Do you shoot in RAW or jpeg?

[talan]

So what format does everyone shoot in?

I shoot in RAW most of the time since you get a lot more flexibility when making your post processing adjustments. What I don't like is the files are massive and take up a lot of space on my hard drive. That's why I only save the keepers.

I only really shoot in jpeg when im taking snaps (e.g. on holiday) and for photos I don't intend on post processing. Add to the fact that I only still use 1 2GB CF card so really need to conserve space.

[EGD]

never shoot JPEG in a DSLR :)

[keriboi]

raw only

[arsenal69]

Doh, no film option for me :confused:

But if I could I would shoot raw :)

[talan]

Doh, no film option for me :confused:

But if I could I would shoot raw :)

Ahh sorry I always forget about the minority :p. Sorry can't add more options hehehe.

[Haim]

Raw helps so so much! i would say Raw mostly but when i use mt dslr as a P&S i would be shooting JPEG

[David]

RAW only (Y)

[Moppie]

RAW, and with over 2TB of storage I have lots of space for them :)

[Rick0r]

RAW + JPEG, and with over 2TB of storage I have lots of space for them.

Seriously, why not just shoot both? If you don't feel like editing and are happy with the shot, then publish the jpeg. If you're feeling like you want to muck around with it, use the RAW file.
There's no reason why you should be shooting one and not the other.
Memory cards are stupidly cheap, so they shouldn't be limiting you either.

[keriboi]

if the raw doesnt need editing just dont edit it ;) one click and its open in photoshop. no need for jpeg

[Rick0r]

I've found many cases where the camera processed JPG looks better than the RAW. It'd take a few minutes of editing to get the RAW to where the JPG is.

Mostly on very high ISO low light shots

[robo git]

if the raw doesnt need editing just dont edit it ;) one click and its open in photoshop. no need for jpeg1) The JPEG can be better than using the RAW converter in Photoshop for on-camera white-balance
2) Time to market: If you need to get your photos out then & there, being able to send out JPEGs without needing to go through a white-balance + conversion step is an edge over the purists that only shoot in RAW
3) Smart image-manipulation programs may be able to use the white-balance present in the JPEG for doing an auto-corrected WB on RAW import.

Like Rick, I always shoot RAW+JPEG where possible.

[Moppie]

Ultimatly the whole JPEG vs RAW thing comes down to personal choice and how you manage your own workflow based on your final use for the image.

There is no right, or wrong way of doing it.


There are some generalisations, and simple facts around the issues though, that people who are not familar with the different process should be aware of.

The camera ONLY shoots in RAW. It doesn't matter what sort of camera, if its digital there is only RAW data coming off the sensor.

The RAW file contains considerably more information than can be displayed digitally, and can be contained in a JPEG.

When the conversion of JPEG occurs (either in the camera, if your shooting JPEG, or on your computer), large amounts of information is lost.

If you shoot in a style that may require that information, or you like to have 100% control over your images, then shooting RAW is the only option with no compromises.
But, depending on your workflow there can be extra time involved in processing the images.
For me this is not a problem, but I often do things with an image I would not able to do with a JPEG, or I can do it in a way that is often faster than doing it do the JPEG.


If you operate a program like Lightroom, and shoot JPEG, and import all your images into LR, then edit them, adjust WB etc, your work flow is essetianly no different than if you shot in RAW, and you are kidding yourself if you think your saving time.
LR, DPP, Apapture etc, all have the ablity to assign profiles, presets, picture styles etc, to imported RAWs so they look exactly the same as if they came out of the camera as JPEGs.

The only way you save time shooting JPEG is if you go direct from camera to upload/disc/printer/output with out first loading the images into a picture management program.
This is only useful to a very small number of people, working in a very limited number of situations.


Shooting in RAW does require more knowledge of post processing work flow.
Think of it as having your own darkroom rather than sending your negatives off to a lab. You can do things yourself in a darkroom, the lab will never do for you.

[tomberkley]

Both

[talan]

Also I find when I shoot in RAW I don't have to worry about white balance on location as I can easily adjust in post processing. I just set at AWB and fire away :)

[BaNaNaMaN]

Raw

We currently had this discussion in the media room for rally wairarapa and the majority is actually shooting JPG as space becomes and issue and they don't see any benefit in shooting RAW because they do very little post processing.

[availablelight]

RAW only, and i keep all the non-rubbish ones

[Rick0r]

Raw

We currently had this discussion in the media room for rally wairarapa and the majority is actually shooting JPG as space becomes and issue and they don't see any benefit in shooting RAW because they do very little post processing.

If they're doing ANY post processing, it's best to do it in RAW.

JPEG is best for when you just want to offload them from the camera to where they're going to sit forever. If there's any kind of middle-man processing involved, it may as well be with a RAW.

