What are your reasons to shoot RAW over JPEG.
 

The back story is simple. I have a bunch of friends who shoot. Most shoot raw. I shoot JPEG. So I have asked them what benefits do I get to shoot raw over JPEG.

Here were some of the replies and almost all replies fit into the same responses:

Most said more adjustments and my response was which ones...

I can change exposure and not need to bracket if I don't want to. I said in Lighhtroom I can do that very thing in a jpeg.

I can change the saturation on any individual color. Again I can do the same thing in lightroom with a jpeg.

My camera will write raw and jpeg at the same time and I have done that and have edited them the same. There isn't any adjustment that can be done in raw only that photoshop and lightroom can't do for Jpeg.

Now here was a reason that has some technical validity to it. JPEG comression loses some pixels. That I know is true and every time you go back into it to adjust I have heard you lose more pixels. But I never overwrite any orignal photo anyway. So what I did is edit 2 of the same photo, posted them and asked them to tell me which one was which or did I post the same photo twice. 12 people responded and a about half got it correct but almost all said it was very difficult to tell. Studies have shown that the naked eye cannot discern the difference if any...or so I am told.

Last night I got a verifiable reason to shoot raw and not jpeg. Gradient banding. I shot a night scene in fog and got some banding along the edge of the light. I asked a person whom I respect to be a master photographer and he said it's the 8 bit compression done in camera. My Nikon I think shoots in 16 bit but since I only shoot jpeg it saves it as an 8 bit file. He said 8 bit doesn't have the tonal gradient to smooth out the banding.

I asked if I shot in raw and then saved it as a jpeg would I get banding? He said no because the compression banding problem is in camera.

Before you Canonites jump on the bandwagon and say it's a Nikon issue. This pro I asked is a Canon rep and has been since before you and I were born (I'm 52). Look in last months Shutterbug magazine....you will see an article about him. Plus all my friends who shoot Canon also say they get banding once in a while also.

So I will probably shoot raw from now on.

What are your reasons to shoot either raw, jpeg or any other format?

Ken

I like the question.
Before I go into detail, let me say that I often shoot in JPEG, although I have Lightroom and Photoshop and know very well how to develop a RAW image. The reason is that today's DSLR's shoot JPEGs with great color and sharpness. With many subjects, such as personal/travel shots, I don't want to edit them all and I don't need huge files - like 25 MB for one image! A JPEG is often undistinguishable from a RAW photo, much smaller, and easier to share.
In fact I bought a point and shoot (Canon S90) for when I don't have my DSLR because it could shoot in RAW. Guess how often I used that feature? Once. The camera did a better job correcting lens distortion and optimizing the image than I did with all my Photoshop knowledge.

Now why would you shoot in RAW as soon you're doing landscapes, portraits, low light/night shots or anything important really?

First of all there's no compression in RAW. JPEG is a 'lossy' compression algorithm. That's why the files are smaller. It's not so much that you lose pixels - there are just as many - but you lose some fine detail because pixels of similar color are bunched together, depending on the level of compression of course.

Second, there's no color temperature or sharpness set in the RAW file. This is a big advantage. You can change the color temperature after the fact with no loss in image quality. You can also apply noise reduction and sharpening as you see fit, not as the camera manufacturer saw fit.

Third, quality. I doubt that your Nikon or my Canon can shoot in 16 bit. Most top quality DSLRs capture in 12 or 14 bits. Let me explain. A normal JPEG is 8 bits, meaning 8 bits per pixel, or 256 gradations of tint per color channel.
Now, go ahead and edit a JPEG. Then look at the histogram. There will be gaps there, indicating that there are just no pixels left with that gradation. You have lost information. It's not just visible in the histogram. For instance, if you carefully inspect dark areas, I'm sure the edited JPEG file will have more noise or loss of detail.
Do the same with a 12 or 14 bit RAW file. You can open this in 16-bit mode in Photoshop, which is where the confusion comes from. 12 bit files have over 4,000 gradations per color channel, and 14 bit files have over 16,000. Damn, that's a lot better than 256. Then look at your histogram. It looks like a nice, black mountain range, indicating that you have lost no information.

I will not go into the banding issue much as it's a different subject. Several top cameras, including Nikon D200, Canon 5D and Leica M9 have had banding issues and I think going to RAW alone will not solve it.

To the readers of this forum, if all this makes your head hurt :thinking:, just go out there and shoot ... being there is most important!

I bought the camera to shoot RAW but I used it once only. I just don't find the time to work on the photos.

