Do you shoot in RAW mode?

[CPFarhood]

My fiance and I met with a photographer yesterday and I asked a couple of questions for which the answers suprised me. Not that I think I know more about photography then she does, I'm just curious if it's uncommon for a professional photographer to not shoot in RAW mode?

I shoot EVERYTHING in RAW, storage space is too cheap not to.

[ssim]

Depends on what the end result of the job is. If there is a tight timeline involved I will shoot JPG to take the extra steps out of converting raw in my workflow. This is normally done when I have to deliver by the next day. If you get your exposure right in th first place the advantage of raw is diminished somewhat.

Most of my personal shooting is done in RAW.

[CPFarhood]

Depends on what the end result of the job is. If there is a tight timeline involved I will shoot JPG to take the extra steps out of converting raw in my workflow. This is normally done when I have to deliver by the next day. If you get your exposure right in th first place the advantage of raw is diminished somewhat.

Most of my personal shooting is done in RAW.

You obviously lose quality to the lossy compression though... I'm no professional, but it makes sense to maintain the highest quality possible up until the print.

[RichardtheSane]

You obviously lose quality to the lossy compression though... I'm no professional, but it makes sense to maintain the highest quality possible up until the print.
You may loose a little quality, but not much.
If you shoot a well exposed jpeg and then the same shot in raw you would have a hard time telling the two apart when they are printed.
When there is a short deadline it is usually for newsworthy item where the quality of the image is less important than the image itself - the quality will almost certainly be higher than is required for a newpaper page or magazine print.

Personally, I shoot RAW unless I know I will not be able to process the image on a computer before it is needed. SO far I have not been in that situation yet.

[defordphoto]

The quality loss is near imperceptible and will only rear its head on very large prints. I have printed 30x40 prints from a 10D that are stellar with no visual artifacts. I shoot all my sports JPEG. I shoot all portraits, landscapes, real eastate, product shots, etc., RAW and then if I need a JPEG I extract the half-size JPEG from the RAW file.

IMO these cameras offer a great deal of technology to work with. There are times where shooting JPEG is most advantageous. There are times where shooting RAW makes the most sense.

What baffles me is when someone has all this technology in their hands and states: I shoot everything manual. That's just freaking silly.

But, anyway, it's up to the photographer to decide what works best for them for any particular situation.

Just do not fall into the pit that so, so many people do where you rely on RAW to save your mistakes. Shooting RAW gives you more leeway in post-processing, but if the photo is shot over or underexposed and detail is lost, RAW will NEVER bring that back. Ever. And if shot improperly, the colors will also NEVER be right. Ever.

Compose and shoot your photo with the camera. Not your software.

Good luck! :)

[Billy Cabral]

I only use RAW when shooting features, all show coverage and such is in the highest resolution JPG...

[Atomic79]

This topic has been discussed and will be discussed from now until the end of.... However, having said that, RFMSports is right, the saying "if all you have is a hammer then all of your problems look like nails" comes to mind. There are many that say to only shoot one way and that is just two limiting, learn to use all of your tools correctly, then learn when to use the correct tool for the situation.

[delhi]

I find shooting fast action sports, I rather use JPG. Smaller file equal faster rate of shooting. Otherwise it;s RAW. Also use jpg for lens comparos.

[marcusg6@bigpond.net.au]

I always shoot in RAW. Most photo editors for mags and newpapers prefer RAW as that gives them the ability and control over tweaking the pic to their liking. I have recently spoken to some professionals who have gone back to shooting in JPEG as they think RAW has gotten a bit out of control as they think they can and do shoot the pics correctly anyway, which is of course why they are professional. I was side by side a guy the other day and we got an exact same photo, mine in RAW, his in Jpeg, and the jpeg was published in a glossy magazine, so go figure. I think it's a personal choice but don't be forced into it. Cheers

[redbutt]

Personally, for a wedding (which is what it sounds like you were talking to this guy about) I shoot all the "money shots" (portraits, key ceremony moments, etc) RAW, and everything else in the highest res jpg on a 1D Mk2. If you do as RFM said...shoot the image with your camera...the jpgs will be more than good enough for this. But, when I'm doing headshots and studio work, I only shoot RAW.

RFM...using full manual has it's time and place (which I think is what you were saying). When I'm in the studio, or doing headshots/portraits, etc, I like the stability of manual mode. But, when I'm doing things like theatre production shots (shooting a full run tech rehearsal...not posed shots), receptions, etc., I take full advantage of the cameras features. There's just no way I could focus manually as fast as a 1D Mk2 with an L lens can do it.