[thirdkid]

raw FTW

[BaNaNaMaN]

Rick0r: there is a group that took between 4 of them 20000+ images over a weekend so it doesnt make too much sense in shoot RAW. Difference I guess is shooting 10 shots in 10 minutes vs 10 shots in 10 seconds. With rallying it is nothing to get 4gb from one corner of one stage.

[ndiginiz]

never shoot JPEG in a DSLR :)

why?

---------- Post added at 12:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:48 PM ----------

RAW only (Y)

why?

---------- Post added at 01:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:51 PM ----------

I shoot predominantly in .jpeg. RAW for me is space and can be, in terms of workflow, time consuming. I'm not big on post production work and tend to shoot more for off-the-glass results. Any editing done in post production is usually minimal. I might employ a RAW format for shooting nature macro photography. Then I usually stop up 1 or sometimes 2 stops higher with a faster shutter speed, as it affords a richer and deeper colour base in post production.

[Moppie]

Rick0r: there is a group that took between 4 of them 20000+ images over a weekend so it doesnt make too much sense in shoot RAW. Difference I guess is shooting 10 shots in 10 minutes vs 10 shots in 10 seconds. With rallying it is nothing to get 4gb from one corner of one stage.


I would rather get one great photo than a thousand boring ones.
If your shooting that kind of volume it might be time to step away from the highspeed shutter and work on your timeing and technique instead.

[BaNaNaMaN]

Simply you work on getting 10 great shots. In motorsport especially Rally you can not predict when a car might lift a wheel, slide a little too far etc etc so you MUST shoot as many frames as possible.

Look at any motorsport photographer and you will find that the case.

[Moppie]

Simply you work on getting 10 great shots. In motorsport especially Rally you can not predict when a car might lift a wheel, slide a little too far etc etc so you MUST shoot as many frames as possible.

Look at any motorsport photographer and you will find that the case.


Having shot the A1GP in 2008, the WRC in 2007 and 2008, several NZ V8, Formula First, Forumula Ford, Production Cars races, and a V8 Super car round at Puke, not to mention club events and track days, I have to completelty disagree.

As I said it is about timing and knowing how a car interacts with a race track.

Nothing wrong with jamming your finger on the button to catch a crash sequance, but jamming it on the button for every car that goes past just incase something happens will only get you thousands of photos that all the look the same, and fill up your memory cards so you have no space left when that crash does happen.


If you learn how to read the race, know the drivers, know the cars, and know the track, then you can do a much better job of getting the photos that matter, and even work on something a little different and creative.
Then you can also shoot in RAW, as you won't have to worry about space, and that means more opertunities to do more with your images later. Things like poster sized artwork etc, taking your work to another level beyond more 3/4 pans exactly the same as the other 5 photographers on the corner are getting.

[NikonF4s]

I agree with Moppie, having shot at least 6 WRC events with varying degrees of success, I found it much more rewarding to pick a shot, rather than going balls out.

you only have to look at the McKlein calender to understand.

[keriboi]

Funny you should say that. I used to have 3fps on my rebels, when I got my 50D with 6 frames I was yippee :)

Now I accually turn it back down to 3ps mode lol, 6fps is way to many :)

Ask any top photographer in the world, and they shoot raw!

[christofurr]

Another film shooter here so I'll just slip away quietly...

[Bigelboe]

Ask any top photographer in the world, and they shoot raw!

I have a sneaking suspicion you just made that up ;) It depends what discipline you are talking about, a lot of the landcsape guys will still use Large Format film because it offers so much more detail and flexibility in how you capture the scene, where other photogs who do minimal post processing and have a higher output like wedding shooters and stuff might stick to JPG's, you can get great results straight out of the camera if you do everything right at the time of the shot.

Another film shooter here so I'll just slip away quietly...

RealRaw ay bro ;)

I for one shoot Raw, mainly because Im not particularily good at concentrating on the details at the time of shooting so I like being able to retroactively set the white balance and fiddle with exposure.

[BaNaNaMaN]

I stick by my comments. I have a good number of professional motorpsort photographer friends and ALL of them take no less than 8 frames per car per corner. It is simple that it does matter about storage space as shooting in large JPG gives the desired result.

The ironic part here is that the curcuit photography that you listed above it is much easier to capture several frames of the same car because they are coming past again and again, where as rally you don't have that luxury.

I have been shooting in RAW and I also voted and commented that way earlier on. I don't care about storage space so what is the possible harm of shooting as you put it "thousands of photos that look the same" when in actual fact it is upto 8 images that may be the same of the same car. I suggest we keep it to comments about the topic here not my or anyone else shooting style as it seems that we need to agree the disagree here.

[Moppie]

I stick by my comments. I have a good number of professional motorpsort photographer friends and ALL of them take no less than 8 frames per car per corner.

