# Is RAW worth it?



## LovePhotography (Aug 25, 2014)

I haven't shot in RAW very much, and just started with DxO9 a couple months ago. Maybe I'm not doing it right, but I'm not seeing any appreciable improvement in final IQ when I shoot in RAW and run through the PRIME de-noise and other manipulations, then when I simply shoot large jpeg and run through DxO9. I'm shooting with a 6D and good lenes. I was expecting some marvelous increase in resolution since the file size goes from 7MB to 22MB. Do you guys see a big improvement?? Is RAW worth it?


----------



## candc (Aug 25, 2014)

Raw is better if you want to make adjustments to white balance or boost the shadows/cut the highlights. That sort of thing because you are not making corrctions to an image that has already had adjustments and compression applied. The camera itself makes a raw to jpeg conversion which is the same as DPP. Shooting raw does not automatically give better results but gives you more flexibility and if a better raw converter comes along then you can still work with your old files but if you have jpegs then everything is "baked in".


----------



## LovePhotography (Aug 25, 2014)

Thx!


----------



## candc (Aug 25, 2014)

I use dxo myself and like it because its fast and the lens modules are great for making automatic corrections to lenses that need it, especially distortion and chromatic aberrations.


----------



## TexPhoto (Aug 25, 2014)

Well, there are better t-shirts for RAW shooters.

You will get better results with RAW, but the difference is very small especially if your manipulations of the photo are going to be minimal and your lighting was good, and lighting color was good etc. 10+ years ago cameras made horrible jpegs and there was more of a difference.

I shoot RAW+Jpeg 100% of the time, and for casual shooting, 90% of the time I use the jpeg. For Serious work I use the RAW.


----------



## Ruined (Aug 25, 2014)

LovePhotography said:


> I haven't shot in RAW very much, and just started with DxO9 a couple months ago. Maybe I'm not doing it right, but I'm not seeing any appreciable improvement in final IQ when I shoot in RAW and run through the PRIME de-noise and other manipulations, then when I simply shoot large jpeg and run through DxO9. I'm shooting with a 6D and good lenes. I was expecting some marvelous increase in resolution since the file size goes from 7MB to 22MB. Do you guys see a big improvement?? Is RAW worth it?



RAW is all about the flexibility to do more with the image, as there is more data kept to manipulate. While JPG looks great, in certain situations it can fall apart with significant manipulation.

If you were shooting something like a Rebel, I would probably advise to stick with JPG if you are happy with it as the Rebel cameras can't do RAW+JPG without running out of buffer quite quickly. But the 6D can do RAW+JPG for quite some time before running out of buffer, so I would advise trying RAW+JPG for a while. Eventually, you might switch over to RAW exclusively.


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 25, 2014)

If you really want to get a feel for why we like RAW shooting, go to a typical high school or college stage play and shoot some pictures. If you shoot in JPEG, you'll sit there and swear because metering for half the scene results in blown out highlights in the other half, and if you meter for the bright half, you get noisy mud on the other half.


----------



## candc (Aug 25, 2014)

Oh c,mon admins, you have to admit that was a pretty awesome T-shirt?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 25, 2014)

So there's a RAW tea shirt and we don't get to see it??

I shoot RAW and really appreciate the degree of exposure adjustment that is available after the fact!
Also sharpening via specific lens tuning in DPP is a definite benefit.

Jack


----------



## Vivid Color (Aug 25, 2014)

If you ever accidentally set your white balance incorrectly, as I did shooting photos of President Obama's second inauguration, you won't be asking that question, you'll just shoot in RAW or RAW+JPEG.


----------



## pwp (Aug 25, 2014)

Vivid Color said:


> If you ever accidentally set your white balance incorrectly, as I did shooting photos of President Obama's second inauguration, you won't be asking that question, you'll just shoot in RAW or RAW+JPEG.


OP, shoot JPEG by all means, for the most part you'll get a solid result. 

If like VividColor you do projects for clients where the consequences of a screw-up could be career-ending, you shoot RAW. Hell, why wouldn't you shoot RAW? I thought this argument was long over. The reasons are written up ad-nauseum. I thank the Gods of Photography daily for the astounding flexibility and depth of RAW files.

The only JPEG's I ever shoot are on my phone. BTW, your phone and every single digital camera shoots RAW and does a no-consultation conversion for you. Why not do it yourself?

-pw


----------



## Halfrack (Aug 25, 2014)

Yes,

Storage is cheap, computers are powerful, and you can't always go back and reshoot. If after a shoot, you cull your shots down to what you like. Decide if you want to batch them all to jpg and call it done. You can convert to jpg at any time, but can never go back to RAW.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Aug 25, 2014)

All you have to do is cry over a once in a life time photo shot in jpeg you can't salvage and get $$$$ for.
When you expect to shoot your "normal" stuff all day in jpeg, that's when the photon god sends you a split second of glorious light spread across 15 f-stops.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Aug 25, 2014)

Here is an example of shooting in raw. The photo was part of a bracketed HDR series and this frame was 3 stops over exposed.(for shadow detail) It's also the only frame with the lightning strike. Because it was a raw file, all the important elements in the photo were recovered via DXO Pro9 and Lightroom.



Lightning strike Clay Lacy P-51 Reno 2013 Sati 4321 © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal Photography, on Flickr


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Aug 25, 2014)

Increase in resolution: not much.
Everything else like white balance, shadows, lights, local corrections can be much better.


----------



## cervantes (Aug 25, 2014)

I have created an extensive article on the topic on my newly launched website.
Check it out here: http://www.focrates.com/articles/pp_images_and_why_to_shoot_raw/pp_images_and_why_to_shoot_raw.html

Hope that helps!
Best wishes!


----------



## RGF (Aug 25, 2014)

candc said:


> Raw is better if you want to make adjustments to white balance or boost the shadows/cut the highlights. That sort of thing because you are not making corrctions to an image that has already had adjustments and compression applied. The camera itself makes a raw to jpeg conversion which is the same as DPP. Shooting raw does not automatically give better results but gives you more flexibility and if a better raw converter comes along then you can still work with your old files but if you have jpegs then everything is "baked in".



Well exposed JPG is nearly as good as a RAW. But when you run into trouble, RAW will save your butt.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 25, 2014)

What about lossy DNG, anyone? Any issues> I'm using these (in Lightroom) to reduce the resolution I get from my Sony ARW's to ~10.5 megapixels. The dng's become surprisingly small, and it looks like I can still do all the corrections I want?

In case you wonder, I also shoot MRAW with the 5D3 unless I absolutely require the higher resolution. Almost all of my stuff is for monitor use or small print only (and I've printed 120x80cm canvas without problems).


----------



## Bruce Photography (Aug 25, 2014)

JPGs use only 8 bits per color channel for 255 tones of Red, Green, and blue. With most digital cameras you can select either 12 bit or 14 bit color. If you choose 14 bit per channel you have over 16,000 tones per color channel. You choose: 255 or more than 16,000 per channel? Which do you think preserves colors better?


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 25, 2014)

RGF said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > Raw is better if you want to make adjustments to white balance or boost the shadows/cut the highlights. That sort of thing because you are not making corrctions to an image that has already had adjustments and compression applied. The camera itself makes a raw to jpeg conversion which is the same as DPP. Shooting raw does not automatically give better results but gives you more flexibility and if a better raw converter comes along then you can still work with your old files but if you have jpegs then everything is "baked in".
> ...




