What are your reasons to shoot RAW over JPEG.
10-12-2011, 08:20 PM
#31
JK Super Freak
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.
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.
Last edited by MikekiM; 10-12-2011 at 08:40 PM.
10-12-2011, 08:54 PM
#32
JK Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Allen, TX
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
10-13-2011, 05:27 AM
#33
JK Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Gahanna, OH
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
10-13-2011, 05:31 AM
#34
JK Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Gahanna, OH
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
10-13-2011, 06:13 AM
#35
JK Super Freak
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.
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.
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.
10-13-2011, 09:41 AM
#37
JK Super Freak
10-15-2011, 05:33 AM
#38
JK Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Gahanna, OH
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
And shoot in RAW + jpg if your deadline is short. Either way, you still need to have registering your work in your workflow...
11-09-2011, 08:14 PM
#39
JK Newbie
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Laguna Niguel, CA
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
01-07-2012, 09:13 PM
#40
Sponsoring Vendor
Epic-Addictions Representative
Epic-Addictions Representative
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.