"I always shoot Raw"

[Colin Southern]

1)The rendering of Raw data into a jpeg file imposes an sRGB colour space.

Hi Nick,

Not usually; most give the option of sRGB or Adobe RGB.

[Richard Donham]

Something not yet mentioned, but for me post-processing is turning out to be, in turn, frustrating but more often a lot of fun. Why would I give up even a part of that fun by allowing the camera to do the adjustment & conversion. I have friends who don't feel that way, but, I would rather save in RAW even though the camera most of the time does a creditable job.

In addition, with RAW, I look at each image on my computer screen, evaluate why it isn't so great, and whether it is worth the trouble. So, out of each 100 shots, maybe 5 or 6 get converted--and I have learned a bit more about exposure and composition so the next time I do some shooting, I carry that with me, and am more mindful about photography.

Just my 2 bits.

[Donald]

Just my 2 bits.

And an extremely valuable and important 2 bits they are. Good, clear, simple, sensible reasons.

[Bill Yeung]

with 20D, I always use Jpeg and no problem will all the photos I got.
with 7D, i eventually learned and follow RAW.
I occasionally switched to Jpeg for work record when raw's flexibility and post editing is unnecessary, I found I forgot to switch back to RAW and took sport photos with jpeg!!! and I found that it is too late and I almost can do nothing with it!!
Using raw and I start to check and edit every photos I love and it become a routine work flow after taking pictures.
I don't mind friends to wait, as I believe they rather want to have a nicer photo or print.
Although haven't got photoshop and still using DPP came with my 7D, I found raw is the only way for me especially I am take high speed sport photo in low light!!!
I guess, even in business when print is need in a second, I believe with today's computer speed and an assistant, it can be done on site in a fast way too.
I already seen photographer works in pair in a sport event, with lap top on site....... it is not very difficult for them to edit some of the nice shot and put in for sale on site!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is possible now.
enjoy raw although it means another big part of learning and investment beside camera and lens.

[FrankMi]

When I process my camera RAW images, I open them in Lightroom and convert them all to DNG (Adobe Digital Negatives) so that I can use the DNG/RAW files anywhere that DNG is accepted. In Lightroom I also cull out those images that are technically flawed to the point where I know I won't ever use them.

Depending upon the subject, I will often kick out of Lightroom a full set of JPGs of the remaining images for image cherry picking rather than use Lightroom for that. Eventually I discard all of these JPG images in favor of the saved DNG or post processed images. If I go back later for a second look, it'll be in Lightroom at the remaing DNG images, some of which have been processed previously in ACR or Lightroom. In the end, I can always return to the original DNG/RAW images.

[bakravitzD300]

RAW give me more freedom. And as already mentioned my D300 provides a RAW and Jpeg ... i use a 32MB card.

[William W]

The general consensus of experienced photographers appears to be “Always shoot Raw”. . .
Have we already reached, or are we approaching, or is it not possible to attain, the stage where the differences that arise between images processed from Raw files and high quality Jpeg files no longer really matter? (Excepting perhaps the case of a photo needing recovery from being terribly shot, and providing that Jpegs are not repeatedly saved with compression during PP.)

I don’t care as that particular question for me is irrelevant.

When thinking of the camera as a tool of trade: I put on my technician’s hat and then it is all about leveraging the potential of the tool such that I have as many viable options and as much scope as possible.

Judging the potential of the camera as a tool is certainly NOT making one's default: "I must decide “this one or that one”.

(Interestingly, “decide” has the suffix “cide” which is from the Latin = cædere, meaning “to kill”.
Mentioned specifically as the OP has an interest in: “continu[ing] the teaching/thinking/learning process” – and preconditioned killing off any one option is not the basis of really good thinking, IMO.)

I use Canon DSLRs and nearly always I shoot raw + JPEG (L), thus maximizing my options.

As one example, I have sent a JPEG SOOC to line, within seconds of the capture and yet I still have the raw for later detailed PP if desired.
On the other hand there have been several occasions where a few JPEGS SOOC the next day are quite OK for a web posting, email inclusion, instructional image etc . . . it depends what the use is of the images. . . and for me my set of JPEGS makes an easy and quick “proof sheet” to view and review on my screen.

