Should I shoot RAW or JPEG?

[The Caretaker]

What I have found by using the 7D's RAW/jpg feature is the comparrison and being able to look at both shots the RAW wins hands down, especially as when you do any form of PP they really look incredible. So as long as your memory card is big enough i'd say RAW all the way although in RAW my shots are on average 26mb so the 8gb and 16gb CF cards are the minimum, they allow you to take a good amount of shots.

[mwrmt]

Thanks Matt. I've tried a few shots today and will have a look tomorrow at them. I did the RAW/jpeg thing, so I'm quite curious to see the difference.

[pyrex]

I hope i'm not too late into the thread....

I have a shoot coming up in the next few days at work. Every year employees/family have a party in the morning(~7am) at work before we open the store. Santa comes in after we eat and ppl take pictures with friends and families. There is nothing fancy required of these pictures, they need to be printed within 1hr after the event. All everyone wants is the pictures of their family/friends seating with santa really, its not a wedding where everyone stresses out and such. We shoot .JPG and we get it out of the way. Quick, Simple, Print.

A wedding however is a whole different monster... since none of the pictures ever make it to the bride until 1-2weeks later we shoot RAW. Raw allows us much more tweaking room without sacrificing plenty of quality. I do the same with family photos, I shoot Raw and it allows me to practice my post-pro skills. Try it sometimes, it helps.

That is my situation with JPG/RAW

[Dave Humphries]

Thanks Matt. I've tried a few shots today and will have a look tomorrow at them. I did the RAW/jpeg thing, so I'm quite curious to see the difference.

Hi Mike,

Just comparing the two side by side, you may not see a difference, you may even be mis-led into thinking the jpg looks better.

The difference becomes far more apparent when you start doing significant PP on the images, if you start from a jpg it'll end up looking a mess, if you start from a RAW, it can loook soooo much better.

Imagine ordering two pizzas off a website, you see a picture of a finished pizza in both cases, so you order both to compare, but specify different toppings to those shown.
One is a production made finished (jpg) pizza, so they have to take off the bits you said you didn't want and add the extras you said you did want. It ain't gonna be pretty, is it? Probably won't taste great either ( where the anchovies came out )
The other is a hand made; (from RAW ingredients) so they only put on the bits you asked for, in the correct ratios for a finished pizza that looks, and tastes, great.

Bon appetite,

[Habraws]

Hi mike,

It all depends on what you are shooting and how much time you intend to devote to the post production, if I am shooting action sports I will use jpegs as I get more shots for the media space it is more about getting the image. Where as if I am at the more thoughtful end landscapes etc I will most likely shoot in raw.
http://pix.ie/nikondave
Dave

[jiro]

Your T2i can shoot RAW (.CR2 14-bit) + JPEG Large/Fine at the same time so use it. If you are quite adept in exposure control (meaning you are always in the ballpark of the right exposure) then shooting in JPEG only can let you have a lot of shots on the same memory card. If you want to further "tweak" your shots to get the "effect" that you really look for then RAW is the way for you to go. The only thing that would prevent you to shoot at both type (RAW + JPEG) is the size of your memory card. I'm an occasional shooter I always shoot RAW.

[McGreg]

I will shoot in JPEG. I will open the JPEG with Photoshop's ACR , edit it there as much or little as needed. Then save it as a PSD file, open it again and perform what editing is needed with PSE's editor to a 16 bit file(it became 16 bit because you opened it with ACR) and then re-size to preferred dimensions and sharpen or use High Pass Sharpening. At this point it can not be layered ( in PSE of any form ) and because the image is 16 bit, it still has most of it's original file information intact. With this procedure you are able to use ACR's editing on a 16 bit JPEG and save needed memory card space and still get a decent editable file. If you want/need to use layers to the image, attempt to do so and Photoshop Elements will ask if you want to convert the image. Once you do, you can perform what tasks you normally would to an original JPEG file. I normally don't do this. My editing is usually done before I have any need to convert the file to being able to use layers. If I need to "Save for Web" I have better end results saving from a 16 bit file. It sounds complicated but if you just open your PSE editor and click on FILE then click on OPEN AS you will have the option of finding the folder which contains the file you want. Before you click on the file your after, go to the drop down box and select RAW or something to that effect(should be the 3rd line/option) and then click on the file you're after. That will open the file in ACR. (Adobe Camera Raw) and you will figure out the process from there. You really can't go wrong. I am a strong advocate of getting the shot right in the beginning and not relying on programs to make it good regardless of what format you shoot in. (not denouncing RAW) There is too much emphasis on correcting things in RAW and what it has to offer rather than getting the shot right to begin with. I have seen many, many JPEG shot's that were thought out in advance of the shutter closing that would blow the socks of most happen stance edited RAW images. If you use in camera "Modes" when shooting JPEG's you can usually adjust them to your liking even if it is set to all "0"s. One thing about Landscape Mode, it allows you to focus to infinity. Just another way to do things.
McGreg