Like who?
Are you talking about guys like Euan and Graham who spam the shutter button because they can't actually take a photo, then hire someone to sort them out afterwards? http://www.grahamblow.com/motorsport/index.htm


Or guys like Lee: http://www.kaptured.com/index.html who will take just one, perfect photo, hardly ever using burst mode. Infact I have shot at several events with him where he never used it once.


If your happy using burst mode, trying to make movies with your still camera, then keep using it. But it is not going to stop me offering a better suggestion that could help you improve your photography.

[Kelsonmassif]

RAW for me too, you never know when you get that money pic

I dont think Ive ever shot in jpeg mode in over 4+ years....

[talan]

Also I love how RAW is non destructive. You can go back and edit the original file a few years down the line when you feel your post processing skills have improved and can reprocess again (Y)

[Fabolous]

out of interest, how big is, say a typical RAW file? and what MP do you guys usually shoot at? the max the camera allows?

[talan]

Depends on MP of your camera and also the colours in your photo. E.g if you had heaps of black or white the file would be smaller.

Typically when I shoot in RAW on my 400D 10MP they are around 10MB each.

[Bigelboe]

Like who?
Are you talking about guys like Euan and Graham who spam the shutter button because they can't actually take a photo, then hire someone to sort them out afterwards? http://www.grahamblow.com/motorsport/index.htm


Or guys like Lee: http://www.kaptured.com/index.html who will take just one, perfect photo, hardly ever using burst mode. Infact I have shot at several events with him where he never used it once.
.

The shots from the portfolio Kaptured.com are amazing, really bringing emotion and art to Motorsport photography, rather than just documenting what happens. I can see why he won Photog of the year, thats a completely different approach than the first link you gave.

[NikonF4s]

wow, he's got some nice work, but needs to up the game on his skate photos :)

[christofurr]

RealRaw ay bro ;)
Hey, if it's good enough for Ken...:cool:

[HUNTD]

Used to be soley JPEG, but as of the last week or so have just started RAW... scary stuff, but having heaps of fun with it!

[Cory Varcoe]

RAW all the way and kick myself if i shoot jpeg. I dont have the need for fast publishing, if so, Lightroom to the recuse. Having presets is a huge time saver

out of interest, how big is, say a typical RAW file? and what MP do you guys usually shoot at? the max the camera allows?

Mine RAW files are around 30MB :D

[BenClement]

always RAW could never shoot jpg again

usually process everything through photo mechanic then lightroom 2 save final images ass tiff then a low res set as jpg for quick viewing

[Cory Varcoe]

Shoot in RAW because memory is cheap, but memories are priceless.

[David]

why?

I pretty much don't like the way jpeg turns out and im not good enough at shooting in manual mode to get the correct white balance and exposure so i would rather shoot in RAW and edit my photos after.

[Airflore]

I always shot in jpeg because I don't do lots of changes in the photo software. Also the raw format need so lots of space.

[BruceLimNZ]

RAW - I am yet to find a camera where I am 100% happy with the jpeg straight out of the camera. I figure if I'm gonna do some editing anyway, why not work with the best quality file? Isn't it why we got DSLR's and L series lenses? Also helps having 1.7TB of storage...

[Raizer]

I shoot in RAW + jpeg.
Only because I am a total noob when it comes to processing and I stuff up most of the pics I try and edit from RAW :o

[nathanbarlow]

Prefer RAW

Shoot JPEG when travelling, as I only have 1x1GB and 1x256MB card. Rock0r: although memory cards are cheap, I'd prefer to try and save money towards lenses, getting acessory gear (like tripods, flash, etc) and then printing my awesome shots (got a bit of a backlog haha). I only have a limited budget to do all that (am a student), so 'cheap' is relative haha

Cheers

[Bernzfotos]

I rarely use RAW now. I only use it for that special shot as I find I can make camera settings adjustments that will capture the image as I want and therefore mean minimal if any PP changes.

I also take my JPGs as BASIC which may sound weird but unless you want to print these images there is little difference other than file size. These file sizes are around 2MB.

For quality I use Large ( or medium ), JPG, BASIC Optimal Quality Mode.

My Nikon D300 is a 12.3 MP camera and this makes great 20" x 30" (51x71cm) prints but I don't need them at this size. If I did I may increase quality or take it RAW.

I read the guide by Ken Rockwell and then changed from RAW and now I can process my work a lot quicker.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/

Cheers, Bernz

[RachaelKelly]

Since I changed to shooting RAW I just can't go back to JPG I nearly had a panick attack the other day when I thought I had shot a whole session in JPG. As a Wedding photographer the light can change so quickly and everything happens so fast that I love how much wiggle room RAW gives me when processing photos. I love the recovery slider as I like to push my exposures as far to the right as I can (with RAW when I recover the detail it is still there but with JPG it is almost always gone).