# RAW or JPEG



## aj1575 (Sep 8, 2013)

I wonder what other are shooting. I shot almost only JPEGs, mostly I'm happy with the quality, even though I encountered problems with some scenes, where I got some nasty effects, especially in large areas with small color graduation (night sky...). I tried RAW for some of these shoots, but somehow it didn't help that much; probably it has to do with the fact, that my skills at RAW processing are rather limited.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2013)

100% RAW.


----------



## Click (Sep 8, 2013)

Shooting JPEG and RAW at the same time.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 8, 2013)

You mean the camera shoots some other format than RAW?


----------



## Jim Saunders (Sep 8, 2013)

If mine were any more raw they'd moo.

Jim


----------



## randerson5726 (Sep 8, 2013)

I started out using only JPEG. I eventually switched over to RAW and never went back. Never even considered it. It really blew me away at first how much more you could do with a RAW file. You should really try it, Camera Raw (plugin of photoshop) is really not that complicated. A good, high quality monitor makes things a lot easier.


----------



## captainkanji (Sep 8, 2013)

I shoot raw plus jpeg. 99% of the jpegs go into the trash. It's taken me over a year to get decent at post. 27" iMac is in the near future.


----------



## comsense (Sep 8, 2013)

100% RAW + 100% JPEG
If only one option, 100% RAW


----------



## duydaniel (Sep 8, 2013)

one of CR 10 commandment:



> Thou shalt shoot raw even for facebook


----------



## SDFilmFan (Sep 8, 2013)

I only switch to JPEG when I want long bursts of continuous shots, following some active subject, hoping for the perfect shot to pop out the string. Shooting raw overwhelms the buffer too quickly.

Oh, I also use JPEG when checking the autofocus on a lens, so that I can zoom in something finer than the thumbnail JPEG in raw images on the back screen.

Other than that, it is raw all the way.


----------



## JonAustin (Sep 8, 2013)

randerson5726 said:


> I started out using only JPEG. I eventually switched over to RAW and never went back. Never even considered it. It really blew me away at first how much more you could do with a RAW file. You should really try it, Camera Raw (plugin of photoshop) is really not that complicated. A good, high quality monitor makes things a lot easier.



+1


----------



## JonAustin (Sep 8, 2013)

SDFilmFan said:


> I only switch to JPEG when I want long bursts of continuous shots, following some active subject, hoping for the perfect shot to pop out the string. Shooting raw overwhelms the buffer too quickly.
> 
> Oh, I also use JPEG when checking the autofocus on a lens, so that I can zoom in something finer than the thumbnail JPEG in raw images on the back screen.
> 
> Other than that, it is raw all the way.



Good points. I almost never shoot long enough bursts to need to switch to JPEG. 

It still amazes me, though, that cameras can process the sensor data and write it to a JPEG file faster than it can simply write out the RAW file, even with current processor technology and card write speeds.


----------



## JohanCruyff (Sep 8, 2013)

There's a T-shirt in my wishlist: http://500px.com/photo/8193081


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 8, 2013)

I shoot raw for serious / commercial stuff. Joeys for family fun.


----------



## serendipidy (Sep 8, 2013)

Almost 100% RAW...easier to fix my mistakes ;D


----------



## Gadger (Sep 8, 2013)

100% RAW for me, I can give the bad shots a second chance ;D


----------



## JaxPhotographer (Sep 8, 2013)

RAW 100% of the time.


----------



## Emil (Sep 8, 2013)

Started out with jpeg until I discovered the possibilities of RAW and installed lightroom. Now I almost always shoot RAW.


----------



## bholliman (Sep 8, 2013)

100% RAW, normally RAW + small JPEG. The JPEG's normally get deleted after I use them to do a quick review.


----------



## duydaniel (Sep 8, 2013)

Another benefit of shooting raw is that 
when there is a dispute over who owns the image, if you have the raw file
you win the case 

Kinda like having the negative.


----------



## MarkusXXX (Sep 8, 2013)

I started with JPEG and used RAW+JPEG in difficult situations.
Then I switched to RAW+JPEG all the time.
Meanwhile I got Lightroom and now im shooting in RAW only.


----------



## LuCoOc (Sep 8, 2013)

I shoot raw only. If I need quick jpegs is use the "Instant Jpeg from RAW" plugin.

http://michaeltapesdesign.com/instant-jpeg-from-raw.html


----------



## wsheldon (Sep 8, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> Another benefit of shooting raw is that
> when there is a dispute over who owns the image, if you have the raw file
> you win the case
> 
> Kinda like having the negative.



+1

I mostly shoot RAW to provide maximum quality and flexibility in PP (white balance, anyone?), but this is a good point I hadn't considered.


----------



## Nirmala (Sep 8, 2013)

100% Raw I need all the help I can get too cover my crap technique..


----------



## pwp (Sep 8, 2013)

JaxPhotographer said:


> RAW 100% of the time.


+1.....and is this really still relevant conversation?

The flaw in the poll was the absence of a 100% RAW option. Once you have a 100% RAW workflow the prospect of ever shooting JPEG is akin to wrestling bears with one arm tied behind your back. Why voluntarily give away the RAW advantage?

-PW


----------



## brett b (Sep 8, 2013)

RAW + JPEG...always. Some of my clients want the jpeg's immediately after the shoot.


----------



## gbchriste (Sep 9, 2013)

Primary workflow is raw but I set my 5DIII up for raw on the CF an JPG on the SD cards. The JPG captures are my safetly valve incase something goes wrong. I can also dump them to disc and scroll through them very quickly if I want to scan the photos from the shoot and zero in on where I want to start my raw processing. There are a few cases where I'll go straight to the JPG but rarely. For example I'm keeping a daily photo diary of a major remodeling project at my house and uploading to FaceBook. I just grab the JPGs off the SD card for that. There have also been one or two occassions where I was the second shooter at some event and the primary wanted all the shots at the end of the day. And since she wasn't a raw shooter, I wasn't going to bother. I handed her the SD card of JPGs at the end of the day.


----------



## michael6liu (Sep 9, 2013)

Guess I'm one of the "outlier"...
Used to shoot pure RAW back with birds but got tired of dealing with the files because of size and loading time.
To me, they don't offer enough benefits to justify the disadvantages.
Having said, shooting a wedding is probably the only instance where I would consider using RAW.


----------



## eml58 (Sep 9, 2013)

RAW 100% of the time, and that's full RAW, not one of the not full RAW options now being offered.


----------



## cocopop05 (Sep 9, 2013)

100% RAW


----------



## Halfrack (Sep 9, 2013)

I shoot raw, but there are times when you're going to burst shoot a lot - sports shooters mostly - and shooting m-jpeg allows for faster selecting and editing to make a deadline. This is the exception - not the rule.


----------



## rpt (Sep 9, 2013)

100% raw.


----------



## fugu82 (Sep 9, 2013)

100% RAW on my 5D3. But on my carry-in-the-purse-just-in-case camera, a FujiX10, jpgs. Yes, I know it will do RAW, but for some minor stuff, a good jpg is fine.


----------



## Zv (Sep 9, 2013)

I have nothing against JPEG but I prefer to shoot in RAW. Shot a wedding in RAW and I'm glad I did, the shots in the church required a bit of work. I also like to deal with white balance in post rather than set a custom one in camera every time. 

I might start using the EOS M in JPEG mode though just for convenience. Minor tweeks to JPEGs seem to hold up well in post.


----------



## pwp (Sep 9, 2013)

Halfrack said:


> I shoot raw, but there are times when you're going to burst shoot a lot - sports shooters mostly - and shooting m-jpeg allows for faster selecting and editing to make a deadline. This is the exception - not the rule.


