right in pp

EDIT ps: I have no experience of Photoshop Elements and haven't a clue as to what it is or isn't capable of.
 
Last edited:
Just depends on how much control or you can be bothered to edit your photos, I found the more i played around with lightroom and photoshop, that working with raw gave the best results. But like what has been said if your happy with jpgs go with that.
 
Hotshots said:
Just depends on how much control or you can be bothered to edit your photos, I found the more i played around with lightroom and photoshop, that working with raw gave the best results. But like what has been said if your happy with jpgs go with that.
Click to expand...

^^This.

If you have access to an editting program, and intend to spend time post processing your images, then raw is the way to go. If that is of no interest to you, then either just shoot jpeg, or raw and jpeg in case you intend to do some post processing at some time in the future on the raw files.
 
Now im starting to see raw is not necessary so il give it one more go and if im not satisfied with the outcome il stick with jpegs.however it would be nice to edit photos
 
snipershooter said:
I feel like im the only one using jpeg. I have tried editing my raw images and didnt seem like much i can do with the raw image other than remove noise.im using photoshop elements 9. I think i just dont know its full potential as im still learning to use the program.

Thanks
Click to expand...

No not alone.

I generally shoot Motorsport / sport in jpeg. I do shoot in raw on occasions - an example say if its very difficult light or a challenging shot.
 
snipershooter said:
I feel like im the only one using jpeg. I have tried editing my raw images and didnt seem like much i can do with the raw image other than remove noise.im using photoshop elements 9. I think i just dont know its full potential as im still learning to use the program.

Thanks
Click to expand...

I bought a dslr so that I could capture the best quality shot possible and that is why I shoot in raw as well. When you shoot in raw you are capturing 100% of the image and with that you can edit and keep what you need to get the best possible image. When you shoot in jpeg you are letting the camera choose what part (not all) to keep and throwing away the rest of the image as soon as it is captured, the part that is tossed can never be retrieved. IMHO I think this goes against why I got an dslr in the first place. Don't get me wrong there are good reasons to shoot jpeg is certain situations. Let say if you need to send the pics into your office right away from the shoot location or you are limited on storage space than you may choose jpeg. Other than those two reasons I don't know why anyone would choose jpeg over raw. Of course there may be other reasons that I am not aware of but it seems very simple to me, raw takes advantage of the equipment we spent our hard earned money on. As far as shooting both raw and jpeg it comes down to needing to send it in from location and also wanting a copy for editing later. I don't think many people will be in this situation and I'm puzzled on why people that are not in this situation shoot this way. Hard drive space gets used up twice as fast this way.
 
Surrey Weddings said:
for sure it comes up a lot and for everyone it is different... but if you are happy with the jpgs you are producing why do you need raw?
Click to expand...

If you are happy with jpeg than so be it. Like it was stated above raw gives you full control of the image during post processing. One way you can see what you like is to take the same shot in both settings, edit both of them and see what you like better.
 
I too bought a dslr so i can take higher quality photos and i think your right we should be using raw as you can get better images.I just edited a photo and compared it to the jpeg version and i must admit the raw photo looked better.so il stick with raw only for now and i know it takes up more time processing it but the end result is worth it.
Thanks for the input everyone.
 
I started to use RAW as it it is the done thing. It meant more time spent doing PP, and most of the time I ended making something that looked like the jpeg straight out of the camera. I now only use RAW for 'best' photos, or for hard conditions, such as low light.

I think it also depends on what you are going to do with the finished picture, most of mine go on a digi photo frame, and I may print the odd A4 picture. All my photos are for me.

If I was charging for my services, then everything would be in RAW, and I'd be a lot better at PP !

But for now jpeg suits 99% of my photography.
 
Jpeg for most of my stuff, RAW and Jpeg for important people stuff.
 
snipershooter said:
Now im starting to see raw is not necessary so il give it one more go and if im not satisfied with the outcome il stick with jpegs.however it would be nice to edit photos
Click to expand...

You can edit JPEGs in exactly the same way as you would edit a RAW file.

I shoot almost exclusively in JPEGs (Large) which I convert into TIFFs (using Canon's DPP program) for the editing stages which usually includes NR, adjusting contrast, brightness, colour balance, primary sharpening, cropping, and a final secondary sharpening before saving.

The only important thing to remember in this is never to edit your OOC JPEGs.

Always make copies and work on them.
 
These days, the main advantage of shooting JPEG is you don't have to use a computer at all. JPEGs are finished images staight from the camera, and you have a useful degree of control over how they look with the in-camera pre-sets.

But if you use a computer anyway, even for very simple tasks like cropping, and for storage, then it makes sense to shoot Raw as you have more options and more scope. Sometimes that makes a big difference, sometimes not so much, and you can also post-edit JPEGs and do quite a lot with them, but why take the risk? Only downside is Raw uses more memory, but that's very cheap today.

Or with an eye on the future, shoot both Raw and JPEG. You can return to the Raws at any time to tweak them, and just use the JPEGs meanwhile.
 