And by trouble, you mean any situation where you need more dynamic range than a JPEG is capable of delivering.


----------



## LDS (Aug 25, 2014)

LovePhotography said:


> I was expecting some marvelous increase in resolution since the file size goes from 7MB to 22MB. Do you guys see a big improvement?? Is RAW worth it?


RAW has nothing to do with resolution - the megapixel count doesn't change. RAW, unlike JPEG, contains all the information read from the camera sensor, and is not compressed with a lossy algorithm (one that discards data, JPEG does it). That's why sizes are so different. But not because of the pixel count.
Because RAW has more data (especially more levels - bits - for each color channel), it allows for recording more subtle transitions, and, when manipulated by a good application, there's more room not only for recovering bad exposed images, but also for improving good ones. Also RAW lets you to decide how to process the image, you know what you shoot and the desired final result. The in-camera RAW to JPEG converter (cameras always shoot RAW...) doesn't know, and applies a preset process.
Sharpening a RAW file with a good application may yield better results than in-camera sharpening, and deliver what will look better 'resolution', because finer details may be seen.
But mastering RAW processing takes time and requires experience. You need to train your eye to understand what kind of processing an image needs, and learn how to apply it with your tool(s) of choice.
If you didn't it already, look for books, tutorials, etc. to learn and understand RAW processing, a trial-and-error approach without solid foundations about digital image processing usually doesn't get you too far.


----------



## leGreve (Aug 25, 2014)

RGF said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > Raw is better if you want to make adjustments to white balance or boost the shadows/cut the highlights. That sort of thing because you are not making corrctions to an image that has already had adjustments and compression applied. The camera itself makes a raw to jpeg conversion which is the same as DPP. Shooting raw does not automatically give better results but gives you more flexibility and if a better raw converter comes along then you can still work with your old files but if you have jpegs then everything is "baked in".
> ...



Depends for what your purpose is…

I think a lot of people forget that we dont' all shoot landscape or portraits or family photos.

As soon as you venture into creative photography and even much more so commercial photography, you 100% need the flexibility of raw to handle the grade and dynamics of contrasts and so on to deliver a finished product.

Jpgs fall apart too fast when you start to manipulate the files.

I never shoot anything but raw.


----------



## pwp (Aug 25, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> What about lossy DNG, anyone? Any issues> I'm using these (in Lightroom) to reduce the resolution I get from my Sony ARW's to ~10.5 megapixels. The dng's become surprisingly small, and it looks like I can still do all the corrections I want?
> 
> In case you wonder, I also shoot MRAW with the 5D3 unless I absolutely require the higher resolution. Almost all of my stuff is for monitor use or small print only (and I've printed 120x80cm canvas without problems).



Why not shoot full RAW and down-res in post? What happens when you capture that magic moment and your client wants it for a national campaign? You may as well have skipped on the 5D3 and bought a cheap APS-C.

As a neat analogy, all my video work now is shot on the astounding Panasonic GH4. Everything is shot in 4k but published in 1080p. Video shot in 4k and down-ressed to 1080p is orders of magnitude better than shooting in 1080p. There is plenty of documentation to unequivocally verify this. And there is also the flexibility to make global changes in post. Same with a full size RAW/DNG even if you're publishing for web or small print. 

With my stills work, I do use lossy DNG occasionally, but only for storage considerations. For a job where I've shot very heavily and choose to keep a large number of images, I'll process my master files from a full size RAW/DNG. Hero images will be kept as full-size DNG, and the rest are crunched down into lossy DNG's but only for storage and only after the job has been delivered and signed off. 

-pw


----------



## PicaPica (Aug 25, 2014)

LovePhotography said:


> I haven't shot in RAW very much, and just started with DxO9 a couple months ago. Maybe I'm not doing it right, but I'm not seeing any appreciable improvement in final IQ when I shoot in RAW and run through the PRIME de-noise and other manipulations, then when I simply shoot large jpeg and run through DxO9. I'm shooting with a 6D and good lenes. I was expecting some marvelous increase in resolution since the file size goes from 7MB to 22MB. Do you guys see a big improvement?? Is RAW worth it?



why do you think all serious pros in the world advertising RAW instead of JPG?
excuse me but this question answers itself...

JPG is only for those who shoot so much and on such a short deadline that even batch conversion is not fast enough.

or for people who don´t like to edit their images at all (no time, no skills, no interest whatever the reason is).


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 25, 2014)

pwp said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > What about lossy DNG, anyone? Any issues> I'm using these (in Lightroom) to reduce the resolution I get from my Sony ARW's to ~10.5 megapixels. The dng's become surprisingly small, and it looks like I can still do all the corrections I want?
> ...



There's a lot more to the 5D3 than just resolution 

I don't shoot commercially. Like I said, 10 megapixels is sufficient for me.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Aug 25, 2014)

Photoblogopher had an interesting article about the improvements with JPEG processing makes shooting JPEG only more attractive then it used to be. 

JPEG and RAW each have their advantages and disadvantages. If one gives you what you need, that's the one you should use.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Aug 25, 2014)

I look back at some of my very first photos with the 40D and wished they were in raw. Didn't even have software back then. Now all bodies are set for raw. Even the lowly G10.


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 25, 2014)

It depends on what you shoot and how important the final image is to you, particularly if you print large photos. For studio work with controlled lighting most RAW exposures are very close to the JPEG and if you shoot with deadlines or a huge volume, JPEG is necessary. If you shoot landscape, architecture, or in difficult lighting, RAW is amazing and will yield superior results, especially if you "expose to the right" (ETTR). Personally, the vast majority of my shots would not be nearly as good if I shot JPEG. I don't do a lot of post on most images, but those subtle adjustments of the highlights, shadows, contrast, sharpness, etc. are what make the images mine. Some photos need little to no adjustment, but others need a lot of adjustment and unfortunately the camera, as smart as it is, doesn't always make them correctly, especially white balance. If you've ever tried to save a set of JPEGs shot indoors with the wrong white balance, you'll never shoot without RAW again.

There are many articles out there showing beginning to advanced RAW processing techniques, but here's a suggestion:

Shoot in RAW or RAW+JPEG and you can you easily use the JPEG (or convert RAW to JPEG) and you always have the high quality RAW file to come back to, even if it's years later. The only downside is needing more disk space.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Aug 25, 2014)

You can always make a JPEG from RAW. Going the other way ain't so easy. ;D


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 25, 2014)

KeithBreazeal said:


> I look back at some of my very first photos with the 40D and wished they were in raw. Didn't even have software back then. Now all bodies are set for raw. Even the lowly G10.



Thankfully I went to RAW on my 40D almost straight away. Good thing I listened to the colleague who inspired me to take up photography.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Aug 25, 2014)

Be happy, learn early. I look at my Argus C3 and wonder how the hell I lived through all the processing & printing. Don't really miss the smell of fixer though.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 25, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> KeithBreazeal said:
> 
> 
> > I look back at some of my very first photos with the 40D and wished they were in raw. Didn't even have software back then. Now all bodies are set for raw. Even the lowly G10.
> ...



I used jpeg on my original Rebel, 30D and 40D, and a ton of early digital cameras. Then on my 5D MK II, and on my 40D I started using raw. Those old images are now forever burned in and any re-edits don't help much. I have re-edited some of my old raw images with newer software and see a noticible improvement. I get a 1/2 - 1 stop improvement in noise on old high ISO 7D and 5D MK II images.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Aug 25, 2014)

In hind sight, photos deleted many years ago could have been salvaged with the latest software improvements. Lesson: only delete the photos of your feet. There's a funny story about that.


