what do you shoot raw,jpeg or both?

robhooley167 said:
I shoot RAW because I didn't pay £1100 for the Camera to compress the images before I have even seen them...
Click to expand...
[Devil's advocate]Why pay £1100 for a camera and then not use its (expensive) digital image processing capabilities? ;) [/Devil's Advocate]
 
weybourne said:
[Devil's advocate]Why pay £1100 for a camera and then not use its (expensive) digital image processing capabilities? ;) [/Devil's Advocate]
Click to expand...

[technical geeky advocate]Because the image processing capabilities of a computer using a big fat 14 bit RAW file will always be infinitely more 'tuneable' than those in the camera outputting a teeny tiny 8 bit file. ;) [/technical geeky advocate]
 
Last edited:
weybourne said:
[Devil's advocate]Why pay £1100 for a camera and then not use its (expensive) digital image processing capabilities? ;) [/Devil's Advocate]
Click to expand...

Mainly because i know what i want, the camera doesn't...
 
weybourne said:
[Devil's advocate]Why pay £1100 for a camera and then not use its (expensive) digital image processing capabilities? ;) [/Devil's Advocate]
Click to expand...

Well for one thing, because that processing capability will probably never change. It'll be as good after 5 years as it was on day one.

RAW software, on the other hand, gets better and better. After 3 years with one of my cameras, I'm getting at least a stop of usable high ISO range more than I had on day one.
 
PMN said:
[technical geeky advocate]Because the image processing capabilities of a computer using a big fat 14 bit RAW file will always be infinitely more 'tuneable' than those in the camera outputting a teeny tiny 8 bit file. ;) [/technical geeky advocate]
Click to expand...

[not a technical geeky advocate]Surely both camera and computer use the same raw data with the same bit depth? Why would you want a jpeg greater than 8 bit depth? Why 'tune' (specifically using those extra 6 bits) a jpeg? The jpeg is the finished product[/not a technical geeky advocate]

All that 'advocacy' aside, I am aware of the benefits of pp on the computer from RAW - but I don't think that camera-processed jpegs should be dismissed out-of-hand - as has been said before in this thread, it's a case of what works for you and horses for courses.

I would think that people who uses jpegs straight out of the camera are not intending to then go on to process them the same as they would a RAW file but to use the jpeg pretty much as a finished product (I know that there are exceptions to this). If the camera-jpeg is fit-for-purpose, then there is no need to wait three years for technology to allow you to improve on it or give you an extra stop of usable ISO. Cameras do have processing settings so that you can tell it what you want before the picture is taken - this does a good enough job for some people/situations. Most of the responses to my 'devil's advocacy' seem to have missed this point.
 
weybourne said:
Cameras do have processing settings so that you can tell it what you want before the picture is taken - this does a good enough job for some people/situations. Most of the responses to my 'devil's advocacy' seem to have missed this point.
Click to expand...

With the greatest respect, I think it's you who's missing the point. I think it's fair to say most people don't buy DSLR's for the camera to make the majority of decisions and to decide what information should be kept or binned, most people want complete control over their images and the only way to do that is to nail your exposure and shoot RAW. We're all aware of the fact that DSLR's are more than capable of outputting perfectly good and useable JPEG images but that doesn't change the fact that most people want more control than that, assuming they're not in a professional position of needing to send readily useable images to magazines or other publishing establishments.

Again, why not run at the highest quality possible without unnecessarily binning information?
 
PMN said:
With the greatest respect, I think it's you who's missing the point. I think it's fair to say most people don't buy DSLR's for the camera to make the majority of decisions and to decide what information should be kept or binned, most people want complete control over their images and the only way to do that is to nail your exposure and shoot RAW. We're all aware of the fact that DSLR's are more than capable of outputting perfectly good and useable JPEG images but that doesn't change the fact that most people want more control than that, assuming they're not in a professional position of needing to send readily useable images to magazines or other publishing establishments.

Again, why not run at the highest quality possible without unnecessarily binning information?
Click to expand...

I'm not missing the point - fundamentally I don't disagree with you but if the jpeg is good enough then the information has been binned because there is no need to keep it and it would be unnecessary to do so.

I do 'promote' using raw - I've already posted in this thread with advice on using RAW to the OP here - but sometimes an out-of the camera jpeg will do the job - and not just for professional press photographers. Sometimes that's all I want (most of the time it isn't) - for example, I took some pictures today of some wiring for reference (camera white-balance wasn't an issue) - I certainly wasn't going to shoot and process raw for that. I still think that I would be missing the point if I dismissed the use of camera-produced jpegs because I thought that most people with DSLRs (always) want more control than that.
 
weybourne said:
Sometimes that's all I want (most of the time it isn't) - for example, I took some pictures today of some wiring for reference (camera white-balance wasn't an issue) - I certainly wasn't going to shoot and process raw for that. I still think that I would be missing the point if I dismissed the use of camera-produced jpegs because I thought that most people with DSLRs (always) want more control than that.
Click to expand...

