RAW or JPEG

[Andybazyoung]

I have been informed both directly & indirectly, I.e. from on line debates, articles & courses that RAW is better than JPEG.
I have shot in both & have very much like the challenge of RAW & the post processing results.
Conversely, when one is shooting in continuous mode or taking many images in a single session, I am told JPEG is much better as the processing time is much less. I can understand this. Likewise, I can understand why some prefer RAW.
Question is, what is better? Or is is down purely to preference!
Andy

[chauncey]

Running a quick search will result in a plethora of responses... http://www.bing.com/search?q=shoot+r...sp=1&qs=AS&sk=

[Geoff F]

Quite a lot, although fairly complex, information about raw shooting here http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/raw/raw.htm

For me, unless you are shooting for a newspaper etc and need to instantly upload the results I would always say shoot Raw because it gives more flexibility over the editing process. But that assumes you will start your processing with a good quality Raw converter.

[Andybazyoung]

Hi,
As I highlighted in my original text, I have read any articles about the benefits of both RAW & JPEG. I was hoping for a personal response from those who have infinitely more experience than myself.
Thank you however, I am sure your suggested article will be most enlightening.
Andy

[Andybazyoung]

Hi Geoff,
I shot a mountain biker race in RAW and it took absolutely ages to process. I Did though, send off half a dozen images to show the competitors what they had achieved, & especially the awarded ceremony. BUT the rest took ages & trying to process RAW & keep my teaching stuff going at the same time proved tricky.
I have also read that some just shoot JPEG to get done exactly what you have pointed out in your response.
All that said, when does one stop shooting in RAW & shoot in JPEG?
I'm trying to shoot birds in flight, not very well at the moment, so RAW or JPEG as I am using continuous shutter mode.
Andy

[Mike Buckley]

Andy,

Considering that you want a personal response, people will be able to frame their responses in the context of your needs if you explain the type of photography you do (landscapes, sports, weddings, etc.).

[Andybazyoung]

Hi Mike,
Yes, I agree. The question really arose from me trying to shoot birds in flight & it then spread to my mountain bike problem. I generally quite static but on occasion try other aspects of photography like birds in flight.
It was highlighted to me last night that the majority of people shoot JPEG for sports images especially when they process hundreds of images. This confused me somewhat, as I'd been led to believe the conversation of what I was told.
I am just trying to discover what is the best, or most prudent way to go.
Andy

[dje]

Hi Andy

I shoot raw alll the time because

I'm fussy and like to work with 14 bit data rather than 8 bit to get as much as possible out of a landscape

I like the ability to adjust white balance from scratch rather than try and adjust colours that have already been preset in camera

I like the ability to recover small amounts of blown highlights and this simply cant be done on a jpeg

If I were shooting sport or weddings, which will never happen, I'm pretty sure I would shoot jpeg.

Dave

[Mike Buckley]

The general rule of thumb that most people will agree upon is that you should use RAW files unless there is a specific reason not to do so. The reason to use JPEGs will generally have to do with speed.

You mentioned that it's taking you a LOT longer to post-process RAW files than JPEG files. How much longer? If you can quantify that in terms of minutes per image, that would be helpful. Also explain the basic specifications of your computer (microprocessor model and amount of RAM at the very least) so people know whether that is a significant limitation when processing large files.

[Stagecoach]

Andy,

Here's my personal view and what I do.

I will ALWAYS shoot in RAW+Jpeg UNLESS that by shooting RAW it slows the frame rate to one that is unacceptable for what I want to capture.

Cards and storage are cheap.

Jpeg quality is more than likely good enough for much of what I shoot BUT I am always aware that at some time I may capture that shot which is a real winner and I want to ensure that I have recorded it in the maximum quality available on my camera.

Grahame

[Andybazyoung]

Dave, that makes complete sense to me.
Thanks
Andy

[Andybazyoung]

Mike,
I run an HP laptop. Don't know the specs & don't really care so long as it does a job for me.
I have cs6 & lightroom. Speed to look over 100 plus JPEGS would I presume be quicker to look over & process 100 plus RAW files. This is just supposition - I think!

[Mike Buckley]

Mike,
I run an HP laptop. Don't know the specs & don't really care so long as it does a job for me.

Based on your comments, it's very possible that it may not be doing the job for you. As an example, I never had the need for a computer that was particularly fast until I got into photo post-processing. The image files can be quite large and the post-processing software can require far more computer power than any other software on your computer.

If you truly want to know whether you should be using RAW or JPEG files, I encourage you not to make that decision without also having an understanding of the relative speed of your computer. Otherwise, you might make a bad decision, which is more likely to happen when your decision is uninformed rather than informed.

[Colin Southern]

I wouldn't say one is BETTER than the other - what I would say is that one is DIFFERENT from the other.

I like to compare it to buying a cake or buying just the ingredients and baking it myself; if I bake it myself I can do it just the way I like it if I'm good at baking cakes -- on the other hand, nothing's to say the bought cake won't taste great even if it does taste a little different to how it would have if I'd baked it. If I'm not good at baking then the bought cake will always be better until my baking skills improve.