----------



## NancyP (Aug 26, 2014)

YES. Next question?


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 26, 2014)

Just like cooking...not much creativity can be added to precooked meals. However. ..There are people enjoying microwave foods. Pick what best for you. I'm also raw+jpeg shooter.


----------



## Zv (Aug 26, 2014)

As you progress your PP technique gets better so that you can one day go back and fix up older photos that you thought were lost or unusable. I recently discovered this when a friend asked me if I had any pics of UNESCO sites for a project she was doing. I looked back at some older pics I had but didn't really want to show them as they looked a bit under-exposed and generally the style wasn't suitable so I re-processed the ones I needed. It took me seconds to achieve good results and recover detail that I thought was lost. The finsl pics look way better than the prev iteration and have gone into my portfolio. So glad I shot RAW from day one!


----------



## tcmatthews (Aug 26, 2014)

Yes, 
sure jpeg is good for some usages but having a raw can really save you in trick situations. I one went out a took around 700 jpeg photos. It is sometimes hard to Judge the quality of the image in sunlight. I got home and they were all slightly over exposed by 1/3 to 2/3. If I had raw this would not have been a problem. That was when I found out that my camera always over exposed with that particular lens. The images were somewhat recoverable but I had to boost saturation to much for my taste.

Now I just shoot Raw+jpeg.


----------



## Logan (Aug 26, 2014)

i see it like the difference between getting your film developed at the local drugstore, and doing it yourself in your own darkroom. the photo tech gets it pretty good, but you can get it exactly how you want.


----------



## Bruce Photography (Aug 26, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> You can always make a JPEG from RAW. Going the other way ain't so easy. ;D


If fact making a raw from a JPG is impossible (just in case someone didn't understand the humor).


----------



## drjlo (Aug 26, 2014)

I only shoot RAW for all the reasons enumerated before, and I will add that it's even MORE imperative to shoot RAW on smaller-sensor cameras such as Canon S95..S120, G series, etc because the inherently worse high ISO noise, less robust metering and AWB means much higher chance of saving photo's with RAW.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 26, 2014)

I screwed up a really cute shot of my daughter. It was horribly underexposed, but I shoot in raw. I adjusted the exposure in Lightroom and I was amazed and grateful for the 5d mkiii and the raw image that resulted. 

I don't know that a jpg image would have been salvageable. 

The short answer is probably no... but the long answer is absolutely.


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 26, 2014)

Logan said:


> i see it like the difference between getting your film developed at the local drugstore, and doing it yourself in your own darkroom. the photo tech gets it pretty good, but you can get it exactly how you want.



More like the difference between keeping the negatives and keeping only the prints. If the prints aren't quite right, assuming you have the negatives, you can always reprint them from the negatives and adjust them quite a bit. If you don't have the negative, you don't have nearly as much wiggle room.

Then there was the time when the developer didn't bother to print several photos that I needed, presumably because the prints were way too dark using the default process. We thought the photos had gotten lost, but I got the idea to dig through the negatives from that time period, figured out which almost-white negatives were relevant, and had them printed anyway. Had I kept only the prints... well, you get the idea.


----------



## Logan (Aug 26, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> Logan said:
> 
> 
> > i see it like the difference between getting your film developed at the local drugstore, and doing it yourself in your own darkroom. the photo tech gets it pretty good, but you can get it exactly how you want.
> ...



ok, fair enough, my comparison would be more accurate like that, but having the negatives allows you to do your own developing, so you arent at the mercy of what the phototech (or in digital, your camera jpeg settings) thinks blue should look like. lightroom would be the darkroom (perversly).

and yes, i always made sure to check the "print all frames" box, one of my favourite rolls of film was accidentally double exposed, but in a couple pictures it ended up being like picture in picture closeup, with the first exposure being a wide angle and the second zoomed in, but the same person doing the same activity in both frames. such luck! they would have scrapped the whole role i bet.


----------



## pwp (Aug 26, 2014)

Zv said:


> I looked back at some older pics I had but didn't really want to show them as they looked a bit under-exposed and generally the style wasn't suitable so I re-processed the ones I needed. It took me seconds to achieve good results and recover detail that I thought was lost. The final pics look way better than the prev iteration and have gone into my portfolio. So glad I shot RAW from day one!


You're not wrong. Last week I did a fairly deep archive search (2002-2003) for a client who was needing shots of someone who has since passed away. I'd shot them JPEG and they were awful. I may have thought they were OK 12 years ago, but now? I switched to 100% RAW workflow from around that time, so it was probably one of my last all-JPEG jobs. If they'd been RAW files, my client would have loved the 2014 conversions and file processing. At the time I didn't consider the job to be that important. Brilliant of me (not) for thinking I could predict the future!

The evidence has been in for a _L O N G_ time now. 
If anyone reading this thread still needs convincing that RAW is tops, then too bad. 

-pw


----------



## TexPhoto (Aug 29, 2014)

*The WWE does not shoot jpeg.*


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 29, 2014)

Raw files are like diving boards, pretty flexible and can take being jumped on in post.

A jpg is like standing on a glass ceiling, it's holding you up when you don't try to jump on it too hard. It'll break apart when you do.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 29, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> Raw files are like diving boards, pretty flexible and can take being jumped on in post.
> 
> A jpg is like standing on a glass ceiling, it's holding you up when you don't try to jump on it too hard. It'll break apart when you do.



Nice analogy


----------



## Vivid Color (Aug 29, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> Raw files are like diving boards, pretty flexible and can take being jumped on in post.
> 
> A jpg is like standing on a glass ceiling, it's holding you up when you don't try to jump on it too hard. It'll break apart when you do.



Love this!


----------



## captainkanji (Aug 29, 2014)

I shoot in RAW + JPEG only for the convenience of transferring photos (via SD card) on the spot. IMO shooting in RAW is the number one thing you can do to improve your images.


----------



## Ivan Muller (Aug 29, 2014)

I suppose if you have to ask you shouldn't worry about it.....


----------



## helpful (Aug 29, 2014)

RAW is worth it as long as it doesn't make you lazy.

Too many people use RAW as an excuse to be sloppy with lighting and lazy with "automatic" exposure.


----------



## Zv (Aug 29, 2014)

helpful said:


> RAW is worth it as long as it doesn't make you lazy.
> 
> Too many people use RAW as an excuse to be sloppy with lighting and lazy with "automatic" exposure.



These folk must love spending time on a computer fixing their mistakes then. Sounds like a nightmare to me. 

Less time in post means more time chilling out in front of the telly with a beer in my hand.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 29, 2014)

Zv said:


> helpful said:
> 
> 
> > RAW is worth it as long as it doesn't make you lazy.
> ...



+1 I would love it if I were able to nail every photo every time, the time spent in post is not my favorite part of photography.


----------



## sanj (Aug 29, 2014)

Depends upon the end use mostly. I shoot my friends birthdays on JPEG and serious (!) work on RAW. It all depends upon your needs…
Very many cameras including my Fuji XE2 give perfect JPEGs.


----------



## randym77 (Aug 29, 2014)

I use RAW if the lighting is tricky, or if it's a situation where I have to get it right - there won't be another chance.

Otherwise, I shoot in JPEG. Especially if I'm taking a lot of photos. I might take 2000 photos at a baseball game. No way am I going to adjust them all in RAW. Especially if they need to be submitted that night.