Basically....
 

Your camera always shoots RAW no matter what. RAW is just sensor data. When you tell your camera to record as JPG you are telling the camera to take the RAW data and apply compression, sharpening, white balance etc. Unfortunately this also degrades images quality. If you are unfamiliar with JPG compression it basically looks for blocks of colors that are similar and just changes them all to the same color so instead of having data for all the different colors it just has the one color to save data for resulting in a lower file size. Where this comes into play is during post processing. If you start from RAW to do your edits and print from there or convert it to a TIF file you have no compression or data loss and all edits were done to your specifications. If you go JPG you already have lost data due to the initial compression in the camera software, then when you go to post process it and save it again as JPG you undergo a second round of compression losing more data. If you take a JPG file and save it at the lowest quality over and over you can see this first hand, every save causes more and more colors to combine.

Now is that going to matter showing pics on the interweb or printing shots off at 4x6 to show some friends or put in a home photo album? Probably not, but depending on your camera's sensor quality, printing off larger than 4x6-ish it could start to show, however if you have no desire to print larger than that it probably doesn't matter a whole lot between the 2 options

for what its worth...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tettenhorst

Tails, The naked eye cannot see the comression loss. It is as you said you have to see it in the histogram. Secondly it is true that WB and Temp may not be set in Raw but even with JPG I can change all that in Lightroom. Lastly you never answered why you shoot which format! LOL!!

Tetten you never answered the original question either.

The question was WHY do you shoot the format you do.

I understand and know all the tech garbage and I may have been mistaken on a matter of 2 bits 16 vs 14 but I would really like to know why.

As far as banding goes...just select the sky and blur the holy you know what out of it...removes the banding. For me I hate editing and would rather shoot so if I can get as close to what I want in the camera then that's less time editing.

I you don't want to edit then defintely shoot jpeg. 95% of the time I use jpeg and can do a lot of editing and have it turn out great. But if I know ahead of time that I may want to have some extra fun with a pic I'll use RAW to play around with more freedom.

Also, if you want to shoot a bunch of shots with a similar edited style then RAW is nice to adjust them as a group, rather than one at a time. Like stylized wedding photos or something.

I shoot entirely RAW. I use CS4 for processing and like the ease and controls of getting the image I want in the RAW conversion rather than opening a jpg and doing the all the adjusting there. I typically have a different thought for many frames during a shoot and the in-camera conversion doens't always match what I'm after. In the end it's about control for me. I shoot an image as a starting point then like to process the RAW image to get most of the way there then finish it off with PS.

As said before, when shooting bulk like portraits or weddings, RAW is the only way to go. Shooting jpg and trying to get them all to match a particular style is a complete waste of time. Process one, copy the style to the others and batch the set is the way to go.

Yes I know and it can be done with JPG as well. I've done it just the other day on shots my Wife had taken for her work.

So far nobody has told me a clear cut advantage of raw over JPG.

In the end it's about control for me.

This is a common theme for shooting Raw but what control can you get with a RAW file that Lightroom and Photoshop can't give you?

As far as bulk processing....I prefer not to do that because the light on one photo is probably not the same on another and if you bulkm process them you have to ga back and re-edit those that were not the same. For example you adjust the batch at a +12 in brightness and some come out too bright for the photo....you have to start over. The only way to do that is to batch them for an area and time. The bride getting ready won't be the same light as the bride during or after the ceremony.

O.K. Guys I am not trying to be a butthead or anything. I have been shooting film since my Jr high school days and 3+ years ago bought my first DSLR. I'm 52 now. Many of the replies are rehashing what I stated. We all know that tech stuff. But that tech stuff dosn't tell me the advantage of RAW especially with the advent of Lightroom. BTW I'm not a huge fan of Lightroom anyway but it does have it's uses.

During these 3 + years I have heard over and over again how much better RAW is than JPEG. The only reason to I have so far come up with is the clumping/loss of pixels during the in camera compression, which is the gradient banding issue I mention in the original post.

But I challenge any of you (friendly Challenge) to look at my Flickr Photos and tell me which ones are the RAW photos. In a properly exposed photo I don't believe anyone can tell the difference.

Let me say once again that there are no processing controls, that I have found, that RAW has over a JPG with CS5, Elements and using Lightroom. It's a given that I do have to use 2 porgrams to achieve what the RAW editor has in CS5 and Elements does.

