who uses raw vs jpeg and why?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pirahnah3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pirahnah3

Guest
Ok with my latest aquisition into the photo world i havep urchased light room 2.3 and im wondering, i hear lot of people work with raw and say it is alot better than jpeg, i have read about the wayit saves an image and all that. i understand the mechanics of it. What im looking for is more of a why you do what and workflow around it. so here is the specific question with the long lead in

Do you use Jpeg or Raw?

Subquestion to raw shooters, Do you ever delete the raw image and save it as a jpeg when your done editing or do you just save the raw file somewheere and let it sit as backup for eternity?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Hi Jim!

I shoot RAW 99% of the time. With a RAW file you have a lot more room to make adjustments without damaging pixel data. I tend to convert to DNG to save a little space and make sure my RAW files will be readable in the future.

JPEG is great if you have a situation where speed is the most important element. If you need to shoot and turn around an image quickly then JPEG is it. AN example might be if you shoot a sporting events and want to offer onsite prints for the players or their parents. RAW would take too long in that case.

I'm sure there are some JPEG shooters who can give you other reasons to shoot JPEG but I went to RAW a while ago and can't imagine shooting JPEG again.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
wow thank you so far!! more please, still a bit overwhelmed by thinking of all this at once but just getting into this has really jump started me into wanting to persue this as a serious hobby and maybee side business. keep them comming i always need help lol

please if you use one for a specific reasion post, lightroom is seemingly making it more available for Raw shooters and easiser toconvert rather than using multiple programs. If you used to shoot jpeg and now shoot raw i would really like ot hear form you
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well I think having purchased Lightroom you should certainly consider shooting raw.
IMO LR primary strengths are its ability to manage and process RAW files from digital cameras.
A good place to start getting info and tutorials about LR is at the Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Design Center. The info here is all free.
http://www.adobe.com/designcenter/photoshoplightroom/
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
1. Raw. Jpeg is pointless if you are serious about your photography.

2. Nope. I do delete unusable shots OOF/Motion Blur//etc shots, and generally work done to the keeper shots (especially for gig shots where I only need 1' at most).




And for Denis.. Lightroom is equally at home with Jpeg and TIFF. You can just do more with a Raw.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I shoot 1''% RAW. I really like all the abilities to determine the outcome myself, instead of using the few postprocessing modes of the camera.

I do delete RAW files (the crappy, out of focus, etc). But never after developing it to a JPEG. To good thing about the RAW file is that you can develop it to your needs. So I export a RAW to a JPG differently if I want to print it out (more sharpening) then I would do to export it to my website.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I used to shoot jpg for a good while and was convinced it was good enough. And in a lot of cases for some things it is. Although I shoot 99% raw now, I can understand someone still not wanting to use it, no matter how serious they are. I've seen 3'x4' prints made from 6mp jpg shots that would make any shooter proud.
To me shooting raw is like having a do-over for every shot. You might not need it, but it's sure nice to have if you do.
Go to Rob Galbraith (sp?) site and read his articles about raw. He explains it very well. I had read a lot, but reading his explanation pushed me over the edge to shoot raw. Now i'd not want to go back.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Jpg V Raw

RAW :mrgreen:
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Raw, because I'm not good enough to shoot jpeg...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
1''% RAW. My thought is that if it is worth taking, it is worth taking in as high a quality as possible. You never know what your plans for the image will be in the future or where technology will take us, and I think it best to be as prepared as possible for anything. Files are larger, but storage is cheap... A similar thought applies to bit depth. My Nikon will take either 12 or 14 bits. Current printers won't see the extra bit depth, but in the future???
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
99% raw.

I use JPG for high burst rate, or minimum processing turn-around time, when required.

Keep everything, except the technically bad, exposure, focus, blur, etc.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
wow imm surprised i figured i would hear from laott omre jpeg shooters but then again consideringaudience here i should have expeced this. looks like its time for me to head down a new road and start shooting raw, now to check my other thread and learn how im going to store them lol
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
"And for Denis.. Lightroom is equally at home with Jpeg and TIFF. You can just do more with a Raw."
Yes Sean I am well aware, just making the point what the main purpose of LR is for, PS Elements can do a fine job of jpegs and tiffs at 1/3 the price.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Upvote 0 Downvote
I allways shoot RAW, 1''%. I only shot Jpeg few times when I had 2 cameras and I forgot my back-up camera on Jpeg. Since then, I allways check my camera settings to be RAW as sometimes my girlfriend uses my camera also...

RAW just offers the best possible information camera can capture. Is like you would shoot film.
Jpeg is much more like a Polaroid if you want to use that parralell... Naturally, you can still process jpegs but the amont of "alteration" a jpeg can get is much less than RAW in order to acieve good results...
RAW just offers much more information and tolerate much better advanced post processing which, most of the times, equals better final image.

Hdd storage space is an important drawback for RAW's but again,HDD's are so cheap.When comparing with PSD or Tiff, needed when you postprocess a lot and in repeated stepts , RAW files are still acceptable...
COmpare to film and developing costs and you'll find HDD is much, much cheaper.
Larger memory cards needed and burst speed is another weakness of RAW but again, I have never felt sacrificing quality for speed.
Third RAW weakness is processing/exporting speed....that is a tough one...If you need to deliver the images in very short time, developing hundreds of RAW files can be a pain ...I do not bother and anyway, if I want Jpeg without any processing, LR can do it for me in decent amount of time...Just hit a button and drink your beer and is done...