----------



## Besisika (Aug 29, 2014)

pwp said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > I looked back at some older pics I had but didn't really want to show them as they looked a bit under-exposed and generally the style wasn't suitable so I re-processed the ones I needed. It took me seconds to achieve good results and recover detail that I thought was lost. The final pics look way better than the prev iteration and have gone into my portfolio. So glad I shot RAW from day one!
> ...


It is kind of nice reading people's story. 
Mine was; I did a friend a favor to shoot boxing fights. The plan was to use them on the web. I shot 5d MK III so I use Medium raw+JPEG hoping for a faster write. Two years later, the main fighter came back to me for the photos as the local TV was about to make a documentary and needed big prints. And the idiot in me shot them at ISO 6400 with mRaw. :-[

I don't shoot JPEG any longer. I shoot raw+raw at highest resolution at all time. I convinced myself that if the camera JPEG is better than my JPEG (from raw) then I still need to work on my post (and still do - I like post).

I shoot raw, not only in order to salvage poor lighting, but mainly I do in case I hit that one in a thousand pictures that I have been searching for so long, and I will need all the possible flexibilities in order to spend some more time on it.
JPG is a no go for me any longer. Raw+Raw; because I need a back up in case the other card fails.
I preset-ed each of my lenses in ACR and I created actions in Photoshop. I work on 1 photo by combining these actions, while recording a new one, and I apply the composite action on the rest of the photos. 
It is fast, unlike many think.
Actually, choosing the photos takes more time.


----------



## BLFPhoto (Aug 29, 2014)

I shoot jpeg only when I need unrelenting speed and buffer out of my cameras. Even a 1D Mk IV fills up the buffer somewhat quickly with Raw when you're shooting action of a running race. 

Otherwise, I want the flexibility in post afforded by the RAW files...ALWAYS. 

Shooting on deadline is not that hard with today's software. Ingest the files, select all, set a global adjustment (essentially the same thing as defining jpeg settings in your camera), and output jpeg files to a folder or even direct to FTP. I can do it all in Lightroom and it doesn't take much longer for either jpeg or RAW.

In the "old" days, when dealing with RAW meant a trip through Photoshop...no way. Jpeg all the way. But times have changed. But today, if I've got a great file that I send out to a client immediately, I still want the flexibility to go back later and do something in RAW to optimize the image for other purposes. 

When you really want to work over a file, RAW is the only way to go. Somebody else said it best...jpegs just fall apart if you really dig into them beyond minor global corrections.


----------



## BLFPhoto (Aug 29, 2014)

I would add that most of the folks I read here are not photographers working on a deadline. No deadline? Then there really is no reason NOT to shoot in RAW. Hard disk space is cheap. And if you manage your files well, getting rid of the junk with a good edit, then even that isn't a problem. The upsides far outweigh any downsides to me.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 29, 2014)

Zv said:


> helpful said:
> 
> 
> > RAW is worth it as long as it doesn't make you lazy.
> ...



I prefer to chill out behind my tele. Do you have a beer belly to go with your telly?


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 29, 2014)

helpful said:


> RAW is worth it as long as it doesn't make you lazy.
> 
> Too many people use RAW as an excuse to be sloppy with lighting and lazy with "automatic" exposure.


If you are fixing your photos in post...you're doing it wrong. If you are using post to make good photos even better on the other hand...you're doing it right.


----------



## LDS (Aug 29, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> Raw files are like diving boards, pretty flexible and can take being jumped on in post.



A better photographic analogy, already used (i.e. by Jeff Schewe) is to consider RAW as the "digital negative" and the RAW post processing something very alike Adam's Zone System, while shooting JPEGs is mostly like shooting reversal film.
With the former you can make decisions about exposure and development/printing to achieve the desired final result, which is always a combination of the both exposure and "development/printing" (now "post processing").
For example ETTR (Expose-To-The-Right) can be used, but of course needs post processing to achieve the final result.

With the latter, you need to get the image in "one shot", and in some kind of situations sacrifice details in highlights or shadows because of the smaller range.

Of course it's not an invite to be lazy - as someone pointed out - it's an invite to understand the digital medium fully and exploit its capabilities as well.

Maybe, sometimes can be used as a challenge to shot JPEG only - to be forced to concentrate more on exposure and lighting - and thus get used to apply the same experience to RAWs - but for any important work, shooting RAW will lead to better images when everything went right, and save those that for any reason something went wrong.

And like old negatives could be re-printed using newer technologies and achieve results once impossible, RAW can as well be re-processed as soon as new technologies arise that may improve the final image.


----------



## stan_tall_man (Aug 29, 2014)

I can appreciate the idea to "get it right in the camera" but to me part of the fun in photography is seeing what I can do with photos in Photoshop. I always have my 6d set at medium jpg + full raw. It's nice to have the jpg's for preview and the birthday party stuff like others have mentioned but like someone else said, I want raw in case I get that "holy crap" photo and I need to stretch it a bit or want to get creative. Most of my paid jobs involve kids and most jobs have challenging lighting, even when I'm using strobes. When kids are moving constantly and never sitting in the same spot I almost always need to adjust the exposure, white balance, shadows, etc. That's just so much easier with raw and the results are better than adjusting a jpg... there's so much more data to play with. Plus chasing kids and/or impatient adult clients around who will only give you so much of their time before a melt-down makes time a little too precious to adjust all my equipment constantly.

Ultimately my philosophy is that I paid an absolute ton of money on my body and lenses so why would I limit it's capabilities, even if I don't need it all the time. I'm a computer nerd so I don't mind the time in front of the screen as long as it's playing with my photos and not my real job


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 29, 2014)

LDS said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Raw files are like diving boards, pretty flexible and can take being jumped on in post.
> ...


TLDR;


----------



## c.d.embrey (Aug 30, 2014)

It all depends on how good a *technical photographer* you are. If you could shoot perfectly exposed *Chromes* back in the film days, you don't need raw.

I've always provided my *Adobe Artist* with both Raw and JPEG files. And she always works with the JPEGs, because processing my Raw files would give the same result.

A couple of years ago another pro ask me what I thought of shooting JPEGs for paying work. I told him my experience. He did some experimenting with custom functions and has been shooting JPEGs ever since. And I've seen other pros starting to switch to *custom* JPEGs.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 30, 2014)

I'm gonna throw a mirrorless spanner into this gearbox.
I find it a lot easier to nail my shot with my Fuji's since I can not only tweak most jpg settings in the camera but the tone curve as well AND see it live on its EVF. 
Not as much as you can manipulate a raw file in post but I can often use the jpg results from my fuji as-is unless I want to make some other creative mod.


----------



## Besisika (Aug 30, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> It all depends on how good a *technical photographer* you are. If you could shoot perfectly exposed *Chromes* back in the film days, you don't need raw.
> 
> I've always provided my *Adobe Artist* with both Raw and JPEG files. And she always works with the JPEGs, because processing my Raw files would give the same result.
> 
> A couple of years ago another pro ask me what I thought of shooting JPEGs for paying work. I told him my experience. He did some experimenting with custom functions and has been shooting JPEGs ever since. And I've seen other pros starting to switch to *custom* JPEGs.


Totally make sense.
I would use a JPEG as well when all is "perfect". When working with raw my file size, after all retouches, hits between 500M and GIG. While working with JPEG it can reach, statistically speaking, up to 350M. From a storage standpoint and the ability to keep all your layers, it makes sense to use JPEG.