Personally it doesn't matter to me if you chose to shoot RAW or JPEG...I am not trying to convert anyone and I am not trying to rehash any debate like the Nikon VS Canon garbage that is all over any photography boards. Shooting a Nikon or Canon or RAW or JPEG is a matter of preference. I mean nobody is going to convert me from liking Blondes or big boobs or both and nobody is going to change me from a Nikon or my 2nd Admendment beliefs.

I just want to know why you shoot what you do and if your reason is like control...what controls. Tell me you may convert me.

Ken

In one of my photoshop cs classes the teacher one stated... If you have to ask why shoot in raw then don't bother asking. Unless you are going to manipulate the photo in a program like photoshop cs, don't worry about it.

Most people can not see it, because they only print to a web page. Or they print at a consumer lab nothing bigger than, maybe 11x14.

1) raw retains all information, and that information can be changed.

2) When new software comes out, that 2 year old raw file can take advantage of the new technology in the software. JPG is in cement.

When you change the white balance on a jpg file, your adding something over the original, not changing the condition of the bits like in the raw file. You don't see the difference because you probably are shooting in "normal conditions" lamp light, out doors and so on. But add florescent light to ambient light (mixed light condition), and that jpg will get strange color shifts. Add mercury lights (like at basketball games) and you will never fix that jpg. Unless your setting white balance for every light condition your shooting in.

Raw has 2 stops of correction in exposure, depending on brand, even more. JPGS don't have any range of exposure correction, your just making the pixels lighter or darker. In lightroom (PS ARC or what have you), changing the exposure on a jpg is like using the brightness slider, your not making a real correction to exposure.

You can also change the colorspace in raw, but not in jpg. Set your camera to the largest colorspace when shooting raw, and in lightroom/photoshop you can change it properly. Can't even do that with jpg.

The two stops correction means there are details that can be retrieved in the highlights. There are no abilities to retrieve highlight information in a jpg. So, if your shooting jpg and blow the highlights, oh well.

You should know this, since you have been shooting since highschool and your now 52. It is the same principles as shooting chrome. However, chrome is more like jpg, with that same problem that one can blow a highlights with only a 1/3rd stop mess up in metering. That is probably why you would not have shot chrome over negatives, as negatives had a greater range. You can make a 1 stop mistake with negs, and still recover from it in processing.

A lot of the valid reason given, you're just dismissing. Which is ok, if your happy with your results, then your happy. I am not trying to convince you one way or another. Perceived results and actual capabilities are two different things.

If the in-camera sharpness is set to +5 when it is converted to jpg and I decide later I want it to +2, it is lost unless I shot RAW. White balance, contrast, etc. Yes, you can change some of these back in PS but I'd rather start "blank" and go from there. Sometimes I change my mind. I prefer to retain control over the settings until I am at the computer and processing.


As far as bulk, yes, do not bulk before, during and after the ceremony. If you do 20 exposures of one sitting with the same settings, decide to change up the lighting or color, much easier with RAW. This is very common at weddings, portrait shoots, etc. If it is one or two exposures and they are different, there is no reason to batch. Taking 50 exposures with similar lighting of a bride and trying to adjust the white balance of each one separately doesn't make any sense. I've done that more than a few times. The bride wants hair this way, then that way, the flower here, the flower there, looking this way, looking that way, hands here, hands there - none of this really involves exposures different enough to warrant individual processing. One of the reasons I don't do weddings any longer - :eek2:

I recently read a published pro say if you can't get it right in the camera you should shoot RAW.

We can go back and forth but that's not the issue...I'm not asking why I should shoot RAW. What advantage does RAW give you over JPEG.

In all fairness all you have said here is tech data...some of which I disagree with but for the sake of argument I will say all is true. For example you mention colorspace. O.k. you can't do that with a JPG...what advantage does that give you over the JPEG.

It's true I am in no way a photoshop guru. I admit it. And I am not summarily dismissing them. All most have said is what you can and can't do but it you're not telling me why it's better other than that's what you like.

Oh and it hasn't been since Highschool...it's Jr high and again I will admit I didn't always take it seriously but at the same time one post from someone does seem to talk down to me and that I don't care for.

The sharpness you mention makes sense. I can see that as an advantage somewhat. Why I do see that as an advantage is I don't like photoshops sharp mask at all.I don't care for what it does to an image sometimes.

I will never shoot weddings. I was a cop for 23+ years and if some bride went bridezilla on me I'd deck her.

I do appreciate your discussions.