The only time I would select EITHER raw or JPEG, is if combined capture were to take too much time and compromise the ability to make a shot – but that has not yet happened.

WW

[calexe]

Hi, I am quite new here. My English may not be prefect, it is not my native language.

I would enlighten another aspect.

Let us suppose one shoots 2 images of same scene, one in RAW and one in JPEG. Or just one image saved as RAW and JPEG. Let us admit the photographer has properly exposed the scene (same exposure parameters) and that he has set proper image parameters for the JPEG shot given the scene. I mean white ballance, curve (standard, landscape, portrait, faithful, etc.), sharpness, contrast, saturation, color tone, noise reduction. If the RAW image will be processed, say using the imaging software of the producer of the camera, using same image parameters at conversion to JPEG - then yes, it will be hard to see any quality differences on the 2 images, even on large displays or prints. And no one will be able to see any difference on downsized PC images, like 720x480 pixels. But...

Real life is different. Now you may shoot a portrait - lower sharpening may be needed, "portrait" curve and lower contrast maybe. Next a landscape - higher sharpening, "landscape" curve. Then a low-light image with high ISO - noise reduction should be higher. How about white ballance? Normally a proper WB setting is needed for each individual shot. And so on. What would you do if you were on JPEG only? Would you fiddle around with all these settings before shooting? Do you have needed time for this? Are you sure you have not forgotten something? Are you sure you will not loose an unique situation just because you were using wrong image parameters or you were fiddling around with the JPEG settings on your camera?

Unfortunately certain processing methods of JPEG images conduct to quality degradation. Most of us know how an in-camera sharpened JPEG image will look like if you will additional apply sharpening / softening at postprocessing. Same with noise reduction. And trying to adjust white ballance on a JPEG image can be a nightmare.

So, in the end my opinion is that JPEG shooting is for experienced photographers or photojournalists . Or for those who can name their reason for shooting JPEG. One needs to know what she/he is doing when shooting JPEG. Shooting RAW is actually more convenient! If you come home with lot of images and you would need a quick processing then you may apply to all same image parameters in a batch processing step. In 2 seconds you get 1000 photos processed just like in the camera. On the other hand, if you have Your Picture Of The Day or Your Picture Of The Year in that batch as RAW, you may apply a more advanced processing procedure to that particular image. And finally get a picture you may be proud of.

[Black Pearl]

So, in the end my opinion is that JPEG shooting is for experienced photographers or photojournalists

In my experience you are right. A good friend of mine is a commercial photographer shooting a wide variety of images. A major proportion of his work is extreme sports photography shot with multiple flashguns on radio triggers where he sets each image up precisely using a hand held meter. Another large chunk of his work is studio based product photography - seemingly very different but its working with multiple flashes again so the same principles behind the images apply.

For these and just about every other type of photographic assignment he is employed on he shoots jpegs. Why? Because he gets everything right in the camera and the vast majority of his work ends up in print at normal enlargement sized where there is no advantage to a RAW file. His work flow is simpler and if a client needs an image immediately they can have it straight from the camera.....yes he's that confident it will be right.

I asked him about it a while ago and not a single client had ever asked him what format he shot in nor had they ever mentioned anything about the quality.

He shoots on a D3s with ONLY 12mp by the way!


I always shoot RAW as I have the time to work with them and prefer the extra safety margin I get........that and I like to convince myself the images are better for it.

[calexe]

@black pearl:
Well, maybe I have exagerated a little bit in order to emphasize my argumentation. But I still remain convinced that shooting JPEG all the time may be tricky unless you know what you are doing. Just like you, I am also not good enogh for JPEG, thus I shoot RAW.

And there is also another aspect for implementing JPEG in the camera. Have you seen how a pure RAW image looks like? If you are on Canon just load an RAW image in DPP. Under Picturestyle you see a graph with a grey histogram and a curve specific for "standard", "faithful", "landscape", etc.. Now, a little bit lower you have a setting called "Linear", check that. You get an image how a RAW would look like. It looks very bad, very dark! A normal human person would not know what to do with such an "image" and even an experienced photographer could not judge if rendered image is what he wanted to obtain. So, imagine a normal person buying a brand new camera, spending some xK EUR/USD/GBP on it, shooting a test image and looking in the LCD to see a dark RAW "picture". Who would buy the dSLR in such a situation? So, JPEG machine is present in every dSLR. And it is good it is like this.