Depending on the type of action, I'll occasionally switch down to mRAW on the 1D4. This enables way faster buffer clearance especially with a high performance CF card on the job (currently Lexar 32Gb 1000x CF). Plus if there is a lot of 10 fps shooting at events like track and field athletics or swimming, mRAW means you're not switching cards so often. Athletics and swimming venues frequently have wildly mixed lighting, and JPEG with AWB just doesn't always cut it. 

-PW


----------



## CANONisOK (Sep 9, 2013)

Nirmala said:


> 100% Raw I need all the help I can get too cover my crap technique..


You beat me to the punch. This is exactly my attitude!


----------



## winglet (Sep 9, 2013)

In the Canons: RAW + JPEG. I use the jpegs for fast tethered shooting or the transfer is painfully slow. RAWS for all the obvious benefits.

In my Fuji I use JPEG for walkaround stuff. Beautiful files without the AA filter, unless I really pooched something myself with exposure, I can't improve much on the RAW's in post.


----------



## RC (Sep 9, 2013)

*Lesson learned*: Always RAW, never JPG only. Often JPG on SD while RAW on CF with my 5D3. 

Shortly after I switched from film to digital I shot for 2 days at Monument Valley on JPG because I did not have the PP skills. Over those 2 days the lighting, skies, and cloud cover were fantastic and I did get some nice shots. But now I regret not having RAW images to edit to make nice photos into great photos. Hard lesson learned for me. Never again will I shoot JPG only. Besides, storage is cheap.

Even P&S (S100) I shoot RAW.


----------



## JonAustin (Sep 9, 2013)

eml58 said:


> RAW 100% of the time, and that's full RAW, not one of the not full RAW options now being offered.



Good point, and another flaw in the choices for the poll.

I shoot MRAW most of the time (5DIII), because 10MP is more than good enough for me, for most subjects. The files are smaller and load more quickly in post, too, although my PC is beefy enough that that's not really an issue.

I only go to full RAW if I'm shooting something like a wedding or portraits, where maximum resolution is desirable, or if I can't zoom in enough with the mounted lens, and I plan to do extensive cropping in post. Fortunately, it's quick and easy to change between RAW modes using the rear LCD and the Q button.

I hadn't considered that MRAW images will flush through the camera's buffer more quickly than full RAW, but it seems reasonable. I'll have to do some tests.


----------



## CR00 (Sep 9, 2013)

RAW and Raw only.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 10, 2013)

pwp said:


> Halfrack said:
> 
> 
> > I shoot raw, but there are times when you're going to burst shoot a lot - sports shooters mostly - and shooting m-jpeg allows for faster selecting and editing to make a deadline. This is the exception - not the rule.
> ...



I took some youtube advice once and tried shooting JPEG to increase my buffer performance.
So the day I try doing that I get some decent pictures of a hawk (when most of my targets are usually pigeons), but the exposure was a little off, with no way to correct.
Half as many shots in RAW would have been better.


----------



## J.R. (Sep 10, 2013)

I shoot RAW 100% of the time. 

However, being a hobby shooter, I photograph my family and friends quite a bit who need "instant" results. I usually shift to RAW + sJPG when I know people will beat my door for the photographs without giving me time to post-process.


----------



## Narcolepsy (Sep 10, 2013)

Nirmala said:


> 100% Raw I need all the help I can get too cover my crap technique..



+1
Started out with jpegs as I was worried about disk space. Too many unsaveable shots. Bought a larger hard drive and lots of external hard drives....


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Sep 10, 2013)

RAW, 100%.


----------



## verysimplejason (Sep 10, 2013)

100% RAW. I need more headroom because my equipment and me isn't perfect but constantly strive for the perfect photo.


----------



## Skirball (Sep 10, 2013)

I think we have enough people here to go in on a group purchase of some T-shirts that say "100% RAW".


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 10, 2013)

Skirball said:


> I think we have enough people here to go in on a group purchase of some T-shirts that say "100% RAW".



You can't be familiar with froknowsphoto.com


----------



## Skirball (Sep 10, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Skirball said:
> 
> 
> > I think we have enough people here to go in on a group purchase of some T-shirts that say "100% RAW".
> ...



I am, but I believe his says "I shoot RAW"? That was mentioned on page 1.


----------



## Richard8971 (Sep 15, 2013)

SDFilmFan said:


> I only switch to JPEG when I want long bursts of continuous shots, following some active subject, hoping for the perfect shot to pop out the string. Shooting raw overwhelms the buffer too quickly.
> 
> Oh, I also use JPEG when checking the autofocus on a lens, so that I can zoom in something finer than the thumbnail JPEG in raw images on the back screen.
> 
> Other than that, it is raw all the way.



X2 8)


----------



## mbworldz (Sep 15, 2013)

1000% RAW. The way I setup my 1DX is Large RAW plus small JPEG.

Unless shooting 14fps with the 1DX, it will be jpg.


----------



## duydaniel (Sep 20, 2013)

This thread shouldn't be going too long. It is pointless to argue between the 2
UNLESS
you are using something like D800 where 36 MP maybe problematic storing the raw files.

I shoot raw even for facebook posting


----------



## Skirball (Sep 20, 2013)

Surely you see the irony of resurrecting a dying thread to tell us that this thread should die off?


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Sep 20, 2013)

Almost o ly RAW, sometimes jpeg for insignificant stuff.


----------



## serendipidy (Sep 20, 2013)

Skirball said:


> Surely you see the irony of resurrecting a dying thread to tell us that this thread should die off?



Don't call him Shirley ;D


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Sep 20, 2013)

serendipidy said:


> Skirball said:
> 
> 
> > Surely you see the irony of resurrecting a dying thread to tell us that this thread should die off?
> ...


Have you also had a couple of drinks? That was the highlight of the year 8)


----------



## TexPhoto (Sep 20, 2013)

Imagine a day when people worry more about their photos than their file format.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 21, 2013)

TexPhoto said:


> Imagine a day when people worry more about their photos than their file format.


Imagine the day when the 50 terabytes of RAW files stored in the "cloud" can not be accessed by a photographer who believed that their photos were safe...


----------



## TexPhoto (Sep 21, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> TexPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Imagine a day when people worry more about their photos than their file format.
> ...



Okay, you worry about the thing I said, and I'll do yours and then we switch.


----------



## greger (Sep 21, 2013)

Like others I started with jpegs and changed to raw only after needing to enhance my pics to fix things that weren't quite
right in the pic. I started to use DPP to increase the contrast to 3 and sharpen to 7. I convert and save to TIFF and quality
jpegs so I can attach the jpegs to emails so I can email them to friends. Mail compresses the jpegs nicely to keep it to around 1 gig or less for emails. I want to learn how to print from DPP so i can ditch PS.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 23, 2013)

CANONisOK said:


> Nirmala said:
> 
> 
> > 100% Raw I need all the help I can get too cover my crap technique..
> ...



I'm 2nd to that...been shooting both Raw + JPEG. With 2 kids(2+5yrs), I have no time for editing raw. Been keeping a lot of jpeg lately :-\


----------



## Sella174 (Sep 23, 2013)

100% JPEG ...

I started with RAW when switching to digital (because everybody said so); played with DPP; came to the conclusion that basically I used the same "recipe" over and over and over; adjusted the camera to the same settings and the results out-of-camera are better than those of DPP from RAW files.

A friend suggested I ditch DPP for PhotoShop (this was before Lightroom, etc.); took one look at the pricetag and bought a piece of *L*-glass instead.