Yet, unless you shoot in studio or any other well controlled environment I see no reason to shoot JPEG at all.
Uncontrolled lighting won't favor you because you are a good technical photographer.
While working with raw, after you are done with all the tweaking, you could flatten the image and work your final touches on separate layers, bringing down the size to the same as you would with JPEG. 
Besides, nowadays computers are powerful enough to handle a GIG size file. I do the flattening only due to storage.


----------



## FTb-n (Aug 30, 2014)

I've tried shooting JPG to save disk space for sporting events, but often found gyms with challenging lighting and wasn't happy with skin tones, even when I used custom WB. I gave up and shoot RAW exclusively. It's a lot easier to tweek color corrections with RAW images.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 30, 2014)

FTb-n said:


> I've tried shooting JPG to save disk space for sporting events, but often found gyms with challenging lighting and wasn't happy with skin tones, even when I used custom WB. I gave up and shoot RAW exclusively. It's a lot easier to tweek color corrections with RAW images.



What shutter speed were you shooting at? When I shoot in gyms, I'm generally in that 1/500 to 1/1000 range depending on how much natural light. 

But the gym lights flicker... so @ one moment they are at 5000 kelvin... then the next 5600... and the next 5300 so even with custom white balance, the lights are constantly changing on you... unless you are shooting at 1/60 of a second or slower because all the flickers add up to a consistent kelvin reading. 

At least that's the way I understand it. Fortunately, the walls in the gym I shot a good deal @ were a perfect white card color, so I could just take my WB from the all, and bam... perfect WB. I'm going to miss that.


----------



## Larry (Aug 30, 2014)

cervantes said:


> I have created an extensive article on the topic on my newly launched website.
> Check it out here: http://www.focrates.com/articles/pp_images_and_why_to_shoot_raw/pp_images_and_why_to_shoot_raw.html
> 
> Hope that helps!
> Best wishes!



Enjoyed your article, ...thanks for posting!


----------



## FTb-n (Aug 30, 2014)

You nailed it, JD. My shutterspeed in gyms is typically 1/500 to 1/1000 and I do see a differences in color temp from one frame to the next.


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 31, 2014)

LovePhotography said:


> I haven't shot in RAW very much, and just started with DxO9 a couple months ago. Maybe I'm not doing it right, but I'm not seeing any appreciable improvement in final IQ when I shoot in RAW and run through the PRIME de-noise and other manipulations, then when I simply shoot large jpeg and run through DxO9. I'm shooting with a 6D and good lenes. I was expecting some marvelous increase in resolution since the file size goes from 7MB to 22MB. Do you guys see a big improvement?? Is RAW worth it?



Digital Photographers evolve over time and roughly this is the order
Shoot only in JPEG
Discover RAW shoot in both JPEG and RAW
Become a RAW purist and shoot only in RAW, use excuses like someday I might be able to redo a picture that I thought was lost, my processing skills get better etc... Some of the excuses are used to cover poor or sloppy technique behind the camera
One day discover that not all of your shoots need to be in RAW. Not all subjects and situations need to be improved on.
Consider once again shooting in RAW and JPEG so you do not waste time having to process pictures that are "good" enough.
Find out that you are wasting time sorting out your JPEG's from your RAW and wasting memory on the computer.
Shoot which ever is appropriate at the time.

I think there might be more steps, I think buying a film body and shooting film for a while might be the next step.

To answer your original question, yea sometimes it is worth it.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 31, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> I think there might be more steps, I think buying a film body and shooting film for a while might be the next step.
> 
> To answer your original question, yea sometimes it is worth it.



Mostly true... here's my slight revisions:

Shoot only in JPEG - Check

Discover RAW shoot in both JPEG and RAW - Check, but then I couldn't figure out how to process the raw file using my existing software... so back to Jpeg with periodically shooting in raw + jpg with the assumption I would eventually figure out what I was doing. 

Become a RAW purist and shoot only in RAW, use excuses like someday I might be able to redo a picture that I thought was lost, my processing skills get better etc... Some of the excuses are used to cover poor or sloppy technique behind the camera- I screw up periodically, but it isn't poor technique... just status quo with me being negligent... regardless of the format.

One day discover that not all of your shoots need to be in RAW. Not all subjects and situations need to be improved on.
Consider once again shooting in RAW and JPEG so you do not waste time having to process pictures that are "good" enough.
Find out that you are wasting time sorting out your JPEG's from your RAW and wasting memory on the computer.
Shoot which ever is appropriate at the time.

I'm shooting at full raw and med-jpg... but the med-jpg is just wasting hard drive space... so I might drop that.


----------



## jp121 (Aug 31, 2014)

i shoot full RAW + small jpg. 

The RAW is for insurance if I screw up the settings. The jpg is for family and friends who have no idea what a balanced good photo looks like and want to see it NOW on social media.


----------



## pwp (Aug 31, 2014)

Get real! To say you only shoot RAW at the times when you know you're going to need it is pretty shortsighted. Ask just about any deeply experienced photographers about their best ever shots and a common answer will be in the context of it coming unexpectedly, a situation or magic moment that could burst out of a seemingly mundane situation. The Boy Scouts motto "Be Prepared" could have a little resonance here. Switch to RAW and never be in a position to moan or make excuses about "the one that got away..."

-pw


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2014)

RAW only.

I followed the 'typical' path - shoot JPG only, then RAW+JPG and keep only some of the RAW files, finally RAW only. 

If a file truly needs no edits, I don't have to touch it - the default settings of my RAW converter (DxO) produce better results than the in-camera JPG engine, and there's no extra effort on my part, merely a little bit of unattended computer processing time.


----------



## terminatahx (Aug 31, 2014)

Shooting Raw is best when you want the ability to make adjustments without harming IQ. For quick images that don't mean a whole lot to me, I shoot jpg. Otherwise, I shoot Raw. I like to adjust/post process most of my images, so Raw is my first choice.


----------



## Skulker (Aug 31, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> It all depends on how good a *technical photographer* you are. If you could shoot perfectly exposed *Chromes* back in the film days, you don't need raw.



only if you are happy with missing the advantages of raw. Many people like the extra flexibility.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 31, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> It all depends on how good a *technical photographer* you are. If you could shoot perfectly exposed *Chromes* back in the film days, you don't need raw.
> 
> I've always provided my *Adobe Artist* with both Raw and JPEG files. And she always works with the JPEGs, because processing my Raw files would give the same result.
> 
> A couple of years ago another pro ask me what I thought of shooting JPEGs for paying work. I told him my experience. He did some experimenting with custom functions and has been shooting JPEGs ever since. And I've seen other pros starting to switch to *custom* JPEGs.



That is completely wrong.

I used to shoot perfectly exposed Velvia 50, I was so in tune with it I could shoot for print or projection on the fly, the print generally needed a 1/3 stop exposure boost but looked crap when projected. I have shot RAW only since the day Apple's Aperture came out and meant we could view more than one RAW at a time, prior to that it was RAW and jpeg. The trouble with a "perfectly exposed *Chromes*" is perfect exposure for what output? Because you had zero latitude with the exposure and the output could be prints, or projection, or scanned to publish. RAW gives you the flexibility, if you need it, to adjust the capture to the specific output, a computer screen on its brightest setting (the majority of users) requires a vastly different file from a print that is going to be hung on a dim hallway. 