The saying is... if you can't get it right in the camera, you can't fix it in software, no matter the format. The pro you quoted is only half right, raw can only fix some types of technical errors. If one blows the highlights (+2 or more over exposed) in raw, software will not save it.

As to colorspace; colorspace has a wider gammut.... which means better gradient, which means better enlarged prints.

The technical reason why raw is better are the reason why raw is better. If your going to post to flicker (for example), and print less than 8x10, don't sweat the details, shoot jpg.

In simpler terms, it is the difference between 35mm negatives and 4x6 negatives; the bigger the negative, the more information is recorded. The more information a negative has (or file in this case), the more one can do with the image. Raw has more information than JPG. What is the more... that is up to your vision because after the technical is all said and done, it is now art.

JPG, your are limited by the static capture. Your presentation is cast in stone. Raw, your only limited by your imagination.

You are right...software won't save it but neither will the RAW fike if it isn't captured correctly. I threw the magazine away that had the quote. He is a Las Vegas based high end Glamour guy who said it and shoot JPG.

I just don't post to Flickr. I had printed a 20 x 30 of my grandkids for my Daughter's Christmas present. Shot in JPG and look great I doubt anyone could say if it were shot in RAW or JPG. What you are saying is JPG has print size limitations. I respectfully disagree with that. I say this because you can find JPG shot by pros blown up to larger than poster size with no pixelation. Conversely walk into a Victoria Secret store and look at the photos on the wall and then walk closer to the. Huge pixelation. Those photographers I am sure shoot RAW with the best equipment available. These reason maybe better to shoot RAW but they are not totally definative.

I understand what you are saying about 35mm vs 4x6 negative. But are you saying the because RAW files are 4X larger than JPG it's better? I understand it's larger due to the information it holds. The technical data is what you are saying makes RAW better. I need to ask. Have you ever opened RAW and a JPG in Lightroom and seen that the adjustment are the same? I have and I know what another poster has said that changing exposure in Lightroom is just really brightening. But then it should look the same if I just if I just changed the brightness slider...but it doesn't. I did it about an hour ago after I read his post. So the technical data isn't really helping me in the practical sense.

May I ask when was the last time you blew something up larger than say a 20 X30? My guess is not to often. So lets say it's 5 times a year...you shoot 10,000 frames a year for those 5 possible chances that you might have to blow something up larger than an 11X14. Wedding Photographers packages don't include anything larger that an 11 X 14. When you go to print it anyway don't you convert it to JPG? LOL!! I know that doesn't matter. Coverting a RAW image in photoshop to a JPg doesn't hurtb the quality of the photo. I hoping to lighten the mood a bit.

Look guys please don't take this discussion as seriously as some of you are. The bottom line was posted by the 1st person who replied...just go have fun and shoot. This discussion will not change one iota of anything in life. Honestly I am not summarily dismissing any reasons.

I am playing a bit of the devils advocate on this technical data for a reason. Tech data doesn't make it better. That's like saying a Canon 5D can shoot better shots because it's technically better the a 40D or my D700 is better than my D80. The technical is a part of what makes it better but as a stand alone reason it's worthless. The fact that a Millers hammer has a less sharp of a curve than a claw hammer...does that make it a better hammer. Technically no...practicality yes in many usages.

Practicality....There have been some valid reasons posted. But the practicality how much of a difference does it make? Is it discernable to the eye? Maybe if as most of you have said printed above an 8X10 or 11X14. I've an 11 X 14 done both ways but I do admit I haven't done anything larger in a test.

Let me ask this is it any easier to adjust an RAW? I havent found that to be true but I will again admit I haven't done as many as most of you.

Lastly some of the reason posted I have tried to do today with a JPG. The poster said it wasn't possible yet Photoshop allowed me to do it. Before you all get all over me let me qualify that statment. It may have allowed me to do that procedure but is it the same as RAW or in other words will it look the same? That I haven't checked out yet. Before you say maybe I should before asking another stupid question (that's a joke guys) what if I did and said my results showed no difference. Would you guys go try it and see for yourself? (devils advocate)

Maybe you guys have, Have you tried it lately though? Software does get better.

So please don't get frustrated with me. I use to work around lawyers. I can take a stand on any issue and make it confusing and argue the other side...Ive learned from the best. Jeez that's how they get the crooks off.

Ken

JPG print size. Well, no, I am not saying that jpg has a print size limit. The information within it does have a limit, which will have an affect on print size, and then that has some qualifications.