Overall, RAW is the way to go for me, no matter I shoot for a client or I shoot "crap", you never know when a "crappy" image, meaning not important, might become a treasure , a family memory or something like that. I could not forgive myself if I could not print such an image to the best possible quality just because today I have been lazy and didn't want to spend some HDD space and 5 seconds in LR for exporting..

Funny, few of the best images I captured in my life, the once in a lifetime ones, happened in those very few situations when I shot Jpeg...I can't say how much I hate myself because I do not have the RAW to process them the way I like and they way these images deserve...A picture of my grandmother, she is not with us anymore, a picture of my dog I can't replicate, etc...

Jpeg is just like a printed picture, why would anyone throw the film away?

Yes, I keep everything I shoot, even the bad technicall images sometimes...Now they are trash, God knows if some day among that trash I will find a little diamond...

I advise everybody to shoot raw, after a while you'll find dealing with it so easy...If you need jpegs just shoot RAW+Jpeg...store your raw's without even looking over them, is a damn cheap HDD after all, use your Jpegs from the camera now and then erase them....If you will "ever" need again those images, the raw's are there, on a silly HDD ...

PS: a simple example, not a great picture, a simple snapshot probably BUT for me is valuable...It was just a simple relaxing Sunday evening after a day spent outdoor near the forrest...My dog started toplay, I grabbed my camera i allways carry with me, never thought it will be something special, didn;t check the settings, just shoot...
Home I saw it was only Jpeg...Tried several times to process this image in order to print it as it would deserve, tried to alter the colors, tones, saturation to acieve what i would like...I never was satisfied especially knowing how i have been able to correct much worst technicall ones from RAW...For only this picture, in my case, i would spend money for 1' HDD's if i could have the RAW version...Unfortunatelly, not possible BUT i wil never make the same mistake again, that would mean i am really dumb...

IMG_5297a.jpg
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Parintele, I agree with what you say, but a question about the photo you added. It looks mighty good to me, so I'm curious what you would do to improve it. The only thing I wonder about is the white stuff, which I'm guessing is something coming out of the sheet, and that's what the dog is jumping for. Considering the expression, "One man's trash is another man's treasure", that shot looks like a treasure to me.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Is ok, still this is a web dimension and compression... There are many small details that could take little better adjustments (skin tones, green/yellow tones,shaddow color-shifts like magenta-blue, some shaddow exposure control, etc...) Small details that can't be done at the very best or not as easy as using raw file and LR for example.
Not related to this picture but generally speaking, even WB can be tricky sometimes as some textures are shifted (expecially blacks), much more simple to fix when developing raw using LR thanusing PS...saturation is another good example, some colors/textures seem hypersaturated and is hard to find a sweetspot for entire frame inside PS... Most of the issues are related to colors, hues, WB related...Jpeg 8 bits sometimes just don't offer enough "room" to work...

Bottom line, web version looks ok to me too, print could look better, severe processed versions (going WB and various versions of desaturated style ) are just impossible compared to what RAW offers...
In this case is OK, other times you would really want much more and don;t have where to extract it from.

PS: the story ot this shot is simple. We were allmost preparing to go back home after a full summer day...As usuall my dog just wanted to stay just a little more so he started to provoke my girfriend to play...the white sheet we used to stay on previously so she was just "shaking" it to loose the sand, grass and stuff like that. He just started to jump for catching that in the air, something we usually do using a special toy, plastic bottles, bitting sleeves and stuff like that... I just grabbed my camera and started shooting...
Nothing flying from the sheet, he just jumped to catch it...the white sports are simply sky seen thru tree branches , forrest in the background, that is all...
And by the way, I have tons of jumpoing dog pictures, I also can take such images any day with my dog, is just not the same mood, same atmosphere, i know is not the same thing and that matters to me...could have been shot RAW...
Fortunatelly i had the memory card in, it happened me twice even worst, to see something, get my camera and shoot...after action was ended i tried to look at the last image taken.."No Memory Card"....now, that is hell so I agree, this shot is pretty nice, huh ? :D
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Denis de Gannes;415'3 said:
I have made an edit to my original post.
Click to expand...

Thank you Denis, much appreciated.;)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I used to just shoot in RAW, with just a small JPG, and got fed up spending so much time trying to get my shots to look as vibrant as small JPG. I have tried all the profiles but had no luck in getting the shot to look like I wanted it to.

So I have switched to shooting both, but using the JPG 99% of the time (now set to max). For most of my shots it is perfect. Sure, I am not a professional photographer but I do want to spend more time shooting and less time on the computer.

If I have a shot that needs work I have the RAW to fall back on, but most of the time I dont need it. Why not try shooting both and getting LR to import them separately. Its easy enough to just change the setting and re-import if you want to go back to just RAW.

Simon.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A jpg, by definition, is already degraded. However, that being said, if you're shooting in jpg and your whites aren't blown out and your blacks still have some detail, stick with it. The beauty of RAW files, especially in LR, is that you can actually bring back detail in blown out whites (very important to me as a wedding photographer!). Think of it like this: if you had to work with only a 4x6 print of an image, versus working with the negative itself (back in the good ol' days of film), which would yield better results? Even if you scanned in the 4x6 print, you'd only get so much detail. If you printed directly from the negative (and/or had it drum-scanned), you'd have a lot more control over the finished product. An odd analogy, I'm sure, but that's how I think of RAW versus jpg: RAW is like shooting with Fuji Velvia and jpg is like scanning Fuji Promax 4'' negative film. Both will give you great results, but one is quite a bit better than the other.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
photomatte, your profile photo will only show when someone accesses your public forum profile. The avatar (badge) displayed here in the threads is assigned by the forum software based on your post count and other administrative criteria.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top