There are very good reasons to shoot jpeg, but pretentious "perfect exposure" nonsense isn't one of them. 

Also, if you are paying somebody to work your files and they are using the jpegs over the RAW files they are either playing to your ego, and/or spending your money and their time mitigating the inherent limitations of jpegs, or lying.

I print for many photographers, it takes me around five times longer to work their files if they only have jpegs than the RAW files.


----------



## pwp (Aug 31, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> RAW only.
> 
> I followed the 'typical' path - shoot JPG only, then RAW+JPG and keep only some of the RAW files, finally RAW only.


Yep that would be a pretty typical path to take. Most people would have got there years ago. RAW only. 2003 for me.

It's unfathomable and slightly hilarious that this thread is still running. I'm not against anybody shooting JPEG, that's their choice. And in some cases it's a valid choice.

Yet the arguments that favor a RAW workflow are so profoundly well based, it beggars belief how photographers who assert they're shooting meaningful work can attempt to argue that shooting JPEG is somehow superior. 

Who would prefer a pre-prepared supermarket frozen meal zapped in a microwave over a skillfully crafted meal made from fresh ingredients? Quick & convenient but somehow leaving you with that shallow feeling vs...,well you get the point. 

Yes, occasionally the frozen dinner is useful, but why not travel first class?

-pw


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Aug 31, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> c.d.embrey said:
> 
> 
> > It all depends on how good a *technical photographer* you are. If you could shoot perfectly exposed *Chromes* back in the film days, you don't need raw.
> ...


I shoot both formats (JPEG and RAW). JPEG for quick sharing or when no post processing required and the RAW for those that require some adjustment.


----------



## Phil Lowe (Aug 31, 2014)

LovePhotography said:


> I haven't shot in RAW very much, and just started with DxO9 a couple months ago. Maybe I'm not doing it right, but I'm not seeing any appreciable improvement in final IQ when I shoot in RAW and run through the PRIME de-noise and other manipulations, then when I simply shoot large jpeg and run through DxO9. I'm shooting with a 6D and good lenes. I was expecting some marvelous increase in resolution since the file size goes from 7MB to 22MB. Do you guys see a big improvement?? Is RAW worth it?



The reason a raw file is so much larger is because every one of those pixels that make up the raw image has so much more data associated with it. If you don't plan on post-processing your pics, then shoot JPG. As lonmg as you can nail the exposure with every shot, JPG is fine.

BUT if you want to be able to do any serious editing/post-processing to your files, either to enhance them or simply fix them, raw is the only way to go. I shoot RAW+JPG (large) all the time, using JPG to preview the files I want to edit, then using raw in Lightroom to do the actual editing. With the price of storage dropping all the time, there's really no reason not to shoot RAW+JPG anymore, unless you're a professional news or sports photog working under deadline and you don't have the time or bandwidth to deal with raw.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 31, 2014)

pwp said:


> Yet the arguments that favor a RAW workflow are so profoundly well based, it beggars belief how photographers who assert they're shooting meaningful work can attempt to argue that shooting JPEG is somehow superior.



This.

A point I have sometimes made in these discussions is that with Raw off the camera, I _end up_ with as much useful image "information" in the finished file - after conversion, adjustments, PP, resizing, etc. - as a jpeg shooter _starts with_.

Now if a given photographer is shooting unchallenging, "easy" subject matter, with relatively undemanding quality standards, and they can get away with what comes off the camera in a jpeg, fair play to them.

But for those of us that shoot unpredictable subjects in circumstances where we have no control over light direction, intensity etc. then Raw is a _downright necessity_ in order to maximise image quality.


----------



## Logan (Sep 4, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> c.d.embrey said:
> 
> 
> > It all depends on how good a *technical photographer* you are. If you could shoot perfectly exposed *Chromes* back in the film days, you don't need raw.
> ...



i know ive disagreed with you before but you are spot on here. even a complete amateur can see the benefits of shooting raw. no amount of screwing with in camera settings (a waste of time imo, sometimes i put it on b+w because it gives a different perspective when reviewing in camera) will give you what you can get in post with raw. i see no point in jpeg+raw unless you are working a time sensitive job. if you dont care how they are processed, with only a couple extra clicks you can batch process them into jpegs with "as shot" settings, like the jpegs would have been. you have to import them to your computer anyways, might as well just import one set of files. saves keeping track of double the files too. doesn't dpp even keep track of the camera jpeg settings and allow you to batch apply those to the raw files?


----------



## RodS57 (Sep 7, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> LovePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't shot in RAW very much, and just started with DxO9 a couple months ago. Maybe I'm not doing it right, but I'm not seeing any appreciable improvement in final IQ when I shoot in RAW and run through the PRIME de-noise and other manipulations, then when I simply shoot large jpeg and run through DxO9. I'm shooting with a 6D and good lenes. I was expecting some marvelous increase in resolution since the file size goes from 7MB to 22MB. Do you guys see a big improvement?? Is RAW worth it?
> ...



After reading all the posts in this thread so far I would have to say I like this one the most.

I shoot jpg only. I am curious about raw processing and made a feeble attempt to process raw files. For me this is a hobby. I enjoy taking pictures. I understand the benefits of raw but so far I am not inclined to either spend the money on software or spend the time trying to fix that 1/1000 of a second in time that didn't come out quite right.

For almost a year I had a constant photography buddy (he moved). He shot only in raw. Daylight permitting he got up early and went out taking pictures before work, again after work and spent his evenings processing raw files. He hasn't posted any pictures to his flickr account in almost a year. I guess he has a life now.

For the OP, if you are interested in raw then play with it. Processing raw files is definitely a good skill to have. For me, enjoying taking pictures and sometimes getting it right is more important than knowing how to fix them. As they say, practice makes perfect.

Cheers


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 8, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> There are very good reasons to shoot jpeg, but pretentious "perfect exposure" nonsense isn't one of them.


Well said and I get tired of hearing this one and the correlating one of "I don't need to 'fix' my photos in Photoshop."


----------



## DominoDude (Sep 8, 2014)

Shooting RAW is like shooting on negative film. You get the negatives and you can go back and create copies that look the way you want, whenever you want.
Shooting jpgs only, is like being handed a polaroid photo. (And I've never liked polaroids.)


----------



## Logan (Sep 10, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > There are very good reasons to shoot jpeg, but pretentious "perfect exposure" nonsense isn't one of them.
> ...


^
thankfully it seems to be on its way out.
is it any different than saying "i edit all my photos using the same set of 5 preset settings"? seems kind of limiting.


----------



## candyman (Sep 10, 2014)

RAW only. I regret that I did not start earlier than 2009. Having a lot of photos JPG only. I am much better with development photos today than in the past. Looking back on those JPG there is just a little more that can be improved. Development cost time. But I got that routine now. Returning home I first mark the photos with stars (1- not good, 2-good but not worth it, 3-good candidate, 4- very good / choice. I never give 5) Then I focus on the 3 and 4 stars. Checking exposure, WB, contrast, highlights, noise reduction, saturation and more. I use DxO Optics Elite icw Filmpack for special presets (for example Black & white). And I use Lightroom 5 also with add-ons that come with presets for effects. So yes, it cost time. But hey photography is fun...isn't it? !


----------



## mrsfotografie (Sep 10, 2014)

DominoDude said:


> Shooting RAW is like shooting on negative film. You get the negatives and you can go back and create copies that look the way you want, whenever you want.
> Shooting jpgs only, is like being handed a polaroid photo. (And I've never liked polaroids.)



