JPEG or Raw

egproductions

egproductions

Veteran
I am debating what is better to shoot events with JPEG or Raw. The raw lends itslef to shooting at highet ISOs becasue I can expose to the right and bring back detail alter along with a cleaner image. I seem to like JPEG sharpening better than what I can do in post. I see that when I shoot Raw pictures under exposed by a stop teh shodows really start breaking apart is this the case with JPEGs as well? I am shooting with a rebel xt
 
The only time I will ever shoot jpg is if I am doing a timelapse. Other than that I feel there is no reason not to shoot RAW. Anything that you can do with your jpg you can get using a RAW file, and more. If you feel the jpg has better sharpening, I have to ask, how are you doing your sharpening. The nice thing about RAW is that you can leave your sharpening till the end. Working with a pre sharpened file just gives horrible results.

Lets do a little pro and con list

RAW

Pros
higher dynamic range
don't need to adjust color temperature before hand
Can adjust exposure after shot (to a degree)
16 bit work space
Don't have to worry about color space before hand
no jpg artifacts to be brought out in post process
smoother gradations due to 16bit file format
Can BATCH process files with similar exposure settings

Cons
Larger file size
Not an instantly ready file


jpg

Pros
Instantly ready
can apply pre defined styles to photo (pro or con you decide)
smaller file size

Cons
See all of the pros on the RAW side


To me, it is just not worth it to take a photo in jpg. Memory is extremely cheap and working with a comprimised file can only lead downward.
 
I use unsharp mask and sometime reduce noise and bump up teh sharpen deatisl but i guess it just bothers me to apply digital sharpening it just feels wrong. Thats why if I let my jpegs do it I feel like I cant go wong with e amount of sharpening that was applied.
 
Just to disagree slightly...

I do a lot of event and wedding photography and for those situations I only shoot jpg for the file size and the fact that with the exception of some very small across the board adjustments in photoshop (batch processing actions) I don't post process where I need to adjust the white balance.

RAW in general is better but jpg works for situations where you are shooting large amounts of photographs or where space is a major consideration.

If I'm out shooting for pleasure or portfolio I shoot jpg + RAW... RAW conversion is a *****.

Now if you excuse me my flu ridden self is going to resume the vomit cycle...
 
I agree with Jeremy for the file size, since a RAW file holds three times the space of a JPEG. JPEG is for the web.
For production definetely go with RAW. This question is kind like asking "should I use mp3 sound file for a production CD?"
 
I only shoot jpeg fine. I guess I try to shoot like I did with film. I try and do it with the camera. I don't want to spend hours at the computer trying to fix the picture.
 
I agree with scharky. If I'm on vacation or something and need the card space, I'll go with jpeg. But most of the time, I shoot RAW. I can fit around 110 on the card I have now. That's usually enough, but I just ordered a 2 GB card just in case. If I'm getting paid to take pictures, I always take then in RAW.

It is a little bit of an annoyance to have to convert though. So when you take a bunch of pictures with family and they want copies... it's a pain. That's a good time to shoot jpeg so you can make copies and be done with it. :)

Chad
 
I used to shoot JPEG for large event shoots just because I'd be shooting 500+ pics, but then I realized "hey," cards are fairly cheap. Now I shoot RAW all the time. I keep an extra card on me and when card one gets full it takes 2 seconds to swap in a new one. I look at it this way, much of what is shot goes to the trash anyway but for those rare super shots where everything is just right.. I want the best format my camera can produce. If it were the difference between buying the very best professional film or some cheapo discount film I can see people not wanting to spend 3x the money just for snapshots. but this is digital, baby! 1's and 0's.
They cost the same which is zilcho. Why not go for the best.
 
Hey guys, Im kinda a noobie here.

I have the RAW image task that came with my canon and recently downloaded and used Rawshooters Essentials. Which do you recommend would be a better workflow?
Also, I dont know if its me, but somehow any RAW file I put on RAW image tasks have the colors out of wack while colors remain true on RAW essentials. Am i doing something wrong?
Peace

PS - oh, I agree with ming. When you get that one chance to get a good pic, why not have the best.
 
Dizkoteck said:
PS - oh, I agree with ming. When you get that one chance to get a good pic, why not have the best.
Click to expand...

Because for those of us that shoot weddings the time to convert from RAW to JPG is wasted time. JPG, Large, Fine is fine for wedding and event work and if you look closely the artifacts between JPG and RAW aren't that significant. Furthermore, when I shoot a wedding I shoot about 1500-2000 images, if it takes 20 seconds to convert RAW to jpg (actually it takes about 30 seconds) then you are looking at 8+ hours for 1500 images just to get them to JPG.

For weddings, only jpg, I drop them in a folder, open photoshop, run them through my photoshop wedding action 1 (levels, color, contrast, slight border, save as) and then wedding action 2 (converts to b&w, border, save as) and when I get up in the morning it's all done.

RAW just adds a stage.

Now 100% of what I shoot for pleasure is in RAW, but I'm just saying, if you get into event stuff and don't shoot jpg then you are making more work for yourself.
 
Practically all pro pictures end up as JPG files in the end (12-8 quality level).

But still I shoot only RAW.*

Why?

I can tweak the best possible JPG (I convert RAW into max quality JPGs) from the RAW file with PS Bridge. Usually I see what the auto everything does and if it does not look good I adjust levels, shadow, contrast and brightnes myself (if there are several similar shots I treat them the same). Sometimes also white balance (manual or with dropper) and tint. About half goes with preset auto, half I adjust manually. If i shoot 1500 pictures maybe 50 get selected for processing (and 5-10 get published).