[Colin Southern]

I will shoot in JPEG. I will open the JPEG with Photoshop's ACR , edit it there as much or little as needed. Then save it as a PSD file, open it again and perform what editing is needed with PSE's editor to a 16 bit file(it became 16 bit because you opened it with ACR) and then re-size to preferred dimensions and sharpen or use High Pass Sharpening. At this point it can not be layered ( in PSE of any form ) and because the image is 16 bit, it still has most of it's original file information intact.

Unfortunately, if it's shot JPEG originally then a LOT of information is thrown away right there and then. If your exposure is good (and I agree that it's far far far better to get it right in-camera) then it usually won't make a lot of difference, but if you need to recover shadow detail - even in ACR - the result can range from excellent to poor.

I've had many studio shots where the lighting will be setup for a shot in one direction, but the model does something different; great expression, but totally incorrect lighting ... and often there's enough safety margin in a RAW shot to save the day ...



(Model turned around and key light became the hair light, but was very dark on the face; wouldn't have been able to recover this if shot JPEG).

[McGreg]

True CS. I was offering an alternative to save memory space and still get an image where the end result would be somewhere between a edited RAW and JPEG image. In portrait situations, or in any situation where electricity is available to charge your batteries, card space really isn't a concern. If you are in the outback where you are limited to not only the amount of battery time you have but card space as well, you start thinking of alternatives. You can carry all the batteries and cards you want but something always seems to go wrong with that after a few days. You learn to deal with "Alternatives" and make the best of them. Try a high resolution JPEG opened in ACR, edited and then downsized and let us know what you think of the end result. I know I don't need to warn anybody that those JPEG pixels are fragile. It's only an Alternative, not photographic law carved in stone.
McGreg

[Colin Southern]

I run a 32GB SD and 32GB CF in my camera, and get about 1200 RAW images on each, but the battery gives out after only 1700 or so (or so I've heard - have never managed to flatten it on a shoot yet!)

Here's a side-by-side comparison ... JPEG first



and RAW ...



(Split lighting, with shadows raised in ACR to reveal my "better half")

As I say, not disagreeing with you, but I think it's important that people understand the differences so that they can make the best choices for them. Most cameras are capturing around 11 stops of DR - most reflective scenes are only using 4 to 6 - so RAW gives you a LOT of headroom to draw on if needed; JPEG on the other hand is designed to be as small as possible - so the first thing to go is most of those extra 5 or so stops of DR. Horses for courses, but personally, I'd rather have them.

[PopsPhotos]

Pops puts this so very, very well when he distinguishes between photographs and pictures (Pops, can't find the quote in your posts. Please come back in with it here)

I missed this question until tonight.

"The camera is a box in which you store photographs. The picture is behind your eyeballs."

I have used several different derivations of this, but they all mean the same. I have used it twice just this evening. I think every beginning photographer should have this tatooed on the back of a hand.

Pops

[McGreg]

People should know the difference.

[Donald]

I concur, people should know the difference.

1. Could we maybe edit this and get rid of the profanity in the text. EDIT - Thanks Mods
2. For those starting out on the learning curve of capturing photographs and then making pictures (remember, the two are different) and when you get beyond that stage and are a very experienced photographer, and if you are a seeking to become a serious shooter and present high quality images and you're doing anything other than having to meet very, very tight deadlines for such as newspaper publication, then you shoot RAW. Any other advice is, I suggest, totally misleading.