The editing "limitations" of JPEG doesn't bother me ... I'm an old hand at positive films.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 23, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> 100% JPEG ...
> 
> I started with RAW when switching to digital (because everybody said so); played with DPP; came to the conclusion that basically I used the same "recipe" over and over and over; adjusted the camera to the same settings and the results out-of-camera are better than those of DPP from RAW files.
> 
> ...


I will speak softly to anyone listening. :-X I also prefer JPEG photos for almost all that I do. Most users Canonrumors presupposes that all RAW processing is very well done. But, I've seen several RAW distasteful, not exceeding one well-adjusted in-camera JPEG. : Obviously, RAW allows you to save some user errors, but if the picture was well done directly on the camera, do not need much treatment even. When I made my first Photoshop tutorial, I took my Fujifilm Provalue 200 for photolab reveal and scan. The next day, I took the CD with the scanned photos and gaped.  There was nothing to fix in Photoshop. Then I cut size 20x25 cm 300 DPI and sent to print and it looks great. After I started with digital (Rebel XT), my Photoshop skills were much more required. I still try to make digital look like film Fuji. I think I'm getting old.


----------



## Jeffrey (Sep 24, 2013)

Only raw. Sure, almost anyone can take a raw image and make it look like something that has never existed. I refer to those images as Velveeta cheese in that it is over-processed "something". 

Those of us who do not over-saturate and over-sharpen though can tweak the images into something realistic and wonderful. It is worth a bit of extra effort to be able to tweak the 15 images I really want to keep out of a 500 image birds in flight shoot and make them into something that I'd like to look at again in the future.


----------



## poias (Sep 24, 2013)

I am Ren Kockwell and I only shoot JPGs because in 5 years, RAWs will be unreadable anyway. I will be shooting away with my Fujifilm while you are crying for losing your RAWs. Plus I can take JPGs and my floppy disk can hold all 2 of them, where as I would need 15 floppies to hold just one RAW. And don't get me started on cheap crap like D800 with its mega pixels. My 12 year old D1 takes just as good picture and gives me 5 fps, without clogging my 2004 Mac Book Pro.


----------



## terminatahx (Sep 24, 2013)

I didn't pay thousands of dead presidents to shoot in point and shoot format.  RAW always.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 24, 2013)

There is nothing wrong with using jpeg. All cameras do shoot in raw, then built-in conversion software adds sharpening, NR, contrast, adjusts exposure, and converts to jpeg. Once it is finished, its baked in and you can't back out.

So, its merely a choice of letting the camera do the conversion according to a formula that guesses right XX% of the time, or letting a high powered computer do a more thorough job of processing it, and allowing you to back out the conversion and change it if the software guessed wrong. Along the way, you can do some tricks to enhance difficult images like selective NR and a host of others. 

For many, time is more critical than having to tweak a image, so they take the jpeg route, and for them its the right solution.


----------



## Sella174 (Sep 24, 2013)

terminatahx said:


> I didn't pay thousands of dead presidents to shoot in point and shoot format. RAW always.



Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha ... unless you manually focus and manually determine exposure for each and every shot, you're using your DSLR in P&S mode ... irrespective of your preferred file format.


----------



## tommy84 (Sep 24, 2013)

I bought a used 1D3 to be able to shoot RAW at motorsport events trackside. I did a few RAW with the 40D before in the paddock and jpeg trackside, but now with the 1D3 it's all RAW. Received the camera from the previous owner, changed RAW+L to RAW only and never touched the menu since...
I'm sad that I didn't do more RAW in the past, back in the days when the 300D gave you a stunning burst of 4 pictures before the buffer was full - and that was with jpeg...


----------



## nightbreath (Sep 24, 2013)

If you want your images to resemble art, shoot RAW. Camera cannot capture what our eyes see.
From the other hand, if your aim is to keep your workflow straightforward, keep everything simple


----------



## serendipidy (Sep 24, 2013)

nightbreath said:


> If you want your images to resemble art, shoot RAW. Camera cannot capture what our eyes see.
> From the other hand, if your aim is to keep your workflow straightforward, keep everything simple



Wow! Fantastic work


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 24, 2013)

nightbreath said:


>



Fantastic !


----------



## Scott_McPhee (Sep 24, 2013)

100% RAW for me - no brainer.

Dont think my 5D3 has ever taken a JPEG shot.


----------



## duydaniel (Sep 24, 2013)

shoot raw and forget about exposure because
Nikon D800 can let you underexpose as much as 5 stops and rescue that in raw 8)


----------



## poias (Sep 25, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> shoot raw and forget about exposure because
> Nikon D800 can let you underexpose as much as 5 stops and rescue that in raw 8)



Why would you want to underexpose and rescue when you can just expose properly and don't strain the sensor too much? Did you underexpose your film and hope to "increase" the exposure in the darkroom?

Sensor capabilities are overblow. Shoot properly, frame properly, and 1mpx camera is fine for all of our facebook needs.


----------



## Ruined (Sep 26, 2013)

IMO RAW's main draw is -possibly- saving your butt from catastrophic user error, assuming you have a modern camera *and* lenses that support IS. In the past, one could often save a blurred shot or increase quality by using photoshop/lightroom with a RAW instead of using in-camera processing. But the in-camera processing is so good with digital cameras, there are minimal benefits to going the RAW route *except* a safety fallback if you totally blow an important shot. Even some really significant problems can be corrected and tweaked using a JPG source, unless you over or under expose a shot so badly that there is no detail left to recover.

But, I do realize there is a stigma with JPG, or perhaps "pro" perception with RAW. Like, if you don't shoot in RAW you are an amateur or something to that effect - left over from the old days when RAW did provide an IQ advantage due to poor in-camera processing unlike today.

In summary, if the skill is there, then it boils down 100% to preference & workflow IMO as RAW offers little practical advantage with modern cameras. In some cameras it may even hinder you as you miss the best shot due to running out of buffer.


----------



## Hillsilly (Sep 26, 2013)

poias said:


> I am Ren Kockwell and I only shoot JPGs because in 5 years, RAWs will be unreadable anyway. I will be shooting away with my Fujifilm while you are crying for losing your RAWs. Plus I can take JPGs and my floppy disk can hold all 2 of them, where as I would need 15 floppies to hold just one RAW. And don't get me started on cheap crap like D800 with its mega pixels. My 12 year old D1 takes just as good picture and gives me 5 fps, without clogging my 2004 Mac Book Pro.



That's funny, but so true. I shoot JPEG+RAW with my Fuji. But nearly all of the time, I love the JPEG result and don't bother opening the RAW file. My Olympus also produces nice JPEGs too. But with my Canon's, I shoot RAW only as I know I won't be happy with JPEG, so why bother with it. I don't want to knock Canon, but other cameras seem to produce nicer JPEGs.


----------



## candc (Sep 26, 2013)

I shoot raw+jpeg and I use the dxo converter on the raw files if the lens needs heavy correction but I think that most of the newer cameras including the canons do a very good job of producing jpegs once you get the output settings to your liking.


----------



## yablonsky (Sep 26, 2013)

only RAW. 

I use Adobe Camera Raw to convert my images to JPEG. ACR has very good options to adjust exposure settings, black, white, lights, shadows, etc. Photoshop I only use for <1% of my images.


----------



## Sella174 (Sep 26, 2013)

Just an innocent question ... most of you that does RAW are using pretty expensive, top-of-the-range cameras and lenses, yet your big argument in favour of RAW is the ability to fix exposure, do lens corrections, and apply noise reduction. Huh? ???