With regards to burst shooting; in most cameras the slowest link in the chain is the speed in which the camera can write to the media, not how fast it can process a shot - so if it only has to write a smaller JPEG to the buffer and then card then usually you'll be able to write more JPEGs until the buffer fills and things slow down. All depends on the camera. On my 1D X I can shoot 12 frames per second for 3 seconds when shooting RAW - if I needed more than 3 seconds of continuous shooting then I'd have to shoot JPEG or make some other change.

JPEGs are optimised for small size - and two ways they achieve that small size are (1) by discarding a lot of information that the eye can't see (but keeping a certain safety margin), and (2) normalising and compressing data (which theoretically also discards information) (I say theoretically because visually the difference will be impossible to detect by most if not all at high quality settings); if it subsequently turns out that the image needs big corrections then their may not be sufficient safety margin available to save the shot in a JPEG.

Hope this helps.

[DanK]

The general rule of thumb that most people will agree upon is that you should use RAW files unless there is a specific reason not to do so. The reason to use JPEGs will generally have to do with speed.

I agree with the first sentence. As Colin pointed out, the limitation of speed is the buffer size, so unless you need a lot of shots, you can do burst quite fine with raw. The main speed difference is that jpeg may save time in processing, if you like the in-camera processing, but software like Lightroom makes basic raw processing so fast, and so easy to replicate across multiple shots, that the difference is not that big.

I shot raw+jpeg for two or three weeks after I started with raw and then stopped bothering with jpeg. I generally don't use cake mixes either. I use jpeg to save processing time if I know I won't care how things look--if someone just wants a snapshot, or if I have to use a photo to document something, etc. I would guess that about 1/100 of 1% of my shots are jpegs.

[Andybazyoung]

Thank you Colin, what you have said certainly makes sense. I was initially unaware of the buffer filling up quickly depending on the factors mentioned above. But again, this all now makes sense.
Regards
Andy

[PhotomanJohn]

Hi Geoff,
I shot a mountain biker race in RAW and it took absolutely ages to process.

Andy,

I now only shoot RAW. In a situation like you described above, if the exposures of the shots were similar and the cropping was OK (as they would need to be be if you were using JPEGs SOOC), I would have made the adjustments I wanted on one photo, then had the software batch the rest of them using the same adjustments and then output as JPEGs all while I made a cup of coffee. I have yet to be in a situation where I wished I had shot in JPEG. But that is just me. Others feel differently.

John

[Andybazyoung]

I have been shooting RAW for some time now & still find processing a large amount of images a little onerous. Doubt was planted as I was informed many sports pro photographers shoot JPEG to get images quickly to print.
However, I do see what everyone has said & I thank you for your comments.
Regards
Andy

[Colin Southern]

I have been shooting RAW for some time now & still find processing a large amount of images a little onerous. Doubt was planted as I was informed many sports pro photographers shoot JPEG to get images quickly to print.
However, I do see what everyone has said & I thank you for your comments.
Regards
Andy

Hi Andy,

It shouldn't be "onerous" because you can batch process RAW images and get pretty much the same result as an in-camera JPEG in just a few minutes. What software are you using?

[ajohnw]

If you really want to speed up raw and the shots have been taken in similar conditions process one and save the setting that were used and batch process the rest.

I shoot raw+best jpg. One of the problems with this area is that many opinions are based on cameras of the past and also probably not many people have taken the time to see just how much processing can be done on camera jpg's or made full use of the jpg facilities that are in the camera. I process the jpg if it's suitable. Basically cameras make a pretty good job of getting scenes what ever they are into jpg's. Where raw can gain is when higher dynamic ranges are present because if the highlights are exposed sensibly shadow is very likely to be rather compressed. However many who shoot raw avoid shots like this anyway as they can be tricky to get into displays or printers colour space. Many cameras these day put around 9 stops into a jpg. The question really is do you like the results. The answer to that in some ways is have you exposed correctly and obtained decent highlights because a lot of shadow can be recovered. Some cameras can be set to do this automatically when the produce a jpg. eg Nikon D light.

If some one wants to avoid processing all together it really depends on the scene. If the tonal range fits in nicely with how the camera handles it's raw conversion results are likely to be pretty good. These shots can still be PP's in the usual way for what might be called eye candy - or improvements etc or even fashionable PP looks. These too can be batch processed. Some people also go to the lengths of finding out what the contrast etc controls in the camera do as well. Personally I leave all of these off and like to do that bit myself. Bit like some one saying I like to colour balance. On that I use the camera setting as a basis and don't really find raw or jpg adjustments in that respect any different.

I think Colin summed it up really but I would use another analogy. Say you buy a scone. Sensible as for the right taste you would need some sour milk. You would slice it, add butter and maybe jam and cream yourself. How much or what you put on it is up to you. In other words jpg's can be made to look as some one wants as well but maybe not so extreme - it all depends on the subject.

Jpg's do need a bit more camera use care. Clip the highlights and they have gone. Maybe people who just use raw can't cope.

John
-