Raw, except when using my Fuji X10
It seems there is no Raw processor that can match the "Magic algorithms" used in Fuji Jpgs. The silkipix is abysmal and the alternatives are even worse.
 
terrysphotoz said:
Raw to one card, jpegs to the second eye fi card that transmits the pics wirelessly to an iPad to view the pics on a larger screen as they are being taken.
Click to expand...

Sorry if I'm taking the thread off topic a bit, but how did you connect the ipad and eye fi card - do you need some intermediary software?
 
If you're doing any editing at all, then Raw is as quick or quicker once you have a decent workflow.

Batch processing a load of Raw files is loads quicker than individually processing a couple of jpegs.
 
RAW all the time, for years now. I didn't spend all that money on glass in order to throw away a huge proportion of data before it even gets to the memory card. (all that compression and lowering to 8bit) It's nice working with all the data, particularly when it's for print, and only moving to jpg for final version for web applications.

The 'get out of jail' aspect is good, for when a shot was messed up (It happens!) allowing recovery at a level that jpg couldn't -I've been glad of that a few times! :-)
 
petersmart said:
You can edit JPEGs in exactly the same way as you would edit a RAW file.
Click to expand...

No, you can't. :shake:

petersmart said:
I shoot almost exclusively in JPEGs (Large) which I convert into TIFFs (using Canon's DPP program) for the editing stages which usually includes NR, adjusting contrast, brightness, colour balance, primary sharpening, cropping, and a final secondary sharpening before saving.
Click to expand...

I think I've said in reply to you before that converting the Jpeg to a Tiff is virtually useless, because data has already been discarded in the Jpeg compression process. If it works for you though great. :) I wouldn't advise this workflow to others though.

petersmart said:
The only important thing to remember in this is never to edit your OOC JPEGs.

Always make copies and work on them.
Click to expand...

You can edit your out of camera Jpegs, just use Save as... and save with a different name when you have finished. No need to worry about duplicating RAW files for editing because any processing is non destructive. :shrug:

Obviously always have back ups of all your work for safety though. ;)
 
Just shoot both. once you get the hang of raw in the future you will wish you had the raw files of the past. I recommend everyone shooting in jpeg to do this.
 
petersmart said:
You can edit JPEGs in exactly the same way as you would edit a RAW file.
Click to expand...
As above no you can't.

petersmart said:
I shoot almost exclusively in JPEGs (Large) which I convert into TIFFs (using Canon's DPP program) for the editing stages which usually includes NR, adjusting contrast, brightness, colour balance, primary sharpening, cropping, and a final secondary sharpening before saving.
Click to expand...



Why do you do that? Jpeg has already thrown all the information away, saving into tiff is pointless. Its like burning a mp3 onto a cd to play in a cd player that can play mp3 file!
 
Last edited:
It doesn't really matter which one you use , as long as you are able to make an informed decision as to which is better in any given situation.

Ergo- learn how to use and process both file types.
 
RAW for me, if I take a great picture and missed the white balance by a touch it's wasted.
Jpeg has it's place and I can see why people use it. Not for me tho, I quite enjoy sitting at my laptop after anyway.
 
rjbell said:
Why do you do that? Jpeg has already thrown all the information away, saving into tiff is pointless. Its like burning a mp3 onto a cd to play in a cd player that can play mp3 file!
Click to expand...

petersmart uses a workflow that works for him and is 100% sure it is the best way for him. I didn't bother trying to engage him, as I've done it before and it didn't make any difference, because as I say he is 100% sure he is right and it is right for him. I posted to point out to anyone who may be thinking of following that workflow the errors I think were there. :)
 
Raw all the time.

Using Lightroom 4 and Raw files are very easy, heck you can even download free presets for lightroom that will do all the work for you once the picture is in lightroom. Then export the file to JPEG if you like and hey presto. The good thing with lightroom is that when shooting Raw and using a preset of any kind, you can still tweak the sliders and adjust until you are happy.

Lightroom is a great tool and very easy to use, it can also be massively complicated if going into the depths of it, all made easier by the likes of books by Scott Kelby, that show you how lightroom works from importing your images to doing a workflow for a wedding.

In short, if money permits, shoot Raw and buy lightroom 4.
 
Shooting .jpg is fine if you want no photo you ever take to reach its full potential.
 
The JPEG codec isn't intended to form the basis of an image for editing, it's for compressing images for efficient archival/storage and transmission. That is to say its purpose is specifically the end of the story, not the beginning.

I'm not making an argument for or against shooting in JPEG, I just think it's important to understand where in the workflow JPEG was specifically designed to sit.
 
terrysphotoz said:
Raw to one card, jpegs to the second eye fi card that transmits the pics wirelessly to an iPad to view the pics on a larger screen as they are being taken.
Click to expand...

That is a really cool method you have there especially for beginners. When I started out I hooked my laptop to the my camera and made adjustments as I shot, boy oh boy did I learned a lot from that.i can see that it would be nice to have the large screen to look at even now I'm starting to see why wifi could be a nice feature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top