Yesterday I re-processed a series I shot with the NEX-6. At the time I was confused with color spaces and was new to lightroom (used to dpp only, and had the lightroom monitor color space wrongly set up). Now the photo's much better match the 'style' I get from my Canon DSLR's. Glad I have the flexibility of RAW images.


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Sep 10, 2014)

As I'm quite certain has already been covered, RAW will give you flexibility in processing over letting the in-camera ASIC process RAW to jpg for you (ie: storing jpg formats only on your CF or SD card in-camera). 

If you want to change the color balance or color grade after the shot is made, RAW gives you that flexibility. Additionally, if your approach is to strongly stretch the color space or luminosity of an image, working in the 14bit A/D output stored in RAW can help you retain some information. But this effect is only seen with very strong processing. 

Further, in the case of the 5D mkII RAW can retain skin texture detail (where the in-camera jpg smears the h*ll out of everything). I'm sure Canon fixed this as some point, but since I don't own a newer FF I don't know how good the in-camera jpg ASIC is these days for things like skin detail.

BUT, if you don't stretch the color-space or if you don't own a 5D mkII for model shoots the 8-bit jpg output from a camera is more than sufficient.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Sep 10, 2014)

Is RAW worth it? - Yes... as long as you want to edit them and get the most out of your images.
No - if you don't want to have to do any post-processing!


----------



## tayassu (Sep 10, 2014)

I thought the same way as the OP, but when I really started off, I noticed the difference between JPG and RAW. I honestly don't know how the people could like my photos before I started shooting RAW. They are so much better now!


----------



## albron00 (Sep 10, 2014)

I shoot RAW plus JPEG only for my wife, so she could see pictures straight on her computer.
If you pay premium for camera and lenses you should, you have to finally, you must take the maximum from camera. Include picture quality. 
My wife's small camera also shoot in RAW+JPEG (Sony RX100).


----------



## justaCanonuser (Sep 10, 2014)

LovePhotography said:


> I'm shooting with a 6D and good lenes. I was expecting some marvelous increase in resolution since the file size goes from 7MB to 22MB. Do you guys see a big improvement?? Is RAW worth it?


Besides the general advantages of shooting RAW (= negative), in particular with such a DSLR you lose a lot of image quality if you shoot JPEG only. As you discovered already by comparing file sizes Canon's in-camera JPG settings compress the files heavily even in "JPEG fine" setting, plus a quite aggressive noise reduction (even if you set NR to "off" in the camera). Both together destroy a lot of detail, e.g. in landscapes with trees with leaves and other fine details you see those washed away (watercolor effect). You'll definitely see the difference between postprocessed RAW and out-of-camera JPEGs.


----------



## wtlloyd (Sep 10, 2014)

Maybe this will help:

jpeg = frozen pizza, limited pre-determined choices

raw = local, fresh, artisan pizza with toppings to your liking

Mmmmmm, pizza!


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 10, 2014)

wtlloyd said:


> Maybe this will help:
> 
> jpeg = frozen pizza, limited pre-determined choices
> 
> ...



To be more accurate

jpeg is ordering a pizza and waiting for it to be delivered
RAW is being in the kitchen monitoring and changing how the pizza is made

and just like in cooking, just being in the kitchen changing stuff does not mean the product will be better.

RAW allows the photographer to change a bunch of things with the image. It does not guarantee that these changes will be good. ;D


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Sep 10, 2014)

Yes.


----------



## TexPhoto (Sep 10, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> wtlloyd said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe this will help:
> ...



My Dr. says Pizza, frozen or from a restaurant has too much salt. How about this analogy:

jpeg is like your camera took the sensor data and produced a photo based on the settings you applied in camera like white balance and sharpness. Adjusting them after the fact is difficult and less effective. Set your camera to black and white for example, and you have no color information. On the other hand if you don't apply crazy setting these images generally look good. 

Raw is like your camera recorded the sensor data. Settings like white balance and sharpness are recorded. When the image is displayed these settings may be displayed, but they can be changed. The black and white setting for example can just be removed and the image rendered in color. These images ussually look dull and flat to begin with and require some work, but with practice the results can be great. And groups of images can be batch processed o make many look great.

Oh and I love Pizza.


----------



## Skywise (Sep 10, 2014)

Like others have said:
In ye olde school terminology shooting JPGs is akin to developing AND processing/printing your picture in the camera immediately. The processing is done according to several settings you have access too and a few which you don't.

Shooting RAW is akin to developing the picture but there's almost no processing done on the image (I believe the camera's sensor auto-correct still applies)

This gives you total control over the processing after the fact using a program like DPP or Lightroom... YEARS after the fact. I shot RAW on a few trips on a T2i years ago based on a friend's recommendation. I understood the concept and certainly realized that storing all the sensor data was better than a lossy JPG but I never *got* the point because I didn't have Lightroom or any other decent post processing package at the time. Then I got Lightroom to touch up some more recent shots and WHOA! Suddenly I felt like a professional photographer making photos you'd see in a glossy magazine! I was bringing detail out of shadows from photos that I thought I had screwed up at the time, making colors pop, correcting brightness issues.

Then I went back and started messing around with the T2i photos. I took a trip to Vegas several years back and had gotten a sunset that looked beautiful in reality but the JPG was...meh... Lots of editing the JPG in a photoshop like program didn't help much either. But with the RAW and Lightroom I was able to adjust the exposure settings and my yellow sunset on bright blue sky turned into the burnt orange cinnamon sunset I had recalled with all the neon lights popping out...

The Bellagio fountains at night which were a nice amber color regardless of which white balance I seemed to set (really T2i? Amber? WTF are you thinking?) I was able to correct in Lightroom and then enhanced the image to get everything to "pop" just so. (Although my family still prefers the amber shots... go figure...)


----------



## scyrene (Sep 10, 2014)

My progression has been the same as most others here. I'd never willingly go back to jpeg. This summer I've been without my main editing computer (with Lightroom), and I've had to use in-camera jpeg processing from raw. There is no comparison, especially for noise reduction and sharpening. Jpegs can look good, but they are so much less flexible.


----------



## Famateur (Sep 10, 2014)

If you want to get the best out of your photographs, and you're willing to learn and use a good RAW processing program like Lightroom, then yes. Switching from out-of-camera JPEG to RAW will likely do more for your photography than any upgrade in camera or lens.

I admit that RAW intimidated me a bit at first. The file size devoured my disk space, and I was finding DPP a little challenging. After seeing so many really helpful YouTube videos on Lightroom, I finally bought it, and I haven't looked back. The file size is a cheap price to pay for the results one can achieve. I can't count the number of times I've been able to recover a hastily snapped photo from a family vacation and produce not only a good "memory" photo but a beautiful photograph. When I see the difference between the camera's JPEG and my processed RAW file, it's shocking.

Before I was confident in RAW processing, I decided to shoot RAW+JPEG so I had the option to process a RAW file or not. While I'd have no problem doing RAW-only these days, I find that RAW+JPEG works nicely for me. Here's the process I tend to follow:

1. Shoot in RAW+JPEG
2. Import into Lightroom
3. Cull images that are obviously useless
4. Flag the images that I may want to process
5. Delete the RAW copies of the rest
6. Process and export my flagged images

This leaves me with RAW files for the keepers and JPEGs for the "nice to remember the moment, but not a great photo" images. Because the camera produced those JPEGs, they don't add to my workflow.

