Opinion

[Slabstick]

I was wondering how "most" people shoot? Do you always shoot RAW? or JPEG? I can understand if you always want to PP then, possibly you"ll always want to shoot RAW. My camera "Canon Rebel T3i" will shoot RAW/ JPEG at the same time but is it nessasary? If I'm doing landscape or something I know i"ll want to PP then yeah, shoot RAW. If I'm at a family gathering and "to me" not really that important to PP shouldn't I just shoot JPEG? Image view in RAW is of course a little bland to me. Personal preference? Maybe but, would just like to know what others think about this.

[xpatUSA]

Image view in RAW is of course a little bland to me. Personal preference? Maybe but, would just like to know what others think about this.

Hi Larry,

You might get some comments about that statement, would you like to explain what is "image view" and why do you say "of course"?

For my Sigma SD10, serious shots go RAW>ACR>PSE> .png (I don't print photos).
Quickies go RAW>Sigma Photo Pro> .jpg
Keepers are stored as X3F with their Adobe side-car .xmp files.
(The SD10 only produces X3F RAW files, no jpeg at all)

For the Nixon D50 which I use as a point-and-shoot, I use .jpeg out of the camera. Same for the recently acquired Panasonic micro-4/3" (RAW on these cameras has barrel distortion and stuff, I've read).

[rpcrowe]

I always shoot RAW. IMO, it is easier to bring my images into either Photoshop or Photoshop Elements using the RAW converter. As with (I suspect) many photographers, I began shooting in JPEG. Then I transitioned over to RAW by shooting both JPEG and RAW. It was soon apparent that I no longer touched my JPEG images and the dual acquisition just ate up memory and bogged down my computer.

Once, I shot several hundred eBay items for a friend and wanted to turn the images over to him on the CF card. He did not have editing capability, so I shot the images in JPEG small which was great for posting directly on eBay. I was shooting at the time with a Canon XT (350D). I was used to shooting with a 10D which has a top LCD to monitor my camera settings. Anyway, I forgot to change the image quality back to RAW and shot a porton of a parade in that quality. Thankfully, I was using two cameras and shot fewer images with the 350D than with the 10D.

My 7D has a button with which I can capture an occasional JPEG while shooting RAW or capture a occasional RAW image when the camera is set for JPEG. I have never used this capability and I have no expectations to ever use it. It is, for me, like the "print from camera" capability... It's there but I have no use for it!

However, for snapshooting at family gatherings, there is no reason why JPEG would not work! OTOH, I have just settled with a digital workflow for my images that I enjoy and there is no need to modify that workflow!

BTW: It seems to me that I might put a lot more work into modifying the occasional JPEG image that I had shot under the wrong white balance than the minimal work that I put into opening and saving my RAW imagery...

[Andrew1]

JPEG is quite suitable for the scenario you are describing. Quick candid shots of family and friends in a party atmosphere are probably not going to get much effort at editing. Some of the top wedding and sports photographers stick to jpeg for the entire shoot so good quality of photos out of the camera is not a problem. The majority of the 100's of millions of people taking pictures don't edit at all and do quite well. Also keep in mind that if you do find you have a few that need editing, you can adjust jpegs somewhat as well.

[Scott Stephen]

I started out shooting JPG only, then went to JPG + RAW, then to RAW only. I need the RAW files because I sometimes just can't correct WB, exposure, etc. enough in JPG. If you try to push a JPG too far, you destroy it. (In my opinion; I know opinions vary). I hate to have an important shot be unusable as a JPG when it probably could have been rescued if it were a RAW.

As for shooting both at the same time, it is just a massive pain in the neck.
1.) It is a struggle dealing with thousands of images anyway, so doubling the number makes it twice as bad.
2.) Also, shooting both slows down the camera's frames per second speed, and clogs the buffer too fast.
3.) It also complicates the storage issue.
4.) If you are using Lightroom to both organize and process your shots, it honestly is not at all harder to work with the RAW's than the JPG's.

As for the RAW looking bland, yes they will all need a little PP. But there are pre-set formulas you can apply with a click in LR, and you can even make your own pre-sets to apply. Also, LR lets you apply the PP settings you create for one shot to an entire batch of shots once you have the first one perfect. I just don't personally see any real time savings in shooting JPG, but I do see the downside of not shooting RAW.

[Slabstick]

I think maybe I should have put it a little differently. It Seems "and I have read" RAW is an "information file" right? Leaving most of the PP up to to Photographer. Still learning so, I'm wide open for correction. Thanks.

[Slabstick]

Noted. Thank you.

[Slabstick]

Thanks, ill keep this in mind.

[xpatUSA]

I think maybe I should have put it a little differently. It Seems "and I have read" RAW is an "information file" right? Leaving most of the PP up to to Photographer. Still learning so, I'm wide open for correction. Thanks.

Yes, RAW files have to be converted (decoded) before they can be seen properly on anything. For example, the LCD on your camera shows a JPEG conversion to a thumbnail image done right there in the camera. This thumbnail is often left "embedded" in your RAW file and in some programs can be shown temporarily while the RAW data is being converted into a viewable image.

Most converters, such as ACR (Adobe Camera Raw), offer similar conversion options to what's in your camera (i.e. Standard, Neutral, Vivid, Bland, etc). More advanced software even lets you create custom profiles to your taste. The RAW file remains what it is - the product of your exposure even after you've "saved it as" a .jpeg or whatever.

For example, these two images (not mine) are from the same RAW file . .