Shooting RAW is more trouble but buys some peace of mind and also better quality in about half of the cases.

*) If I know I am short of card space (10 GB worth of cards with 8 and 12 Mpix cameras) I shoot JPG and do not worry about it. I have shot professionally over 20 years with film, so why worry??? But when I can get the advantage of RAW I would be stupid not to use it.

PS: Jeremy: it takes 4 seconds per picture to convert 12 Mpix RAW to JPG with my 2 year old PC, thus converting 1500 RAWs to JPGs takes just over an hour with some nice optimations in Bridge... Maybe you should look into your system.
 
Petrus said:
PS: Jeremy: it takes 4 seconds per picture to convert 12 Mpix RAW to JPG with my 2 year old PC, thus converting 1500 RAWs to JPGs takes just over an hour with some nice optimations in Bridge... Maybe you should look into your system.
Click to expand...

My photoshop conversion action, and we're talking a three year old P4 2.8, 1 gig ram is running 20-30 seconds. Nikon software is running a little faster, 15 seconds.

We are all saying the same thing, and things continue to get repeated.

In general, yes, shooting RAW gives more flexibility and the only downsides are the size of the files and the conversion process.

JPG does introduce artifacts.

Personally I shoot JPG for all my wedding stuff because fitting 1000 images on a card is nice and everything is automated for me.

Back to what I was getting at... I never have a conversion take 3-4 seconds.
 
Anything that you can do with your jpg you can get using a RAW file, and more.

I would have said that until I finally understood the power of RAW. Plus, the fact that RAW blows up much nicer on huger prints.

But other than that, here is when I would use JPEG:
-I use .jpg on the runway shows I film. Clients (especially fashion PR) sometimes demand they have images almost immediately after the event.

If I don't have to turn around 600+ pictures in less than 48 hours, I will shoot RAW. If I need to deliver 500+ pictures under 3 hours, I'll shoot jpeg.

The image manipulation you can do with RAW without loss of data is amazing, and that itself has saved my ass a couple of times when I shot underexposed.
 
jpeg for my wedding too. The time factor is too much to go Raw. People are happy with them. Plus like I said before I try to get it right the first time or close. My Nikons really help. Photography to my has been about taking the "picture". Not photoshoping it later. It is nice we have that choice and I use it but mainly for minor fixes.
I can see why on some types of paid jobs and for fun you want to go raw.
 
Well just to stir things up a bit, I shoot weddings in RAW, always. I guess it 1 just makes me feel better, 2 I feel that I have a better finished product, 3 I never even have to touch photoshop, just the RAW converter, at least for the proofs ( I do a more fine art's style of wedding). I feel it is always important to shoot correctly no matter shooting jpg or raw, but I am able to get much more dynamic range out of a RAW file than any jpg I have ever used. I have 2 - 2gig CF's and 1 4Gig CF. The funny thing that I hear lots of wedding photographers say is "I like to shoot jpg's because I like to get it right in camera, it's much more like shooting with film". But then they end up with 3000+ photos at the end of the day. Man that's alot of film.
I personally enjoy the post processing part, and of course I charge for it as well. I grew up in a dark room environment and I personally feel that photogography is more than just shooting the photo, that's only half the battle, dark room time is just as important, and I never leave the dark experience to any photo lab.
Again, not saying anyone else is wrong, digital has a very wide range of possiblilities and workflows.
 
My .02.

I'm a professional photographer working full time in L.A. I shoot fashion, all my prints end up 11x14. (Just a little background. It doesnt make me right, it just lets you know where I'm coming from.)

My main body is a Canon 1DsII and my backup is a 20D. I shot the 10D before that. Obviously the 1DsII images are of such high resolution that RAWvsJPG make no difference as for image resolution. The only difference is "compression" and in camera processing. That said, I have always only shot JPEG.

Back in the day, I shot RAWvsJPG comparisons, printed 8x10, 11x14, and 20x30. In all cameras, there is absolutely no difference between the three sizes, the only difference was in comparing the same size prints from different cameras. (11x14 in RAW from 20D same as 11x14 JPG from 20D, but 11x14 JPG from 1DsII is better than 11x14 from either other camera. Follow?)

Nail the exposure and white balance and you gain nothing from RAW. RAW only gives you the latitude to alter the image later (which will, in itself, degrade the image). The in camera processing of the Canons are strong enough and the the compression weak enough that the JPEG doesnt suffer when exposed and balanced correctly.

I am more than beyond sure I will be met with opposition. No matter. I assure you that if you do the same tests with the same cameras, you will get the same results. This is my living, I wouldn't F with it.

And, just for the curious, the 1DsII 20x30 (jpg) is absolutely stunning. The 10D's is remarkable too. (20D fits right in between.) And I'm sure the 30D and 5D and just as good.

Also, just to combat a couple posts above, ALL image manipulation sacrifices detail. There is no "loss-less" manipulation. RAW is an uncompressed, loss-less format, but set a WB CC on that file and you're losing data. The difference comes with the amount of correction and manipulation. And again, shoot correctly and there's much less to correct. And to those that might say "Shoot RAW in case you dont shoot correctly.", I say, "learn to shoot".

My .02.

-GageFX
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top