If I were, for example, taking photos of something to sell on ebay then I wouldn't shoot RAW for it; in fact I'd probably shoot with my iPhone 4S for that, but if I'm up at 4am to go stand in the freezing cold trying to capture something special then I'm gonna be damned sure to keep as much info from that shoot as I can.

If you're talking about shooting JPEG for taking photos of wiring for reference then again, with respect, I think you're massively missing the point!
 
PMN said:
If I were, for example, taking photos of something to sell on ebay then I wouldn't shoot RAW for it; in fact I'd probably shoot with my iPhone 4S for that, but if I'm up at 4am to go stand in the freezing cold trying to capture something special then I'm gonna be damned sure to keep as much info from that shoot as I can.

If you're talking about shooting JPEG for taking photos of wiring for reference then again, with respect, I think you're massively missing the point!
Click to expand...

The wiring photograph was 'proof-of-concept' that camera-jpegs can be fit-for-purpose. I am not advocating shooting jpeg over raw and I don't understand why you so respectfully repeatedly insist that I am missing the point by recognising that camera-produced jpegs can deliver good, fit-for-purpose results.

If you read my first post in this thread and any posts in respect of raw/pp you will realise that I am an advocate of shooting raw and computer-based processing - I am aware of the benefits - but I'm not dogmatically against shooting jpegs.

Some photographers get the results they want by shooting jpeg - you're obviously not one of them and more often than not, nor am I, but I'm not going to say categorically that they must shoot raw and pp on the computer in order to get the required end-product. I might suggest it if I see their photo and there is something wrong that could have been done differently by processing the raw - but that's a different matter.
 
weybourne said:
The wiring photograph was 'proof-of-concept' that camera-jpegs can be fit-for-purpose. I am not advocating shooting jpeg over raw and I don't understand why you so respectfully repeatedly insist that I am missing the point by recognising that camera-produced jpegs can deliver good, fit-for-purpose results.
Click to expand...

Alright, I'll say it disrespectfully if that's what you'd prefer. What you've used as an example of "proof-of-conecpt" is utter nonsense, why would I or anyone else buy a £1600 camera to take a photo of wiring? What photographer pays that kind of money to do a job a camera phone can do? You're not paying attention to the wider concept here! You're directly comparing taking random reference snaps to something people would get up at silly times of the day and go out of their way to shoot with equipment that costs several thousand pounds.

Why are you doing that? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
 
Nowdays I always RAW.
The only downsides are, for me, is;
#1 The camera buffer may fill up when shooting unplanned action.
#2 The images cannot be properly seen, if need be (and this is rare), by all interested parties without post processing.
 
Last edited:
PMN said:
Alright, I'll say it disrespectfully if that's what you'd prefer. What you've used as an example of "proof-of-conecpt" is utter nonsense, why would I or anyone else buy a £1600 camera to take a photo of wiring? What photographer pays that kind of money to do a job a camera phone can do? You're not paying attention to the wider concept here! You're directly comparing taking random reference snaps to something people would get up at silly times of the day and go out of their way to shoot with equipment that costs several thousand pounds.

Why are you doing that? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...

  • My camera did not cost £1600
  • My camera phone is not up to the job (it's a Nokia 62301 - I don't use it for photography)
  • I needed a camera - I've got a camera - so I used it
  • There was no benefit in shooting RAW that time

You're citing time of day as a reason for shooting raw? ;)

I shoot raw - I've never said that I don't - I also use out-of-the camera jpegs - sometimes it suits me. I've seen better jpegs produced by a camera than I have produced by some photographers at their computer.

The reference snaps were not random - but that's not relevant. Plenty of adept (or not so adept) photographers choose to use camera jpegs. Just because it doesn't make sense to you, it doesn't mean that it makes no sense to them.
 
DemiLion said:
Hmmmm, I don't really follow that logic. Shouldn't you be seeing the picture before you even trigger the shutter?

As I've said (repeatedly) before, it doesn't matter so much which you use, but more that you know the limitations of each and therefore can make an informed choice as to which suits any given situation.
Click to expand...

His logic is he payed a lot for a camera that can capture tons of data for processing so he does not shot in jpeg so that the camera can choose what part of that data to save and what part of it to throw away before he even has a chance to review the shot taken. Understanding raw and jpeg is understanding that is exactly what you are doing by shooting in jpeg. As far as seeing the picture before it is shot, do you mean envisioning it or seeing it through the view finder? Either way it is not the same as seeing it pp.

I understand his logic and fully agree with it as well. Like I said earlier there is a time when jpeg is a must but the majority of us never have to deal with that situation.
 
weybourne said:
You're citing time of day as a reason for shooting raw? ;)
Click to expand...

*sigh*

No, I'm not. I apologise if me mentioning getting up early to shoot a sunrise wasn't obvious as an example of a time where you'd probably want to shoot RAW rather than JPEG, it seemed quite obvious to me at the time that it was a direct comparison to your 'wiring reference shot' rather than me saying all morning shots should be shot RAW. How you came to that conclusion is beyond me.

Can we have a facepalm smiley please?...
 
I shoot RAW and Small fine Jpeg at the same time.