It is possible to go large with JPG, as long as the manipulations are kept to a minimal. A pro can shoot JPG fine, and if they got the exposure right in camera, then all will be fine. You already pointed it out. I work in raw, and when I go to print, I make it a high quality jpg. Once it is jpg form, that file will not get manipulated again. If I want to make changes, I go back to the raw or PDS. In fact, that jpg file will not last long on my computer, once printed that file is not needed. I use lightroom and photoshop. Regenerating the file for printing is all to easy within lightroom. So, the jpg life span is short. I never store what I can generate.

The Vitoria secret, example, it is processed like that, to have the grain (noise in digital terms). That is part of the style, the art that I referred to. I do that a lot, take a crystal clear image and add grain. Adding grain is part of the subject at times.

When I print, the smallest I print is 16x20 or 16x24. Last time I printed a 20x30, last week, 5 of them. I have printed up to 4'x4' (now that was a one time thing). I also have done wedding, and those were 8x10 max with a few 11x14 or 16x24. I don't do weddings anymore, for probably the same reason as you.

About opining raw/jpg, yes I have open both, worked on both. If the image I envisioning is something I want and is important, I will shoot raw. If I am shooting a party at my house or something, I shoot jpg fine. I am going for snap shots and not an image destine to be art. Can some of those snap shots be something that turns out to be something important and I want to make it a 20x30? Sure, but I would take that original jpg and convert it to a TIFF and work on it as a PDS.

The information contained in a raw file allows greater manipulation than the information contain in a jpg fine file. That is the point, the degree of manipulation the information can support.

I know a lot f pro's that shoot jpg fine (Scott Kelby shoot jpg and raw). They have set their bodies to produce the type of image they are targeting. For example, I have a bank set to produce velvia type images when I am going to shoot jpg. Also, I have 30+ years experience so, I know how to expose an image when I am shooting jpg. I not trying to brag here, just setting up an example and using me as that example. I expect that when I shoot that snap shoot, it is done and I have done all the right moves to get it right in camera. If I didn't, I trash it, so I always take more than one shot. When it hits lightroom, it maybe cropped, might adjust the tone curve, but that is about it.

When I shoot landscapes, it will always be in raw. That way, I decide later how and what it will be. And I don't have to worry that I don't have the information to support what ever vision I may come up with later. My view is, I have a vision of what that image is going to be before I shoot it. I work at getting it right in camera. After all, it is more fun going places and creating/setting up the image than working on a computer all day.

However, there maybe an image within that image, this is where raw is important. I find a second vision within that original image. I may look and see that it will make a great black and white. These variations is where the extra information comes into play.

When one crops, one is really enlarging a section of the image. Or more precisely, a section of information. The 4x6 neg, has more information per mm than a 35mm neg. This comes into play on how large (based on subject) one can go. A 35mm can make a 16x20, no problem. The 4x6 can make a better 16x20. A 35mm gets doggy at 20x30, but the 4x6 has no problems going 20x30 and beyond.

The jpg vs raw is the same concept. Can a trained eye see it, yes. Do you know John shaw, nature/wildlife photog? He made a billboard from a 35mm slide. Did the world see a great billboard image, yes. Did John Shaw see the imperfections of his shot on the billboard, yes.

I know that a lot of pro instructors will say get the shot in raw and then let software take over the details. That is one way to think of photography, and a lot of wedding photographers live by that concept.

But I can also point to pro wedding photographers that do it right the first time, and still shoot raw. There was this one guy in CA that charged at a minimum $10k. You did not have a choice of packages. He did not provide an album or gave you size options. It was all done in black and white, printed as 11x14 and mounted on foam core and placed in a box. The price changed based on how long someone hired him. He shot in raw, because he did not want lack of information stifle his creativity when he went to preset his images.

There are many reason to shoot raw, and there are reason to shoot jpg. If you are happy and you are getting the results your looking for, then your set.

There are too many people that promote jpg fine and software to make great images. That is the issue or problem (controversy if you will). This is all to common, ford vs Chevy, Nikon vs canon, raw vs jpg. There are a lot of people that are way better at photoshop than I am. But they are not so hot at photography, but their PS skills makes up for that.

Hey, I understand that you're playing the devil's advocate. That's OK. But we are giving you the reasons why RAW is better at it seems you just don't want to hear them. Or you don't see them, which is fine as well.

I am wondering how good you monitor is. If someone has a pro camera, top glass, develops in RAW, and displays the result on a cheap, non color corrected monitor, the effect is similar to someone buying high-end audio and playing the music over crappy speakers.