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 26, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> Just an innocent question ... most of you that does RAW are using pretty expensive, top-of-the-range cameras and lenses, yet your big argument in favour of RAW is the ability to fix exposure, do lens corrections, and apply noise reduction. Huh? ???



You miss the point, the cameras and lenses are capable of capturing massively more information than a jpeg can display, why would you choose to use an expensive camera and lenses and throw 3/4 of the image it captured away, permanently, immediately? 

P.S. There are a couple of good reasons to do that but not in general use.


----------



## Sella174 (Sep 26, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> You miss the point, the cameras and lenses are capable of capturing massively more information than a jpeg can display ...



With all respect, it is _you_ who is missing the point. Read through this and other threads regarding RAW versus JPEG, and you'll see most of the posters arguing in favour of RAW do so because of the (apparent) ability of easily fixing over- and under-exposures, lens defects, sensor noise, etc.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 26, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > You miss the point, the cameras and lenses are capable of capturing massively more information than a jpeg can display ...
> ...



OK, I miss the point, shoot jpeg, I don't care, I was just pointing out the paradox within your question.

Exposure is not as simple as most make it sound, where exactly do you want your tone curve? Not blowing highlights and blocking up shadows is the start, moving those included tones within the image are the key, and something you just can't do with jpegs. Even the best lenses make compromises, if they are compromises you don't want to make for that particular image RAW can change the impact those compromises make. Same with noise, I can shoot at 6400iso by under exposing my images -2 stops at my maximum iso of 1600, if I do that with a jpeg I am screwed, if I use RAW my camera suddenly has a lot more uses.

I could do many things just shooting jpegs, but I still don't understand why I would; my computer can output identical jpegs to my camera effortlessly, but once I have thrown 3/4 of the information my expensive camera and lens captured away I don't have it to work with.


----------



## skullyspice (Sep 26, 2013)

jpeg only


----------



## Sella174 (Sep 26, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Exposure is not as simple ... I use RAW my camera suddenly has a lot more uses.



Ah, that's different. You use RAW to perfectly "develop" your photos.

But many advocates of RAW simply use it to compensate for bad skills, lack of artistry, etc. This latter group is usually also those who deride "JPEG-shooters" ... IMO for the simple fact that "we" can get good-ish pictures ( : ) straight out of our cameras and they can't even come close after spending hours in front of the computer.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 26, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > You miss the point, the cameras and lenses are capable of capturing massively more information than a jpeg can display ...
> ...



Isn't it funny when everyone but you misses the point. You'd think that would make some people wonder if they really got the point after all, but it usually doesn't.

So, an 'expensive camera' gets the exposure perfect every time? Expensive lenses don't have aberrations? ISO noise doesn't exist. White balance is perfect every time, too...even in mixed lighting scenarios. Huh? ???

But wait - the in-camera jpg conversion can handle all of that, right? A typical RAW image coming from the sensor has about 200 million bits of information. Image corrections, particularly NR, are computationally intensive. How long do you want to wait to take another picture, and how powerful is that processor in your camera? I'm guessing that for most people the answer is, not that long...better yet, instantaneously. So, the in-camera JPG conversion is a compromise that favors speed over quality. Actually, even conversion in your computer is a compromise. Would you be willing to wait 5-10 minutes for the conversion of a single image? What if, by doing so, you could get better NR without the usual detail loss tradeoff? 

A library of jpg images is like a library of CliffNotes. Some people like the efficiency of not having to read all those 'extra' words. Others would rather have the real books. Count me among the latter.


----------



## rs (Sep 26, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> Just an innocent question ... most of you that does RAW are using pretty expensive, top-of-the-range cameras and lenses, yet your big argument in favour of RAW is the ability to fix exposure, do lens corrections, and apply noise reduction. Huh? ???


Why use top-of-the-range cameras and lenses and shoot with the bottom-of-the-range file format?

Pretty much all of those settings you mention are also done in jpeg. In raw, you have fine control over them after the event, allowing you to set them to suit the picture. If its just a snapshot, then fine - any old default settings or best guess before the moment will do. But why buy such expensive gear for snapshots?


----------



## Ruined (Sep 26, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > Just an innocent question ... most of you that does RAW are using pretty expensive, top-of-the-range cameras and lenses, yet your big argument in favour of RAW is the ability to fix exposure, do lens corrections, and apply noise reduction. Huh? ???
> ...



Quality gains eventually have diminishing returns and at some point become imperceptable by the eye even if technically they are there.

I will give an example from the audio world... 24bit/96khz audio. Higher bit resolution and sampling rate than standard CD 16bit/44.1khz... But when subjected to double blind tests of the same masters encoded in each format, studies show people reliably can't tell the difference between them audibly. How much information is lost in this downconversion? About 2/3rd of the info is lost technically.

Taken a step further, when that downconverted lossless PCM 16bit/44.1khz is encoded at lossy 256kbps MP3 with a quality encoder (such as LAME) people STILL can't reliably tell the difference between them audibly. Now you are talking 1/16th of the original 24bit/96khz file.

Now of course, beforehand everyone says 'of course they can tell the difference,' and if they are told which is the higher resolution beforehand they will identify it as better. But as soon as you take away that mental aspect and focus on strict detection of audible differences, all of a sudden the differences vanish.

RAW vs JPG in the modern camera (i.e. DIGIC5 generation) is a similar story. Is RAW capable of higher dynamic range? Yes. Is RAW capable of less artifacts when zoomed in at 16x? Yes. Are any of these things people can ACTUALLY VISUALLY PERCEIVE in a printed image or when dramatically zooming in? Most likely not.

JPG is a fantasic lossy codec that at lower compression levels offers fantastic dynamic range and few artfacts if any. It is not technically as clean as a lossless file when zoomed in, but at low compression levels it is clean enough that the human eye will not notice the difference even in a blown up poster sized print.

In the end, it boils down to whatever works best for you. I have seen plenty of work that was shot all RAW and processed in PS/LR and still ends up with exposure problems. I've seen plenty of beautiful shot only in JPG work.

The main TRUE differences IMO given today's camera processing technology, is that RAW gives you a bit more flexibility if you make a massive error, while on the other hand JPG dramatically simplifies the workflow whilst offering similar real world quality to RAW.


----------



## awinphoto (Sep 26, 2013)

ahhhhh for the love of God, not another Raw vs Jpeg debate... I've been flamed, dragged through the mud, and shunned for my stance on this topic, but screw it... There are instances, when depending on what i'm shooting and WHO i'm shooting for, that I will shoot jpeg only (but, i do the highest jpeg and have the camera shooting styles similar to how I typically have my raw settings at anyways). If i'm shooting for a client and I know they are shooting for print or shooting a model whom I may only have 1 shot at to photograph, damn right I'm shooting Raw, it's not even an arguement. If i'm shooting a wedding ceremony in a church ISO 1000 and above, damn right i'm shooting raw as well as formals. BUT, if i'm shooting for a client whom i know going in that they only will be using the files for web use in which the files will be reduced 500%, then screw it, jpeg will be just fine. Reception work where frankly, they are fillers in which I may have over 1000 images to cull through ALONE, jpegs will do just fine for most of that work. If i'm shooting just for me or my kids screwing around, jpegs will do just fine. For the most part, i'm not afraid of missing exposures, i know my workflow and my workflow options, and i know what post production work i may or may not have to do and what I am and am not willing to do given the instance, and I'd rather live my life as a photographer than living my life a slave to the computer processing hundreds of thousands of images, plus storing plus... it's madness. Anywho, that's my 2 cents.