[Letrow]

Personally, I always think of it as being one of those "horses for courses" type things; RAW undoubtedly has bigger safety margins, but if you don't need those safety margins then there's no problem shooting JPEG. From a technical point of view, adjustments to a RAW image will always be less "damaging" to an image, but in the real world - providing that those adjustments are small - they probably won't make any visible difference to a JPEG, so so long as the photographer is prepared to take the risk (and gets good exposures in-camera) then it's probably not going to make much difference most of the time.

Same here.

There seem to be firm believers in RAW and people who are content with JPEG. Do what you are happy with I would say, I don't think that the two sides will ever get together.
I shoot JPEG because I like the end results ('like them enough' I should add I guess). I still work on the JPEG in Gimp and in my view I can make any adjustment that is needed there.

For me the need to correct over or under exposure is virtually non existent. I check the photos when I shoot and if I like the subject I shoot a few extra exposures just to make sure I get it right. Exposure is not a problem (unless I forgot to change my manual settings and the change in light is too big going from one situation to another ). I know what the camera can do and how it reacts, so for me it works fine.

If I do macro shots I might have 10 keepers on a hundred shots. The decision on whether a shot is a keeper is never based on exposure (caveat: see above), but always on sharpness or composition. The shots I don't like are thrown away.
I like to work fast and to spend only a little time on making adjustments (see above, this is also possible for JPEGs).
That is what digital photography is all about for me: you can check your results on camera, and finetune later. You are not restricted to just 36 exposures either, so that good shot (exposure wise) can be made.

My biggest limitation is not in the file but in my own photography style (I am ashamed to say...no, just joking). Bad results are my fault, the camera just produces what I do.

[Colin Southern]

RAW give me more freedom. And as already mentioned my D300 provides a RAW and Jpeg ... i use a 32MB card.

Wow - that wouldn't even hold 2 shots from my camera!

[Dave Humphries]

Wow - that wouldn't even hold 2 shots from my camera!

You 'avin' a Gigle?

[MrB]

You 'avin' a Gigle?

What's a Gigle? Is it a new search engine?

Philip

[Colin Southern]

What's a Gigle? Is it a new search engine?

Philip

Have you "Googled the gigle" to find out?

[MrB]

Have you "Googled the gigle" to find out?

You 'avin' a giggle?

Philip

[Donald]

So, how many Mb are there in a gigle, or even a giggle?

[MrB]

So, how many Mb are there in a gigle, or even a giggle?

I don't know, but here is one MrB in a giggle

Philip

[joewatt]

Frank, your comment along with the others in this thread are helpful to me. One of the reasons I chose the Oly E-PL1 was that more than one reviewer made the point that its raw to jpg conversion "engine" is above average and that therefore its jpg output is good. I have found that to be the case, luckily for me. However, this discussion is convincing me to capture my images in both formats partly because although many of them are clearly just snapshots to document family occasions, etc., and so don't warrant any further processing, I will also have an archival image in case it's needed later.

Recently I've become interested in selling some of my photographs. Unfortunately for me much of the archive of photos I've taken over the years that I'm drawing upon to possibly sell are, of course, jpg's. I've post-processed many of them, which may ironically further have degraded their quality. Oh well.

[joewatt]

Philip

If your goal, like mine on most occasions, is to produce a good quality B & W image, then I'd say there would never be any circumstances in which the final product would not be discernibly harmed by relying on a JPEG out of the camera (I don't think the grammar is very good on that, but hopefully you know what I mean).

If, on the other hand, the photographer's objective is to record good quality family/holiday type shots and the person concerned has not developed post-processing skills beyond basic level, then I absolutely agree - what the camera can produce is likely to be as good as what the photographer might produce.

Donald, A) What proportion of the folks in this forum do you believe have as their goal to produce a "good quality B & W image"? and B) should you really assume that those who want good quality family etc. shots have only rudimentary PP skills? Maybe you believe that by definition those who want good quality family etc. shots have only basic PP skills. What say ye?