Dark and Gloomy . .


Bright and cheerful . .

[Slabstick]

I see your point. I agree that "better safe than sorry" approach is probably better. I just think that say, I'm at a family gathering and I'm reviewing the photos on my cameras viewer, there is just a lot to be desired in the review. If it were just me looking at the photos, that's ok because I understand what I'm looking at. On the other hand if my family is seeing the photos say on their widescreen tv I'm sure the thought of maybe I need to find a new hobby is floating around in their heads lol right?

[Slabstick]

Thank you, so glad to have so many people with the experience to give the needed help to those of us who need it.

[Andrew1]

This started out questioning the suitability of jpeg files for your intended use. The quality of what goes on 4 inches behind the viewfinder and the resultant snapshots is a different matter altogether.

[tclune]

I think maybe I should have put it a little differently. It Seems "and I have read" RAW is an "information file" right? Leaving most of the PP up to to Photographer. Still learning so, I'm wide open for correction. Thanks.

I shoot Nikon and use Capture NX2 as my raw converter. Capture NX2 is made by a company that works with Nikon and has complete access to Nikon's proprietary information. So Capture NX2 (like the free View NX2 from Nikon) by default would output exactly the same JPEG that you woud have gotten from the camera if you ask it to output a JPEG. However, you can also apply Exposure Correction in post, adjust the white balance, apply essentially all the in-camera settings after the photo has been taken (apply or remove lens distortion correction, sharpening, Active D-Lighting, etc.) as well as doing tone-mapping and highlight/shadow protection on the full data that the camera had acquired. So before I ever begin the operations that I might have done on a JPEG, I can process the data beyond what would have ever been possible with the limited in-camera settings if I want to. If I am happy with the photo without any adjustments, I can just output the JPEG, although it is a rare image that I don't tweak with, e.g., tone-mapping to make better use of the very limited JPEG range.

One of the very useful aspects of the manufacturer's raw editor is that it allows you to learn what those stupid settings actually do by allowing you to apply them in software and see what happens to the image, then undo the setting to decide what you would want to use for in-camera settings -- so there is real value in shooting raw and using the manufacturer's editor even if you simply want to shoot JPEG-only once you know what the settings mean for your work. But I expect that most people would find that the learning process would convince them to shoot raw and allow them the freedom to apply those settings in post as they deem appropriate. FWIW

[Slabstick]

Thanks Tom. I get so many diverse replies but, this is good to get an overall "Opinion". I do however have Lr4 and enjoy tweaking my photos as well. Some would say too much and I agree to a point. It's all on what I'm trying to achieve. Lr4 is quite extensive to me and, I'm trying real hard to get a handle on it.

[Slabstick]

Yep, your right.

[Scott Stephen]

Yep, your right.

FYI: If you "Reply with quote" like I just did, or if you address the author of the comment to which you are replying ("@ Fred: Yep, you're right."), it helps folks figure out to which comment you are replying.

[William W]

I was wondering how "most" people shoot? Do you always shoot RAW? or JPEG? I can understand if you always want to PP then, possibly you"ll always want to shoot RAW. My camera "Canon Rebel T3i" will shoot RAW/ JPEG at the same time but is it nessasary?

I use Canon DSLRs.
I shoot “raw + JPEG (L)” - always.

I would suggest that you base the choice of what is suitable for you by thinking through your:

• POST PRODUCTION WORKFLOW (how am I going to go about my Culling; Post Production; Storage?)
• REQUIREMENTS (what is my FINAL - Prints? Webpage Images? Digital Slideshow? Combination?)

I use some of the JPEG files “SOOC” (Straight Out Of Camera)
As with your camera; my cameras can adjust the resultant JPEG ‘straight out of the camera’ by the use of PICTURE STYLES (ref pp81~82 your user manual).
I have used the function USER DEFINED PICTURE STYLES – this means I have created my own menu comprising a SELECTION of JPEGS which I can get ‘straight out of the camera’ –depending upon what USER DEFINED Picture Style I have chosen for the shoot / shot.
Sometimes I will do a very quick Post Production on the JPEG FILE and use that – but that PP is mainly only a crop and / or Sharpening.

As one example - mostly all my sporting stuff over the past few years has been JPEG SOOC: the two defining factor are is speed to end product and easy workflow.



I always have the raw image which I, or someone else, can Post Produce. And I will use the raw file if Post Prodution is required.

As one example I use the raw file for all PRINTS from my Portrait work (but for a quick preview I might use the JPEG - SOOC)

I tend to use mainly Photoshop and Lightroom for Post Production.

I never delete images ‘in camera’ – there was a thread on that previously.


WW

[William W]

. . . I tutor some High School / Uni Students and I suggest to them to shoot ‘raw + JPEG’ as a good learning tool.

Quick interrogation of the JPEG can be their ‘feedback source’:
If one keeps the JPEG ‘Picture Styles’ and the VIEWING MONITOR constant: then there is a base for comparison and it is quick and easy to judge progression of the technical learning, about Exposure; Preset White Balance and . . . etc.


WW

[Slabstick]

Scott,
Thanks, I'll do.

[Slabstick]

Bill,
Thanks for the tips. I'm studying Lr4 now. Purchased it about a month ago so, working with files, grouping etc.. Is pretty new to me. Processing in camera, I haven't tried yet but I will. I've seen the settings but have been working with other things right now. I've subscribed to all my threads so I can go back and review ( learn) from them. Thanks again.