----------



## Ruined (Sep 26, 2013)

awinphoto said:


> ahhhhh for the love of God, not another Raw vs Jpeg debate... I've been flamed, dragged through the mud, and shunned for my stance on this topic, but screw it... There are instances, when depending on what i'm shooting and WHO i'm shooting for, that I will shoot jpeg only (but, i do the highest jpeg and have the camera shooting styles similar to how I typically have my raw settings at anyways). If i'm shooting for a client and I know they are shooting for print or shooting a model whom I may only have 1 shot at to photograph, damn right I'm shooting Raw, it's not even an arguement. If i'm shooting a wedding ceremony in a church ISO 1000 and above, damn right i'm shooting raw as well as formals. BUT, if i'm shooting for a client whom i know going in that they only will be using the files for web use in which the files will be reduced 500%, then screw it, jpeg will be just fine. Reception work where frankly, they are fillers in which I may have over 1000 images to cull through ALONE, jpegs will do just fine for most of that work. If i'm shooting just for me or my kids screwing around, jpegs will do just fine. For the most part, i'm not afraid of missing exposures, i know my workflow and my workflow options, and i know what post production work i may or may not have to do and what I am and am not willing to do given the instance, and I'd rather live my life as a photographer than living my life a slave to the computer processing hundreds of thousands of images, plus storing plus... it's madness. Anywho, that's my 2 cents.



RAW does give you that piece of mind in case you blow it, but I agree with the computer slave part. One thing that is nice about JPG is you can just focus on the creative aspects of photography and less on post. It also trains you to be a really good photographer rather than relying on extrended post work to fix errors! 

I do know some clients insist on actual RAW files though, so you should know at least how to use RAW.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 26, 2013)

Ruined said:


> One thing that is nice about JPG is you can just focus on the creative aspects of photography and less on post. It also trains you to be a really good photographer rather than relying on extrended post work to fix errors!



Right. As we all know, really good photographers rarely need to spend any time post-processing images. 



:


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 26, 2013)

When one of my students of photography asks me if should learn and practice RAW processing in Lightroom, I reply that it is only useful in the future if he feel "limited" by the possibilities of correction JPEG. I make sure they learn and practice extensively diaphragm aperture settings, shutter speed, and manual ISO.  Only when they are able to consciously choose every setting on the camera, they should start with RAW and Lightroom. I still see many professional photographers shooting in "Green rectangle" because after doing the photos, Lightroom saves your mistakes. :-[ I do not claim that all users of Lightroom think this way, but surely there are many who do.


----------



## candc (Sep 26, 2013)

I think there is a place for both. I have an ef-s 17-85 that I bought and used when it was first introduced. Its a pretty mediocre with visible softness, ca, and distortion at normall viewing sizes. those things can be corrected pretty well, even automatically with a converter like dxo. In this case the raw workflow is easier and produces better results instead of starting with a jpeg and having to jack around with it.


----------



## awinphoto (Sep 26, 2013)

Ruined said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > ahhhhh for the love of God, not another Raw vs Jpeg debate... I've been flamed, dragged through the mud, and shunned for my stance on this topic, but screw it... There are instances, when depending on what i'm shooting and WHO i'm shooting for, that I will shoot jpeg only (but, i do the highest jpeg and have the camera shooting styles similar to how I typically have my raw settings at anyways). If i'm shooting for a client and I know they are shooting for print or shooting a model whom I may only have 1 shot at to photograph, damn right I'm shooting Raw, it's not even an arguement. If i'm shooting a wedding ceremony in a church ISO 1000 and above, damn right i'm shooting raw as well as formals. BUT, if i'm shooting for a client whom i know going in that they only will be using the files for web use in which the files will be reduced 500%, then screw it, jpeg will be just fine. Reception work where frankly, they are fillers in which I may have over 1000 images to cull through ALONE, jpegs will do just fine for most of that work. If i'm shooting just for me or my kids screwing around, jpegs will do just fine. For the most part, i'm not afraid of missing exposures, i know my workflow and my workflow options, and i know what post production work i may or may not have to do and what I am and am not willing to do given the instance, and I'd rather live my life as a photographer than living my life a slave to the computer processing hundreds of thousands of images, plus storing plus... it's madness. Anywho, that's my 2 cents.
> ...



All good points... For the most part, most of the clients I have ever known rarely asks for RAW files, but if they do, its all in the contract before hand and if that's what they want (and pay for), that's what they get. My point is simply put that is i'm typically not afraid of needing that piece of mind for most my work. Now situations where 100% i need absolute assurance, like the "first kiss" and stuff like that, where i know can be make it or break it for the whole wedding day, raws are important. I'm not afraid of Raw and on most my professional portrait work RAWs are they way I go just out of habit if not anything else, but once my files are processed and backed-up on a remote, then RAWs go into the trash bin. I guess where i'm at in my style and shooting, I shoot the way I want them, if i need to touch up images in post, its usually beyond what Raw can do for me, and i know what needs to be done for how i like them, and my training in photography came way back in the film days where I had to know exposure dead on before I shoot. My instructors made us for every assignment provide a slide transparency, negative film, and darkroom print of every image so we had no wiggle room of screwing up exposure and fixing it in printing as the transparency would give us away.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 26, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> 100% JPEG ...
> 
> I started with RAW when switching to digital (because everybody said so); played with DPP; came to the conclusion that basically I used the same "recipe" over and over and over; adjusted the camera to the same settings and the results out-of-camera are better than those of DPP from RAW files.
> 
> ...


It is interesting to note that those who used film for several years, currently do not feel limited by the possibilities of JPEG. ??? On the other hand, people who are expert in software, often are many advantages in RAW. : The sun rises for everyone.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 26, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> When one of my students of photography asks me if should learn and practice RAW processing in Lightroom, I reply that it is only useful in the future if he feel "limited" by the possibilities of correction JPEG. I make sure they learn and practice extensively diaphragm aperture settings, shutter speed, and manual ISO.  Only when they are able to consciously choose every setting on the camera, they should start with RAW and Lightroom. I still see many professional photographers shooting in "Green rectangle" because after doing the photos, Lightroom saves your mistakes. :-[ I do not claim that all users of Lightroom think this way, but surely there are many who do.



Green rectangle is jpeg only on most cameras. It is an idiot/foolproof mode and completely different from P mode.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 26, 2013)

Sometimes no matter how hard you try, you can't set the camera properly for jpegs...

Fo example, an animal runs across a partially treed field. you have about 10 seconds to get your picture and the animal is alternating betwwen sunlight and shade... what you set white balance for?


----------



## wsgroves (Sep 26, 2013)

Raw +MJPG here.
I like being able to tweak much more with the RAW file, and as private knows, I would be up a pole with out RAW's on my last shoot lol.

Scott


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 26, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > When one of my students of photography asks me if should learn and practice RAW processing in Lightroom, I reply that it is only useful in the future if he feel "limited" by the possibilities of correction JPEG. I make sure they learn and practice extensively diaphragm aperture settings, shutter speed, and manual ISO.  Only when they are able to consciously choose every setting on the camera, they should start with RAW and Lightroom. I still see many professional photographers shooting in "Green rectangle" because after doing the photos, Lightroom saves your mistakes. :-[ I do not claim that all users of Lightroom think this way, but surely there are many who do.
> ...


This is the point, brother. There is no good camera for those who do not know how to use properly.  It would not make much difference if they use Program mode, Aperture priority mode, Speed priority mode. :-[ There is no camera that is foolproof.


----------



## awinphoto (Sep 26, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...



Dont tell that to Joe Buissink who shoots jpeg and P mode during multi thousand dollar weddings... skill trumps all =)


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 26, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...