RAW for when I get back to my computer with Lightroom.

small Jpeg (around 1MB each) for friends/family who want the shots from my camera straight away. It doesn't take up much space, can be viewed on any computer, and size is perfect for web, which is what they'll be used.



I don't believe in shooting RAW only because frankly if the photo out of your camera must be tweaked, then you probably have not thought about lighting conditions and technique is not correct. (eg, subject in the shadows)

But I do also agree that shooting RAW is a must. Even if you have got everything perfect, the digital sensor is still not as good as film for high dynamic range landscape shots. (eg. getting up 4am for that sunrise photo)
 
wuyanxu said:
I don't believe in shooting RAW only because frankly if the photo out of your camera must be tweaked, then you probably have not thought about lighting conditions and technique is not correct. (eg, subject in the shadows)
Click to expand...

I have to say each to their own, but to imply people shoot RAW because they haven't thought about their image is slightly odd to me to say the least. It's certainly true that you can pull more back from a RAW file than JPEG if you need to which has helped me on many a shot I've messed up, but that certainly isn't the reason I shoot RAW!
 
no, my point is that I don't agree with some people, who thinks fill flash are not needed, they can just post process the shot by pulling back lost details in RAW.

I think Jpeg out of the camera should be 90% there, and 5 minutes is the maximum you should spend post processing a photo in Lightroom.
 
PMN said:
I'd hope not, and this is no different. Seeing or hearing the 'end result' has no bearing on whether you shoot JPEG or RAW, or record audio as WAV of MP3; it isn't about that, it's more about maintaining the highest level of quality throughout your workflow and creating the highest quality 'master' you can.

As has been mentioned before, some people using high end bodies must have the speed and accessibility JPEG gives; they don't have the time to fiddle with and convert RAW files before sending them off to magazine/news editors, etc, but personally I have no idea why you'd want to shoot JPEG if you plan on doing any degree of post-processing. As Phil V says, working on RAW files is as quick if not quicker than working on JPEG's if your workflow is well oiled, plus you maintain the highest level of quality throughout the whole process. I mean, what's not to like about that?
Click to expand...


Yes actually it does. Go back and read the second part of my post.

As for your second para - I'm quite well aware of that thanks.
 
Photos RAW
Audio FLAC or .ape files.


Lossy compression sucks :)
 
I find that the real fun only really begins when I get home and edit the raw files.
 
wuyanxu said:
I don't believe in shooting RAW only because frankly if the photo out of your camera must be tweaked, then you probably have not thought about lighting conditions and technique is not correct. (eg, subject in the shadows)
Click to expand...

Ah, some Jpeg shooters say that they get the perfect exposure of the perfect scene so don't have to edit. Good for them. :clap: Wish I was perfect at taking pics of all those perfectly lit scenes. :)

Someone wanting total control of their images must not be getting it right in the first place. :bonk:

Now I don't get things correct all of the time, but that is not the reason I shoot RAW, it's because I don't always have the perfect scene, and I may want to get an image to its full potential. Though the cameras are quite good, they don't know what I was taking a pic of, and they don't know what I want the pic to end up looking like. And yes, the aim of every image I take is not always to be an 'as was' representation of the scene I saw.

Are the same in camera settings optimal for every scene? I don't think so. Locking choices into the file capture, or limiting choices, doesn't make sense to me. :shrug: Yes, you can optimise the in camera settings, but how often do most people do it? Indeed, how many people change from the default Picture Style/Control? If I was shooting Jpegs, I would try to choose an appropriate Picture Style/Control.

And even if it is the perfect exposure of the perfect scene, that may be the one that I want to print large, and I'd like as much information as possible to print with. To do that you need as much data as you can, and having an already compromised file may limit what can be done to get the best out of the file imho.

People show the extreme recovery of highlights, and the changes to WB as examples of how much more can be done with a RAW file, as how much information is there in comparison to a Jpeg file, with sometimes little visible side effects, especially in the case of WB. And because of this people assume they are only using RAW to be able to fix user problems at capture, and are lazy photographers. :nono: I don't think that is the case for the vast majority of users.

Lots of people were happy to take their rolls of film and send them away to get processed, I know, I was one of them. I did it because I was shooting in colour, (most of the time) and processing colour film was way more complicated, time consuming and expensive than B&W. And B&W was enough of a pain for me not to do it at home, nevermind colour. :bang: :lol: To get the best image now from each file is not a case of it being exorbitantly expensive, or taking a long time (processing the film, and printing from the the negative in the darkroom) it is a case of using the correct file format at capture imho, get either free (with the camera) or reasonably inexpensive software, acquiring the knowledge to get most out of the software, and hopefully the best image I can. I choose to do that, and others don't.

Maybe, more importantly, I enjoy doing it. :) I enjoy taking the pictures, and also processing them. Twice the fun from the one image. :D

Whatever floats your boat though. :)
 
redhed17 said:
...
Click to expand...

That quote of my post was taken out of context. Your reply and the quote sounds like I was against shooting RAW.

I was saying there is no harm shooting RAW+Jpeg, since a lot of the times the Jpeg should be already mostly perfect. But do retain the negative to get best from your camera when you need that extra dynamic range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top