Just to clarify some points:

Compression loss is seen as pixels clumping together and loss of very fine detail. With a point-and-shoot, I can see this. With a good DSLR set to its high quality JPEG setting, I can't.
About the histogram: this is about the JPEG file having limited 'room' to work with, 8 bits per channel. If you edit the file, you may not see the difference per se, but my point was that the histogram will show you that you have in fact lost quality.

No you can't. You can alter the colors in a JPEG, but that's not the same as setting the correct white balance for a picture in RAW. But someone already said that.

I think I did. I shoot JPEGs for non-artistic photos or when the quality isn't so important to me. JPEGs are much smaller in file size and it's easier to share them. (marginally easier, because clicking Export in Lightroom is pretty easy...)
I shoot RAW when I want to edit the photo. Mostly landscape shots or when the lighting is very difficult. I agree with the point that another poster made: 'When new software comes out, that 2 year old raw file can take advantage of the new technology in the software. JPG is in cement.'

Gradient banding, as I udnerstand it, has nothing to do with compression. Banding is a type of noise and is highly camera-dependent. It occurs when the camera reads data from the sensor. So it can be apparent in RAW as well.

Leaving technicalities aside....

Bottom line is I shoot RAW because I want the best possible shot I can get regardless of the outcome, even if I can see it or not. I'm not going to hike several miles out to some waterfall or to some geological formation or to some mountain top to NOT come away with the best possible shot just because a RAW file is a couple more megabytes than a JPG and requires a couple more minutes to process. Am I going to come away with a shot I want to put on my wall at 20x30? Probably not, but why in the world would I want to limit myself in the digital darkroom for the sake of a couple megabytes and minutes, and if I do walk away with a shot I want to put on the wall and had shot it in JPG, everytime I would look at it I would wish I had shot that in RAW because the quality of the image would be better, if only by a little.

Also I don't know how much experience you have shooting landscape at sunrise or sunset but RAW captures the extreme dynamic range at those times better than JPG. Perhaps the reason you see little if any difference between editting a JPG and a RAW is because you're shooting low contrast scenes that don't take advantage of that aspect of RAW. I prefer to try to get it right in camera as much as possible and even when I shoot at the sun and stack split ND filters I sometimes still lose details somewhere. RAW allows me to keep as much detail as possible throughout the entire scene without having to resort to HDR or complicated hand blending.

Thanks. The very last sentence..about those who are not as good at photography but their photoshop skills make up for it...man I hate that! LOL!!!

My photoshop skills are not good at all and the problem comes from my lack of inspiration as to what I want to do with the shot. Hence why I like to get it right in the camera so to speak because I see it in my eye/camera and really jjst want to do as litle as possible to it. I have a friend who loves editing and is a guru at photoshop. I never will be and don't want to be either.

Thanks for the chat. I do appreciate what people say and read all the posts.

You assume way too much. I get it..your a techie...you like that tech data. I don't. It's not the end all as it seems you think it is. You feel RAW is better due to the technical aspects of it...well sorry but that is simply wrong to believe that.

There is no reason for you to make the first statement about me. I have said as much in past post. It seem you chose not to either read my whole post or not believe what I am saying. I believe you and I are done.

I never asked why RAW is better, if it really is, I asked why YOU shoot raw and mostly you spouted data at me Dude! I have read every word of every post and tried to do what you and others have said. A few of the things said can be done to a JPG. One has said yes but it isn't the same....I see it as yes it is.

Since your a techie I guess you do need to know what my momitor is. It's a Samsung Synchmaster P2450. I'm not a techie so I don't know any other tech data about it.

Why not ask why shoot .jpg over RAW?

1. The camera shoots faster in .jpg.

2. I can fit more images on the storage media.

3. Windows (and probably any other OS you can think of) has built-in tools for viewing and manipulating .jpg files. In fact, as least with older versions of windows, there were no tools for thumbnails unless you went to the extra effort to download them, and those were camera-specific tools.

4. Yes, after-market software provides those tools, but I have far too many very important documents that I've lost to after-market software obsolescence because of using similar tools in the past. So, now anything that is important is stored in widely-available formats and not proprietary formats created by after-market software. My photos are too important to give to the vagaries of some camera manufacture/after-market manufacturer and their decisions to discontinue supporting a format 5, 10, 50 years down the line.