Again somebody seems to be missing the point, if green rectangle is jpeg only then Lightroom can't save you. RAW doesn't make anything foolproof, it does expand you capabilities, I find it hard to understand people who enjoy photography as a hobby or job and spend a lot of money on equipment, endlessly pontificating the "colours and contrast" of a specific lens, but don't embrace that RAW gives you the capability to mimic any of them, jpeg doesn't. As for computer time, in the time it takes to upload your images to your computer it can create identical jpegs to the ones your camera can make. There doesn't need to be any additional time spent when using RAW over jpeg. 

But, and this is a big but, I come from my needs and output requirements, I print big and often.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 26, 2013)

awinphoto said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I have no issue with P mode, it is very different to green rectangle. He does shoot P, as I posted yesterday, HE DOES NOT SHOOT jpeg, he shoots RAW 100%.


----------



## awinphoto (Sep 26, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Sometimes no matter how hard you try, you can't set the camera properly for jpegs...
> 
> Fo example, an animal runs across a partially treed field. you have about 10 seconds to get your picture and the animal is alternating betwwen sunlight and shade... what you set white balance for?



Your totally overthinking it... Ok... sunlight WB is approx 5500-6000 kelvin and shade is about 6500-8000 kelvin depending on strength of clouds and or shade and other contaminating light and that is just a difference of adding or subtracting some yellow/red if needed at all. AWB or daylight and if your exposure is dead on, a little color adjust is super super easy in photoshop/lightroom, takes less than 5 seconds. It's not like going from sun to incandescent lights or florescents or etc...


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 26, 2013)

I get the impression that those that have begun their photographic career with digital don't realise how much post processing was done with film. Ansel Adams himself was quoted as saying 60% of photography was done in the dark room. Even with transparencies we used to dupe them, adding colour and all sorts of other fiendish things. 

The in camera joey undoubtably does a better job than film in terms of being able to 'get it right' straight from the camera; you have many, many more control options. For casual shooting they are now undoubtably better than film. But for anything serious the raw option uses the camera to it's full potential.


----------



## awinphoto (Sep 26, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> I find it hard to understand people who enjoy photography as a hobby or job and spend a lot of money on equipment, endlessly pontificating the "colours and contrast" of a specific lens, but don't embrace that RAW gives you the capability to mimic any of them, jpeg doesn't. As for computer time, in the time it takes to upload your images to your computer it can create identical jpegs to the ones your camera can make. There doesn't need to be any additional time spent when using RAW over jpeg.



This is the point very few people understand... I shoot professionally. I know down to a science how long it takes to go through each card, saving each card, processing and culling the raws, time it takes my computer to process 100% of my raws so i can compare side by side and I know that there is a complete different time table from Raw to Jpeg. I know when I need it and when I dont. I embrace Raws when I need and when I dont. I know many professional photographers who shoot just raw, and I know equally if not more who shoot jpegs. I know turnaround times are vital. In an industry of additional people trying to be "pros", speed, quality and competency are separating factors. When I can get away with it, I will shoot jpeg as it gives me a tad speed advantage from shoot to delivery, and typically at that time i'm shooting for delivery. I'm getting it right in camera. But if i get repeating work from that client because i'm faster than everyone else, i'm not going to apologize for that. I know my tools and know what I need to get my job done the most efficiently. Sometimes that's Raw, sometimes thats jpeg


----------



## Ruined (Sep 26, 2013)

...and knowing how to get spot on pics with JPG is just as important as knowing how to do post with RAW.

Let's say you have an event photography situation where you are asked to take pictures of people who are waiting in line to get said picture and immediately reproduce an image via a portable printer for them to purchase. They want better quality than a cheap polaroid but want the print right after it is taken. Do you really want to be messing around with RAW in lightroom while the clients wait in line to get their picture taken and printed? Sounds like a recipe for disaster.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 26, 2013)

Ruined said:


> ...and knowing how to get spot on pics with JPG is just as important as knowing how to do post with RAW.
> 
> Let's say you have an event photography situation where you are asked to take pictures of people who are waiting in line to get said picture and immediately reproduce an image via a portable printer for them to purchase. They want better quality than a cheap polaroid but want the print right after it is taken. Do you really want to be messing around with RAW in lightroom while the clients wait in line to get their picture taken and printed? Sounds like a recipe for disaster.



Jasmin Star, along with many people who do reception slide shows all, well every one I have seen, uses RAW and jpeg, jpeg for the quick slideshow RAW because that is what any wedding pro worth paying should be using.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 26, 2013)

Ruined said:


> ...and knowing how to get spot on pics with JPG is just as important as knowing how to do post with RAW.
> 
> Let's say you have an event photography situation where you are asked to take pictures of people who are waiting in line to get said picture and immediately reproduce an image via a portable printer for them to purchase. They want better quality than a cheap polaroid but want the print right after it is taken. Do you really want to be messing around with RAW in lightroom while the clients wait in line to get their picture taken and printed? Sounds like a recipe for disaster.



Awww, why'd you edit your cardboard cutout at the State Fair example? That was so relevant to so many photographers. :

Obviously, there are times when it's critical to prioritize speed over quality. There are also times when a deeper continuous shot buffer is needed. 

But as PBD stated, you can do a fully automatic conversion on your computer, takes very little time, that time is unattended, and the results will be better than in-camera, generally speaking. Therefore, unless you're in a situation where you must deliver your images literally on-the-spot, there's no real disadvantage to shooting RAW, and many potential advantages to not letting your camera destructively edit your images. 

Then again, there are lots of people for whom good enough is, well...good enough.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 26, 2013)

awinphoto said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Sometimes no matter how hard you try, you can't set the camera properly for jpegs...
> ...



and there you are in lightroom.... editing files.... at which point you realize that it does not take any more time to open a RAW than a Jpeg...

BTW... when I shoot, I save a RAW file and a small Jpeg with each shot.... gives me the convenience of a small jpg for immediate distribution or as an index, plus I get the quality of a RAW file for those I choose to edit. If I edit, I want a RAW, if I don't, Jpeg is ok.


----------



## sdsr (Sep 26, 2013)

Again somebody seems to be missing the point, if green rectangle is jpeg only then Lightroom can't save you. RAW doesn't make anything foolproof, it does expand you capabilities, I find it hard to understand people who enjoy photography as a hobby or job and spend a lot of money on equipment, endlessly pontificating the "colours and contrast" of a specific lens, but don't embrace that RAW gives you the capability to mimic any of them, jpeg doesn't. As for computer time, in the time it takes to upload your images to your computer it can create identical jpegs to the ones your camera can make. There doesn't need to be any additional time spent when using RAW over jpeg. 

[/quote]

It seems that more than a few people regard using lightroom, DxO etc. as the equivalent of cleaning up after a party or taking medicine to cure a self-induced malady, rather than as part of an image-creating process which only begins, and doesn't end, with taking the photo. It's not about fixing mistakes (though it could be) but of altering unavoidable compromises (e.g. rescuing skies that are overexposed as a result of correctly exposing for the main subject) and making adjustments of various degrees of subtlety that can't be done in-camera or, even if they can, are more easily and accurately done when looking at an image on a decent-size monitor. I actively enjoy continuing the image creation process hands-on, looking at photos on a 30" monitor. I get to really see the photo and take a greater role in the creative process. And it's easier to do all of that if you're working with a RAW file.

That said, I have the luxury of doing this for fun; I might well think otherwise if I were a wedding photographer or otherwise creating images for someone else who, for all I know, couldn't see the difference or, if he could, wouldn't care; or if the photos would end up small enough where there would likely be no differences to see. (And I will happily admit that in some cases after I've spent several minutes making umpteen slight changes to the RAW file the result looks almost exactly the same as the JPEG made by the camera, and that very occasionally I prefer the processing done by the camera - which is why I shoot RAW+JPEG)

It's probably also worth noting that some cameras make better JPEGs than others as a matter of course (in my experience Olympus may be the best).