PS: Culling is probably the hardest part of the process for me. You can't really re-create a photograph, and once it's deleted, it's gone forever (well, once it's overwritten, anyway).

That reminds me -- a relative of mine was lamenting that while trying to transfer photos from her memory card to her computer, she accidentally deleted them -- hundreds of great family photos. Thankfully, when you delete a file, you only delete the _address _to that file (giving the system permission to write new data to that space). Since she hadn't taken any photos since the incident, I was able to use a free program (in this case, Recuva, from Piriform Software) to recover every single photo. She was elated.


----------



## Skywise (Sep 10, 2014)

One more point - I shoot RAW+JPG. I'll tend to shoot several hundred pictures per trip and friends/family members almost always want copies immediately so I take all the JPGs and put them on a CD for them. (You can set Lightroom to auto-convert but it's just more convenient to have the camera do it for me.) Later, I'll go over the pictures and pull out the several dozen I really like and process them from their original RAWs. (Also, having the camera's JPGs helps me with a point of reference when processing the RAWs)


----------



## mrsfotografie (Sep 10, 2014)

OK after 7 pages of confirmations, we can conclude that:

1. YES RAW is worth it.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 10, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> OK after 7 pages of confirmations, we can conclude that:
> 
> 1. YES RAW is worth it.



Well we can conclude that RAW is worth it to some photographers. Other photographers may prefer shooting in JPEG. 

There is room for both types.


----------



## TexPhoto (Sep 10, 2014)

OMG! 2 other RAW+Jpeg shooters  I thought I was alone!


----------



## scyrene (Sep 10, 2014)

I should also add that I enjoy postprocessing nearly as much as shooting!

And as for raw+jpeg, if all bodies did in-camera raw-jpeg processing (like the 5D3) then it wouldn't be necessary at all really. I use raw+jpeg on the EOS-M at the moment so I have something to work with.

Also I should add that when doing time lapse there is no way shooting raw is feasible for me, but that's a rare exception.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 10, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > There are very good reasons to shoot jpeg, but pretentious "perfect exposure" nonsense isn't one of them.
> ...



It is a true that if you have a properly exposed picture you will not have to drag the exposure bar left or right in LR. That is the main reason I shoot JPEG and am better than everyone else, I don't drag the exposure bar back and forth. If I get it right in the camera I never have to fix it.

It is true that I can underexpose by a stop, over expose, take pictures at night that have massive amounts of noise. This is why I shoot RAW, I can have screwed up pic's and fix them as RAW files and at some point in the future when I have the actual skills I need I can improve on the RAW files I have saved on my three 3tb hard drives I use for storage. These are the reasons I shoot RAW, and that is why I am better than everyone else.

I am very sure my way is the right way and someday I will figure out what that is.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 10, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > OK after 7 pages of confirmations, we can conclude that:
> ...



And some my do both as the situation requires.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 10, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



The only scenes you can possibly "properly expose" in a jpeg are scenes that contain less than 8 stops of DR, if you are shooting anything with a greater range than that, and very often with less range than that, it is impossible to fine tune a jpeg to your interpretation of the scene. This might, or might not, be important to you.

I printed an image for a photographer last week for an exhibition, it was a rusty old truck with a heavy post processing vibe to it, on a normal overly bright screen it had a lot of shadow detail below the front bumper that would have been Zones I and II, had I printed it like that the entire lower quarter of the print would have been black, but I lifted those and only those Zones to give me deep shadow detail in the print, sure I compressed other Zones but that didn't matter, I had the ability to move individual Zones to where I needed them to be to get a print that matched the screen image.

It isn't about right or wrong, it is about understanding the inherent positives and negatives of your chosen route. I had a lady ask me the other day if she should shoot RAW, she is a keen home printer and everybody was telling her she had to shoot RAW, when I asked her what she did in post processing to her current jpeg files she said she did nothing she just prints them, I told her to stick with jpeg, she is happy, she gets prints she loves and doesn't get involved with processing she isn't interested in.

Again, no right or wrong, just do what you do for informed reasons...........


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 11, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



Makes sense and is right on.

The answer to the OP's original questions could be answered with one word.. "sometimes".
Yet we still have 8 pages of answers.


----------



## LovePhotography (Sep 14, 2014)

I consider myself a pretty good amateur. Been shooting since the mid-80's. And, I enjoy messing around in post production. However, I work about 70 hours a week, and am a single parent. So, I don't have much time for post production. So, the question is, has anyone compared the stock Canon 6D jpeg rendering with the stock out of the box DxO9 RAW rendering, that can then be saved small enough to post on Facebook, CanonRumors, or whatever? I now understand about coming back 10 years later and having RAW for later manipulations. But, I'm sort of the de facto photographer for my kids high school teams, and I'd like to be able to upload the photos to SmugMug that night, and I either have time to just upload the 6D jpegs, or have DxO9 do it's thing on "automatic fix" then upload to SmugMug. So, which is better- auto program 6D in camera or DxO9 auto? For instance, to upload this shot I took in RAW to this post, I had to go convert it as it's too big to upload RAW. Not a problem unless you took 200+ pictures at the softball tournament...
Thx for any advice.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 14, 2014)

LovePhotography said:


> and I either have time to just upload the 6D jpegs, or have DxO9 do it's thing on "automatic fix" then upload to SmugMug. So, which is better- auto program 6D in camera or DxO9 auto?



I wouldn't know about DxO auto processing (I'm using LR), but I'm very confident Canon's in-camera image postprocessing is very completent by now if you've found the picture style settings you like.

With daylight shooting the advantage of raw comes down to the greater dynamic range. If you want less clipped highlights, it's worth using it - the amount recovered from raw files is a bit smaller than on crop cameras though. Your example shot wouldn't profit from it as it's a medium dr shot as even the whites in the bokeh are proplery exposed already. If there would be bright sky or hard shadows, that's another story.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 15, 2014)

LovePhotography said:


> I consider myself a pretty good amateur. Been shooting since the mid-80's. And, I enjoy messing around in post production. However, I work about 70 hours a week, and am a single parent. So, I don't have much time for post production. So, the question is, has anyone compared the stock Canon 6D jpeg rendering with the stock out of the box DxO9 RAW rendering, that can then be saved small enough to post on Facebook, CanonRumors, or whatever? I now understand about coming back 10 years later and having RAW for later manipulations. But, I'm sort of the de facto photographer for my kids high school teams, and I'd like to be able to upload the photos to SmugMug that night, and I either have time to just upload the 6D jpegs, or have DxO9 do it's thing on "automatic fix" then upload to SmugMug. So, which is better- auto program 6D in camera or DxO9 auto? For instance, to upload this shot I took in RAW to this post, I had to go convert it as it's too big to upload RAW. Not a problem unless you took 200+ pictures at the softball tournament...
> Thx for any advice.



If you are getting the results you want and need from jpegs then there is no real reason to shoot RAW.

BUT, shooting 200 or 2,000 files isn't a good reason to not shoot RAW, all you need to do is process one shot how you want it and then sync all the others, you can select any outup size you want.

I can make and upload a 200 image web gallery to my site from RAW shots via Lightroom in about 10 minutes, that includes the FTP upload. Lightroom also has a SmugMug plugin that integrates and syncs your selected images automatically.

If you did move to RAW shooting, Lightroom should be your only purchase, it will give you the highest level of quality and edit-ability as well as integrated ease of use and functionality.


----------