Yeah I don't shoot sunrises or sunsets. I've seen way too many and honestly they all start looking the same. I shoot mainly nothing but landscapes but that isn;t my passion as it is for a good friend of mine. My favorite subjects are long timed exposures at night ( I don't get to get out as much as I would like though) and people. The night shooting is why I really started this thead.

I've met a couple wedding photogs who shoot in .jpg just for the boost in FPS.

Personally I do it as a hobby and not for primary source of income. You can find some great examples over at POTN.

I shoot RAW over .jpg because it allows for more tweaking in post. Yes you can adjust the saturation and exposure and everything else you mentioned with a .jpeg in LR but with RAW you can recover more.

For EXAMPLE, say the foreground in your picture was underexposed by 3 stops while your sky was perfectly exposed. With a jpeg you might be able to boost the exposure there a stop or two without it starting to look very grainy and bad. With the same image in raw you might be able to recover 3 or 4 stops before it starts looking wonky. The numbers are a pure example before someone jumps on that and decides to be super technical. I do nearly all my shooting in the mountains so besides smack dab middle of the day the foreground or background is way over/under exposed and short of shooting with filters attached to my camera all day there really isn't a better way to fix it then in post as the dynamic range of one photo can be fairly large.

Will your images turn out great in jpeg? ya of course they have the potential but looking back at all the places I've been in the past I enjoy looking at me photos and having them look the best they can be.

If I had NO intention of processing my photos on the computer after I took them then I would simply shoot jpeg as you get a higher FPS and much smaller file sizes. It all depends on what your end goal is in my opinion.

Really interesting discussion. Honestly, I did not read every word of every post - but here is the deal for me:

With JPG, some data is lost forever. With raw all the data captured can be moved to the computer if you want to make different changes to the image than was done by the camera during the conversion to jpg.

Because of this simple principle, I shoot in raw+jpg. If I like the jpg, then fine. If I can do better working with the raw (and the image is worth the effort) then I will use the raw.

Memory is dirt cheap. Why throw the raw away when it may have important value?

I shoot raw because:
1. I love the hobby
2. I paid a lot for my equipment, L glass, pro bodies, lightroom, colormonky, etc. Why not maximize the potential.
3. Technology is ever evolving, the extra data captured could be very useful if I ever want to edit that photo in lightroom 7 someday.
4. Memory is cheap.
5. Most importantly. I'm not a pro and sometimes I mess up the exposure or am unsure of the white balance and RAW has allowed me to save many neat shots that wouldn't have survived the pixel pushing in jpg.

To each their own.

There is a great article in the november2011 issue of outdoor photographer with examples showing the superior detail of raw.

Attachment 222801

I used to opt for jpeg only when I needed a high write speed but two of my current three bodies can capture 8 fps on 14 bit RAW and both have buffer upgrades, so unless I truly need a higher capture frame rate, I have no need for jpeg.

Even my G9 is set to RAW and stays there. My wife's CoolPix is on jpeg only because it can't capture in RAW.

I have custom presets that are applied at ingestion so post production is kept to about the same as I would have if I were shooting jpeg. So it's not an argument of RAW being more time consuming to edit. It isn't.

Storage is cheap. Memory cards and HD prices continue to plummet. NAS devices make upsizing your storage a breeze, so capacity isn't an issue (I keep four copies of EVERY image I create, all RAW... Working copy, Drobo, Off-site HD & cloud). Post Production apps like LR, Aperture and many others make the RAW conversion invisible. Write speeds with 12 & 14 bit files is nearly as fast as with jpeg.

I shoot RAW exclusively.

So, what advantage does RAW give you over jpeg?

16,128

14-bit RAW captures at 16,384 colors per channel

8-bit jpeg capture at 256 colors per channel.

Done. Nothing else to discuss.

Why anyone would fork up the money for a quality dSLR that can capture in RAW and then not use it is beyond me.

There are two reasons where I can support discarding all the data lost when compressing to jpeg. One exception would be for p-journalists who are required to capture in j-peg for image-integrity reasons. The second is if you have limited buffer capacity are stalling while writing to the card... and how often does that happen. (I shoot primarily wildlife & motorsports and it rarely, if ever happens with my D3s or D3.. sometimes with the D300)


I agree with the notion of additional control. But to say that you can process a jpeg to the same result as you could with a RAW it absurd. And the fact that one has LR or CSx has nothing to do with it. Fact is that a RAW file has more information and more lattitude than a jpeg will. Try double processing a jpeg, or triple processing it. It won't have the DR that the RAW file will. I don't do it often but it have triple processed RAW files to be used in an HDR stack with no problem. That simply isn't possible with a jpeg; they can't stand up to pixel torture.