----------



## cayenne (Sep 26, 2013)

Ruined said:


> ...and knowing how to get spot on pics with JPG is just as important as knowing how to do post with RAW.
> 
> Let's say you have an event photography situation where you are asked to take pictures of people who are waiting in line to get said picture and immediately reproduce an image via a portable printer for them to purchase. They want better quality than a cheap polaroid but want the print right after it is taken. Do you really want to be messing around with RAW in lightroom while the clients wait in line to get their picture taken and printed? Sounds like a recipe for disaster.



Sure, why not?

You can have LR set to "pre-process" for you on RAW import....and if you shoot right in camera and know your camera and have LR set for this...likely as not, you can export quickly right out of camera.

However, if something is wrong, you have the capability to quickly with a few sliders make some corrections you might want, and be able to quickly save the pic for those customers who will be much happier with the properly "developed" image.

That's my thoughts...why not have all the data at your fingertips to use IF you need it? These days, IMHO there isn't much an argument not to use RAW, I mean, drive space these days is dirt cheap.

C


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 26, 2013)

sdsr said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Again somebody seems to be missing the point, if green rectangle is jpeg only then Lightroom can't save you. RAW doesn't make anything foolproof, it does expand you capabilities, I find it hard to understand people who enjoy photography as a hobby or job and spend a lot of money on equipment, endlessly pontificating the "colours and contrast" of a specific lens, but don't embrace that RAW gives you the capability to mimic any of them, jpeg doesn't. As for computer time, in the time it takes to upload your images to your computer it can create identical jpegs to the ones your camera can make. There doesn't need to be any additional time spent when using RAW over jpeg.
> ...



Absolutely agree 100%, RAW shouldn't be considered a crutch but a very powerful tool in realising the images you wanted to create.

As for some cameras being better than others at jpegs, again, I agree, but those that complain about Canon ones really can't have explored the full capabilities of the free with your camera Picture Styles Editor http://learn.usa.canon.com/galleries/galleries/tutorials/pse_tutorials_gallery.shtml


----------



## Ruined (Sep 27, 2013)

sdsr said:


> It seems that more than a few people regard using lightroom, DxO etc. as the equivalent of cleaning up after a party or taking medicine to cure a self-induced malady, rather than as part of an image-creating process which only begins, and doesn't end, with taking the photo. It's not about fixing mistakes (though it could be) but of altering unavoidable compromises (e.g. rescuing skies that are overexposed as a result of correctly exposing for the main subject) and making adjustments of various degrees of subtlety that can't be done in-camera or, even if they can, are more easily and accurately done when looking at an image on a decent-size monitor. I actively enjoy continuing the image creation process hands-on, looking at photos on a 30" monitor. I get to really see the photo and take a greater role in the creative process. And it's easier to do all of that if you're working with a RAW file.
> 
> That said, I have the luxury of doing this for fun; I might well think otherwise if I were a wedding photographer or otherwise creating images for someone else who, for all I know, couldn't see the difference or, if he could, wouldn't care; or if the photos would end up small enough where there would likely be no differences to see. (And I will happily admit that in some cases after I've spent several minutes making umpteen slight changes to the RAW file the result looks almost exactly the same as the JPEG made by the camera, and that very occasionally I prefer the processing done by the camera - which is why I shoot RAW+JPEG)
> 
> It's probably also worth noting that some cameras make better JPEGs than others as a matter of course (in my experience Olympus may be the best).



Couple of points of note:
-You can always do tons of adjustments to a JPG, albeit not as many as a RAW file, with minimal quality loss. The main thing with RAW though is that it can save your butt if you make a major boo boo while JPG is less forgiving.
-The concept of doing things with photoshop/lightroom that would not be possible even if 100% shot correctly given the scene I think is a bit of a philosophical thing. Some people feel that manipulating an image beyond what is realistically capable is not a good thing for photography - I believe recently one contest winner had an award rescinded because their photo was over-manipulated to the point of the photo defying physics with impossible shadows,etc, I forget the award. Others see this as a valid expansion of art. RAW offers tons of flexibility here, as does JPG - but as per your example, there may be some areas where RAW offers more flexibility.

Also worth mentioning is that Canon, Nikon, et al all have very unique processing in camera that may be difficult to duplicate in Lightroom. For instance doing a simple search, one can find tons of forum questions across the net with photographers trying to find settings that duplicate the look of the processing in the camera so the RAW can look more like the JPG. Some of these threads go many pages. One simple observation would be to just use the JPG in the first place, but there is such a stigma attached to this that people are told it is the 'wrong' or 'unprofessional' way of doing things. Which IMO is totally incorrect given the excellent processing in modern cameras. While the RAW workflow may work for some scenarios, for others the JPG workflow may be significantly better.


----------



## agierke (Sep 27, 2013)

> It seems that more than a few people regard using lightroom, DxO etc. as the equivalent of cleaning up after a party or taking medicine to cure a self-induced malady, rather than as part of an image-creating process which only begins, and doesn't end, with taking the photo.



ugh....ty for making this point. i have been following this thread debating whether i wanted to even bother with the topic as so many points were irking me.

this would be my only point to make. RAW is not primarily for fixing mistakes. it gives the option for creative control...far beyond the capabilities of jpg. to some, they may never want/need these capabilities or even be able to discern the results...but to others, its critical.


----------



## candc (Sep 27, 2013)

As for some cameras being better than others at jpegs, again, I agree, but those that complain about Canon ones really can't have explored the full capabilities of the free with your camera Picture Styles Editor http://learn.usa.canon.com/galleries/galleries/tutorials/pse_tutorials_gallery.shtml
[/quote]
thanks for pointing that out, I have never used that utility before. I watched some of the vids and it looks to be very useful


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 27, 2013)

Ruined said:


> Couple of points of note:
> -You can always do tons of adjustments to a JPG, albeit not as many as a RAW file, with minimal quality loss. The main thing with RAW though is that it can save your butt if you make a major boo boo while JPG is less forgiving.
> -The concept of doing things with photoshop/lightroom that would not be possible even if 100% shot correctly given the scene I think is a bit of a philosophical thing. Some people feel that manipulating an image beyond what is realistically capable is not a good thing for photography - I believe recently one contest winner had an award rescinded because their photo was over-manipulated to the point of the photo defying physics with impossible shadows,etc, I forget the award. Others see this as a valid expansion of art. RAW offers tons of flexibility here, as does JPG - but as per your example, there may be some areas where RAW offers more flexibility.
> 
> Also worth mentioning is that Canon, Nikon, et al all have very unique processing in camera that may be difficult to duplicate in Lightroom. For instance doing a simple search, one can find tons of forum questions across the net with photographers trying to find settings that duplicate the look of the processing in the camera so the RAW can look more like the JPG. Some of these threads go many pages. One simple observation would be to just use the JPG in the first place, but there is such a stigma attached to this that people are told it is the 'wrong' or 'unprofessional' way of doing things. Which IMO is totally incorrect given the excellent processing in modern cameras. While the RAW workflow may work for some scenarios, for others the JPG workflow may be significantly better.



Try correcting even mild WB issues on a jpeg, hardly a demanding or invasive post process, and you are screwed.

If you don't like the way Lightroom outputs your RAW to jpeg images use the free with your camera DPP, it gives you exactly the same process/algorithm as your camera uses, and if you mistakenly (or didn't have the time to change the Picture Style in the camera menu) shoot with the "wrong" Picture Style, you can choose another!

