Another good reason to shoot in raw

[Brownbear]

If like me you do something silly, and accidentally hit a button that changes the size of your jpegs to small size, you still have a full size photo!

[DanK]

Yup. Or far more commonly, the wrong WB setting.

[dubaiphil]

Yup, or when you forget to cancel your exposure compensation

[Poider]

maybe i will have to start shooting raw
Peter

[ggt]

So, if my EXIF says RAW, I am shooting in RAW?

phew! Makes it easy for a newbie.

[Mike Buckley]

So, if my EXIF says RAW, I am shooting in RAW?

Yes. (Those who get tired of my long posts are surely grateful for that answer. )

[Manfred M]

I've always look at RAW as the digital equivalent of the negative in film photography and the jpg images as the quick and dirty processing that a kiosk or other consumer oriented film lab would produce,

I generally shoot both RAW and a smaller, lower quality jpg. The jpg is used for generic posting to the web where I will do little or no PP work, but the "great shots", i.e. the images that deserve more TLC are carefully handled in PP, especially if I am looking at printing larger sized images.

[rpcrowe]

Once upon a time, long, long ago, I was afraid to shoot in RAW. This was at the beginning of my digital experience. However, I made a smooth transition to RAW by shooting RAW + JPEG. It wasn't long after I started shooting RAW + JPEG that I realized I was no longer using the JPEG and only working with RAW so; I quit shooting the combination and only shoot in RAW.

And to answer your question, yes... I partially blew a shoot when I began shooting a parade in JPEF (small) because I had used that quality on a previous shoot to capture a lot of gear a friend was selling on eBay.

I like to make my shooting as simple as possible and contrary to the general consensus, RAW seems easier for me to use than JPEG! I don't have to worry about silly things like white balance. This is especially true since I have (Thanks to Donald) been including a WhiBal card in my photos.

[DanK]

maybe i will have to start shooting raw

No, you don't have to, but if you start doing so, you will probably be very glad you did. My experience was similar to Richard's. From the first time I shot raw+jpeg, the total number of jpegs I actually used was zero. within two weeks, I started shooting only raw, except on those rare occasions when I really only want a snapshot. My only regret is that I put off making the change.

[Carl in Louisiana]

Once I went with Raw I really liked the control I had over the image. Now a jpeg is something I export to the desk top for transfer to USB stick that goes to church or to send in an email to someone.

[Glenn NK]

A JPEG is something I send via e-mail where quality isn't important.

[xpatUSA]

Bit of a RAW exponent myself, too. (Not a lot of choice in the matter with my early Sigma DSLR).

A bit disturbed by posts that imply JPEGs have little quality, though.

Wondering what quality it is that is visibly lacking in all JPEGs ever made?

"Quality" . . . a wonderfully vague word, IMHO ;-)

[Glenn NK]

Bit of a RAW exponent myself, too. (Not a lot of choice in the matter with my early Sigma DSLR).

A bit disturbed by posts that imply JPEGs have little quality, though.

Wondering what quality it is that is visibly lacking in all JPEGs ever made?

"Quality" . . . a wonderfully vague word, IMHO ;-)

OK, honesty time. When I have prints made at the local shop, I use a high quality JPEG (there I've said it).

My problem with JPEG files is that they aren't as adjustable in processing as are RAW files. Highlights and shadows come first to mind. I do a fair bit of adjusting of the WB (even in landscapes - I'm not a slave to "accurate" WB - hope this doesn't start a war). With a RAW file, I think there is far more flexibility in this regard.

"Quality" is a subjective word, and is over-used - far too much.

I should have use the word "adjustable".

Glenn

[AB26]

If like me you do something silly, and accidentally hit a button that changes the size of your jpegs to small size, you still have a full size photo!

Hi Christina,
I wish to thank you for that statement. I suppose you are referring to hitting the “wrong” setting in L – Fine, Normal or Basic. So you hit L Basic.

I did a little experiment. I shot three identical shots on different settings and the result is as follows:
In L Fine: File size: 3.87 MB - Image Size = 3872x2592
In L Normal: File size: 2.59 MB - Image Size = 3872x2592
In L Basic: File Size: 1.39 MB - Image Size = 3872x2592
Conclusion: YES you still have a full size Photo. The image size stays the same but the file size differs. That would mean the drawback is: you will not be able to enlarge an L – Basic shot to the extent you can enlarge an L – Fine Image. You will also not be able to crop as much with the smaller file size as you would with the bigger file size.

RAW or JPEG the result will be the same.

Is it really another good reason to shoot in RAW?

[Mike Buckley]

Andre,

Your post does a great job of clarifying the difference between file size expressed in MB and image size expressed in pixels. You also provided several reasons that, indeed, can be beneficial to shoot in RAW -- to ensure that the maximum file size expressed in MB is always available.

[Brownbear]

Hi Andre,
Thank you for adding the needed detail and expertise to my post to clarify for all.

Yes, for me it is a good reason because I am starting to work with stock photos and they have minimum file sizes (minimum MB requirements). If I take a good photo in too small a size it I can't submit it for consideration.

[DanK]

A bit disturbed by posts that imply JPEGs have little quality, though.

That is not the point. A jpeg with low compression can be high quality. After all, that is what many good printing labs ask for. The question is how you get to the jpeg. if you shoot jpeg, you are trusting a fixed postprocessing algorithm to get it right, and you have somewhat limited ability to correct after the fact. If you shoot raw, the camera gives you all the detail it has, and you can play with processing as much or as little as you want. Shooting jpeg is like shooting slide film if you didn't develop it: you gave up control after pushing the shutter button. So the jpeg will be low quality if the camera's algorithm turns out not to be ideal.

RAW or JPEG the result will be the same.

I think I may be misunderstanding this, but I think it could be misleading in terms of Christina's concern. JPEG is a lossy compression algorithm, which means that as soon as you save in jpeg form, you have lost some information. higher compression = more data loss. This is why it is best to avoid saving in jpeg format until the end of processing, and also to save the file in some other form before converting to jpeg. If she shoots jpeg and accidentally switches to "small," she won't have all of the detail that she would have in a raw file. Or am I missing something here?

[AB26]

Hi Dan,
Changing the file size in RAW will also leave you with the same result as changing it in JPEG.
If you need a 14MB RAW file size for a specific purpose I suppose it is reason enough to shoot in RAW.
If however you have no intention to greatly alter images in PP or need to print posters, you need not shoot in large RAW format. JPEG can be good enough for most applications.
RAW does have it’s advantages as JPEG has it’s advantages, depending on a specific application.

If you carry 32GB CF cards in your bag you would most probably want to shoot in RAW/JPEG.
On my D200 if set to the max RAW format a 4GB CF card gives me an estimated 156 shots. In JPEG Basic it gives me around 1700 shots on the same card. Thus 1248 shots in Raw Fine and 13600 shots in JPEG Basic on a 32 GB CF card.
There can be no “rule” as to shooting in RAW or JPEG. Why offer so many options to Photographers on the camera if one single line of thinking and working would be the better option.
It depends on the specific application and need of the individual user.

[Brownbear]

Thank you to everyone for your replies and sharing your opinions.. Every time I read this forum I learn something!

[Mike Buckley]

RAW does have it’s advantages as JPEG has it’s advantages, depending on a specific application...
It depends on the specific application and need of the individual user.

It's so refreshing to see those observations, Andre. Though I always shoot RAW (because doing so is a good fit with my very specific needs), far too many people participating in photography forums and far too many photography pundits would have everyone believe that everyone should always shoot RAW files with no exceptions.