[primoz]

Most photo editors for mags and newpapers prefer RAW as that gives them the ability and control over tweaking the pic to their liking. None of the editors I know and I have ever worked for, don't care about raw. They want useable files and let's face it... in production raw is not useable file. Every camera has its own raw format and needs it's own raw converter (yes yes I know most of recent programs support most, if not all, raw formats). You really think every newspaper has most recent version of let's say C1, which supports every possible raw file which they might get from their photographers? Until now I never worked for any newspaper, magazine or agency which would want anything else then jpeg. I can convert raw to jpeg, but on the end they want jpeg files... and usually as fast as possible ;)

[jlarsen]

When i'm taking alot of simple, quick pictures and need the end result faster I shoot jpeg

When i'm putting more time and effort into a single shot where the extra quality and funtionality is a greater benefit, I shoot RAW

that simple.

[Longwatcher]

With two exception, I always shoot RAW + JPEG so I have the best of both worlds.

The exceptions are
- where for some reason I am running out of space on my CF cards
- or I need to shoot in continuous mode for as long as possible at the highest speed possible.
Both are very rare occasions.

[tim]

I shoot weddings commercially, I shoot RAW because I like the flexability and exposure latitude, as well as liking the worflow better than JPG when I don't get things perfect in the camera. Howver I know two experienced, professional photographers who I know for sure shoot JPG, both win awards, and their photos are great.

In the end it comes down to the photographer, not the technology they use.

[jfrancho]

I shot my son's little league game last weekend, half in raw, half in .jpg mode. I used CWB and boosted saturation and sharpness in the camera. The only difference between the raw pictures and the .jpg was the amount of time it took to get printable images and the space occupied on my hard drive. Everything else was great. I'd say thqt some of the .jpg's were probably better, since I was able to shoot a lot more frames in burst mode, rather than the six I get in raw mode. It isn't easy to shoot in .jpg mode - you have to get it right the first time - but it's definately a workflow I can appreciate. One (http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/78018798-M.jpg) from the .jpgs, and one (http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/78003569-M.jpg) from the raw. I'll be shooting in .jpg mode more often.

[Woolburr]

I occasionally shoot for the newspapers and frequently shoot for ad agencies. I seldom bother shooting anything other than a jpeg for these images. No need to waste space with raw images that won't be used. Raw is nice if you are looking to do fine quality large scale prints, but in most instances, it isn't a necessity. Jpegs can be edited to give very satisfactory final results.

[jfrancho]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that raw is an appropriate format to submit.

[NordieBoy]

I started off shooting in RAW as it let me recover to a degree from the mistakes I was making :oops:

I recently started shooting in RAW + large fine JPG as I had discovered I had some software (in Linux) that would strip the JPG out for me.
My thinking was that if the JPG wasn't up to scratch I could use the RAW as a negative if needed to improve on the JPG.

As I get better I find I'm only shooting RAW where the whitebalance may be an issue (still havn't got that sussed) or I'm only shooting a few important shots and shooting JPG for just about everything else.

[SuzyView]

I started shooting JPEG, unlike Fran, who started shooting RAW. Didn't understand RAW and didn't want to. Always shot large-fine JPEG and that suited me. But then came to this forum, read the before mentioned multi-threads about this very topic and asked myself why not? So, I do both, and haven't done anything else since. The RAW files do something totally unexpected, it doesn't disappear. If I make a mistake, I just go back to it and work on it some more. What's cut down is PP time. White balance and exposure were difficult for me. RAW captures are great for PP for those issues. If you can get straight JPEG files and very little PP, that's great. But for really crucial, money making events, it's so much easier just to do both. Most of the time, for my work, the RAW captures are better.

[dignacio]

Not shooting in RAW format is like having sex without a condom.

[RichardtheSane]

Not shooting in RAW format is like having sex without a condom.
Interesting analogy. I believe it is an entirely inaccurate analogy though.

I think it is common form when making completly off the wall remarkd to explain them a little. I doubt I'm not the only one who read it with a little bit of WTF??? in my mind...
:)

[ecalpemos]

I occaisionally shoot jpeg if I dont think i need raw, but much prefer raw. It has happened once that I somehow managed to move the exposure comp without knowing it in bright sun, did not look at the screen and so got grossly underexposed images of a model I was shooting, luckily I shot in raw and saved the images totally6 in rawshooter, try doing that with jpeg!

[redbutt]

Not shooting in RAW format is like having sex without a condom.

I'm assuming this is to be taken as "having sex without a condom" == stupid? Which may be true...but shooting in JPG is not stupid. It's got many good uses as people have outlined.

[NordieBoy]

And shooting in RAW + JPG?

:D

[deadpass]

Not shooting in RAW format is like having sex without a condom.


so you're saying it doesn't feel as good to shoot raw? heh. anyway, like the above mentioned, I only shoot raw when I only need a few, exact shots. everything else is jpeg until I get a camera that can shoot raw faster.