I pick up my D700 to make money and RAW allows me to do amazing things I can't with JPEG. If I want JPEG I'll use my iPhone. Seriously. I have a G10 I never use.

Main thing the OP is getting thrown off by is that just because LR or Aperture gives you sliders on a JPEG doesn't mean they accomplish even remotely the same level of adjustment.

Let's take what I shoot most often - apartment communities. With RAW I can:

1. Bring out much more shadow detail with RAW. HUGE difference vs JPEG. Clients notice the difference and pay me for it.

2. Color balance. If you even remotely think your JPEG slider can do what it does on a RAW file with regard to color balance then you've been shooting brick walls in broad daylight. Try shooting a room that has sunlight coming in, incandescent overheads, and fluorescent bulbs in all the lamps. My RAW file just ate your JPEG for breakfast and belched out loud. Clients see the difference and pay me for it.

3. Exposure. Your JPEG slider again is crippled here. I bracket my shots even in RAW and am surprised how often I use an exposure that looked wrong at the time. With RAW I can intentionally underexpose then bring up the exposure slider and get different reactions from other adjustment sliders than I would have with another exposure. Every image is different and sometimes without an underexposed RAW I cannot achieve a visual effect I need. JPEG? You will not even know what you're missing because you've not taken your RAW files out on dates, wined them and dined them, them told them how lovely they look in the moonlight. JPEGs on pro equipment are high dollar hookers but RAW files are marriage material.

4. "Oops" We all have them. RAW saves me from losing the money shot and a JPEG would have left me under the proverbial bus. Years back I shot weddings on film - 6x7, 645, even shot a 6x9 Fuji. I would have MUGGED KILLED MURDERED to have had the FFFU technology (fear from f-up) that RAW gives me.

I can go on, but I'm violating my own mantra of the right tool for the right job by typing this long post on an mobile device.

Short answer is that for those of us who approach this with a passion for the darkroom will prefer RAW. If we shoot for money we shoot RAW. If we just want to capture that cool gas station on the side of the road or a Ken Rockwell red barn with a rusted car out front and hot air balloons rising in the distance, we pull out our phone or just record the damn thing on biofilm - our brains.

Hell, I say if you can't tell the diff between RAW and JPEG then don't waste your time with a thread like this. It's very anti-JPEG by nature. You're coming in here with a raw question and watching all the different ways it can develop. If you find yourself still reading this thread you may be a closet RAW fan.

copywrite...
I shoot everything in RAW and then only deliver the final product in JPG, tiff, dng,or what ever format the client request except RAW. I always retain the un-equivocal original in my archive.

There are many technical advantages to shooting in RAW but this is the only one that no one has hit on yet.

Also a very valid answer... Longer winded than I, but correct...

A jpeg with image memo & Copyright applied at capture directly to EXIF is the supreme in image-integrity. It's the only way a wire house will accept it.

Unless you saying the jpeg gives you added protection, I'm not sure I see your point.

The RAW file is your insurance should the other formats be corrupt. But jpeg from capture is far better if you are delivering directly to the client as a PJ would.

It hasn't really been stated here, but I would be really surprised if any of the RAW shooters actually deliver a RAW file to the client.

So I am confused on your reasoning.

If the client is a non photojournalistic magazine and the mag does it's own image editing they will want it raw.

Maybe Tiff

I suppose that makes sense. I shoot primarily for private clients and have never been asked for the RAW file.. TIFF, DNG, jpeg.. yes.

No you didn't get my point. The point is... Shot in Raw then ONLY DELIVER IN jpg. The only image that is beyond question is the RAW image... If you only deliver jpg. As for my clients and yes I do PJ work... They can have any format they want except the RAW.
And shoot in RAW + jpg if your deadline is short. Either way, you still need to have registering your work in your workflow...

Hahaha I have a friend who always swears by RAW and what you can do with it. =D And really, his photos do look great and you do have a lot of control over the editing of photos shot in RAW. Though, of course, even he admits that the larger file size is a pain in the butt sometimes. xD For me, I pretty must just shoot JPEG because it gives me more space and its faster.

I have quite a few LARGE SD cards so I shoot RAW+JPEG! lol I shoot in raw because of the editing capabilities and have the jpegs on hand just in case I'm not on my alienware laptop and someone wants a shot.