To reiterate my position. There are very good reasons for pros and amateurs/hobbyists to shoot jpeg (or jpeg & RAW), for the pros turn around time at things like sports events and reception slideshows (though most think shooting RAW at the same time is cheap insurance), and for amateurs the not being interested in the time expense or learning required for good post processing etc, though that really is a non sequitur as the free software that came with your camera can create your out of camera jpegs effortlessly. But for advanced hobbyists and most pros all the time it makes zero sense to buy expensive cameras and lenses and throw 75% of the information they capture away.

But hey, I really don't care what any individual does, just so long as they don't prevent me from keeping 100% of the information my camera and lenses capture.


----------



## Zv (Sep 27, 2013)

I actually wrote a blog article about RAW and JPEG, comparing the two by apying ridiculous adjustments to both to see what happened. 

http://zeebytes.blogspot.jp/2013/04/raw-and-jpeg-torture-test.html?m=0

I though the WB correction would kill the JPEG but it didn't. In fact the JPEG file put up a good fight! 

I think I'll do a follow up but this time an even more extreme version and with different subjects.


----------



## rpt (Sep 27, 2013)

Zv said:


> I actually wrote a blog article about RAW and JPEG, comparing the two by apying ridiculous adjustments to both to see what happened.
> 
> http://zeebytes.blogspot.jp/2013/04/raw-and-jpeg-torture-test.html?m=0
> 
> ...


I thought the issue about editing jpegs was that multiple edits and save on the same file is what would kill it. If one stores metadata for the edits and never overwrites the original file but creates new JPEG files each time, I think the output would be acceptable even after multiple edits as we are just going to a second version of the edited picture each time. Of course whatever got baked into the original JPEG cant be undone.


----------



## Zv (Sep 27, 2013)

rpt said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > I actually wrote a blog article about RAW and JPEG, comparing the two by apying ridiculous adjustments to both to see what happened.
> ...



I think if you use Adobe Camera RAW or other software, when you hit save it would then overwrite the original JPEG file and there would be no way to undo that. However am not sure but I think Lightroom leaves the original intact and as you said creates a separate JPEG file to a new location upon export. I think I'll try to change the file then close LR, reopen and see if I can undo the process to see what happens. 

But in any case you wouldn't ever want to even moderately try and process a JPEG when you could very easily just shoot RAW and do the same thing with better results.


----------



## awinphoto (Sep 27, 2013)

This is the last i'm going to mention this topic on this forum at least... Yes, i'm not arguing Raws are the ideal digital negative way to go in most situations. Yes, hard drives are cheap(er), albeit the hard drives that serve my purpose are typically in the 150+ range, and those usually have to go through some convincing to my wife and business partner that they are necessary, and frankly, a lot of it would go to waste. Yes lightroom is great, although I hardly ever use it... I grew up a photoshop guy, and I do plan on purchasing that special adobe has now with the photoshop/lightroom, but other than large wedding jobs, it is unknown how often honestly i'd use it. I reserve the right to retract that statement in 6 months but at this point, it is what it is. 90% of my personal pictures if not more typically go into iphoto and stay there as it's more convenient for me, works with my apple tv, and is easy to email/transfer/manage. A byproduct is that iphoto, at least my version, doesn't support raw, but thats typically fine with me as most of my personal images dont need it and i'm not going to waste any more time on them that isn't needed. 

That's not to come off as elitist or bragging or even incompetency, but frankly with my business, i literally work over 60 hours a week, sometimes closer to 80 hours a week busting my ass, taking photos, processing, delivering, consulting, presenting, etc... Time for me is sacred. I work at least 40 hours a week shooting products and catalog photography for companies to post on their websites and once a month to publish a catalog. Most images, even for catalog, at 5-6 inches tall, downscaled, heavily photoshoped,clipped, and gasp, shot with an aps-c 50D camera they provide. Before they used me, their previous photographers literally took the photos on the ground on their carpet with a point and shoot nokin, i mean nikon, and looked hideous. I built them a studio and took them from point and shoot cameras to DSLR's... i'm always trying to convince them to go full frame, but they are not willing to spend the money let alone pay my fee's to use my gear. Extra detail, it doesn't matter when it's downresed and clipped and shoved on the internet in srgb at 640 pixels wide. Even the catalogs, it all would be wasted anyways when it's commercial web-printed in cmyk with no spot colors since they once again, wont pay for spot colors. Hell with cmyk blues are purple, neons are shot, and gamut becomes a huge problem anyway. What almost all of you are missing is yeah, all that detail would look awesome printed on a nice 16x20 on a wall or other digital display, but really in most commercial cases, it doesn't matter and gets wasted. 

Now, when i shoot models and know there's a possibility they will buy the image as a 30x45 or something big like that, I want every ounce of detail i can get... They are printed at my lab on photo paper with high quality inks... The moral of the story, yes, I could go through the work of the RAW files... sometimes they are warranted and sometimes they are worth it... sometimes they would be wasted and wasting my time and would have minimal impact on final output in which i proudly have literally changed the industry standard in imagery in the photo matter I am shooting. So yeah... thanks but I know what i'm doing.


----------



## rpt (Sep 28, 2013)

Zv said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...


I am on the 100% raw team now. However, in my 300D days, I was on the 100% JPEG side and I saved a few of my pictures by editing them in LR. Hence the comment. For some pictures taken earlier, I used to save the original JPEG separately if I needed to.


----------



## Zv (Sep 28, 2013)

rpt said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > rpt said:
> ...



Sorry by "you" I meant the whole thread and people in general. I figured you were shooting in RAW and prob knew all this stuff. Sometimes I type what I'm thinking! 

Random question - does anyone here convert their RAW files to DNG format to save space? Is it worth it?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 28, 2013)

Back in 2000 when I got my first digital camera that could shoot Raw, I did not understand it and used jpeg. I was happy with the images, they were good for the time. I kept on with jpeg even when I bought my first 40D. Then I switched. Now, when I view those old images that are locked into jpeg and realize that if I had the RAW files, I could easily reprocess them with a modern raw processor, I grimace at opportunity lost. I've reprocessed all my older RAW images starting with many of the later 40D images, and vastly improved them. Images that looked noisy at ISO 800 now are clean, and images at ISO 3200 are much better than before. Its likely that the process can be repeated in the future as we get more computing power and more sophisticated software, but those old raw images are burned in forever. In some cases, it doesn't matter, but some of those images were meant to be kept forever.


----------



## CR00 (Sep 28, 2013)

Very well said.


Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Back in 2000 when I got my first digital camera that could shoot Raw, I did not understand it and used jpeg. I was happy with the images, they were good for the time. I kept on with jpeg even when I bought my first 40D. Then I switched. Now, when I view those old images that are locked into jpeg and realize that if I had the RAW files, I could easily reprocess them with a modern raw processor, I grimace at opportunity lost. I've reprocessed all my older RAW images starting with many of the later 40D images, and vastly improved them. Images that looked noisy at ISO 800 now are clean, and images at ISO 3200 are much better than before. Its likely that the process can be repeated in the future as we get more computing power and more sophisticated software, but those old raw images are burned in forever. In some cases, it doesn't matter, but some of those images were meant to be kept forever.


----------



## rpt (Sep 28, 2013)

Zv said:


> Sorry by "you" I meant the whole thread and people in general. I figured you were shooting in RAW and prob knew all this stuff. Sometimes I type what I'm thinking!


Not a problem. I figured what you meant but wanted to clarify...


----------