[Doom1701e]

I ALWAYS shoot RAW, nothing else is acceptable because you know the minute I drop down to a JPEG I will shoot the shot of a lifetime and it will be in a lossly format. That first comment I read holds true to me, storage is way too cheap to not shoot RAW. I've got close to 500GB dedicated to RAW files only.

[Thornfield]

Depends on the subject I think. If it's portraits then raw is the way to go. If it's sports or anything fast action then it's jpeg for me. Raw is more for shots that require some contemplation. If you have time to think about the shots then shoot raw if you need fast reaction times then the extra frame rate is great in jpeg.

[jfrancho]

Just some further thoughts on using raw format. I don't consider the amount of contemplation a shot requires as criteria for determining format. If there is time to contemplate the shot, there is time to set the in camera parameters for the shot. One of the strengths of using a raw format is deferring decisions like WB, contrast, colorspace, color depth, etc. to well after the shutter is pressed. As far as frame rates in in raw, .jpg, and raw+.jpg, I believe they all the same on my 20D. The number of shots in a burst drops from 24-ish to 6, though. In a studio, where things like lighting, can be controlled would be an ideal time to use .jpg format. Set a CWB, set your parameters, and you're done - for the whole shoot, or until you radically change the lighting, or want a different effect. Seems to me that if you are able to get a proper exposure, the extra time for processing a raw file in that situation is just overhead. Chances are, the final output from a studio portraiture session is going to print, in which case, you'll be printing 8-bits/channel worth of color anyway. When lighting is changing quickly, and unpredictably, raw is a good option, since you can tune it to your recollection later. It's also an excellent format when you are undecided as to the look or even destination of the final product. Most of the time, I shoot in raw+.jpg, but increasingly, I shoot in .jpg exclusively. A quick bit about "lossy" formats. If the .jpg is only run through compression once or twice, at maximum quality, then those "losses" in data that is moaned about ad nauseum are completely negligible. Now, as far as noise reduction/sharpening (I think the two have to be considered together, if used properly) for images goes, I do get much better results relying on my own workflow, starting with a 16 bit/channel raw output file. However the differences are really noticable at about 800% magnification on screen. At no time should raw be a crutch for bad exposures, if you can't get good results using .jpg mode, then keep practicing, because raw will only go so far. In fact, I think raw is at it's best when the exposure is "just right," or "just to the right." There are some other instances where raw format can be helpful, such as a scene with a lot of dynamic range. Two seperate output files can combined, using a luminance mask, to produce a final image that contains more detail than either of the single exposures. It can also be helpful reproducing color when color accuracy is important, by shooting a color checker under the same conditions as the final subject, and using the calibration options in the raw converter. So, I reject that raw is the end all solution for anyone that cares about the quality; I reject the notion that raw is for when action is slow; I reject raw as a solution to sloppy camera technique. I do accept that raw is highly useful, not always as time consuming as some indicate, and really is an amazing tool for digital photography.

[NordieBoy]

I find that the "trickier" the shot (whitebalance/ec/fec) the more I lean to RAW+JPG.
Extract the large JPG from the RAW and if it's not what I was after then I can resort to the RAW.

My only other consideration really is shots per card.
On a 2Gb card I'll get an indicated 785 large fine JPG's @ ISO200 but only around 238 RAW+JPG.
A big thing when I've only got 2 x 2Gb and may be shooting an easy 400 shots.

Tomorrow I'll be shooting at a large Karting race (my first) and will be using JPG as I will be overshooting :D and it's outside so WB shouldn't be an issue.
Also with a 9 shot buffer it takes a hell of a lot longer to dump it onto the card if you're using RAW.

[jfrancho]

Fran, you gotta get more cards :).

[NordieBoy]

It gets more worser!

When I upgrade to a 20D I'll get even less on a card!

:(

[Art Rodriguez]

I shoot RAW because it has saved me plenty of times. Mainly with White Balance in Rawshooter. However, I shoot in JPEG when shooting sports. When I first got my camera, I would shoot JPEG but lost a lot of photos because they couldn't be saved in PP. I'm trying to learn the settings but that is a process that will probably take a while.

Art

[Lenzflair]

It comes down to what the end use will be. Most pros use Jpeg because its less PP no other reason. Please dont tell me that all the extra data in a raw file is of no use. Larger image reproduction, more colour, more luminescence. its not about not being able to take the shot correctly in the first place. Most of the magazines I suply to will accept JPegs but prefer tiffs as it gives them nore scope to tweek to their settings.

[PhotosGuy]

RAW always. I think it's faster. If I'm not batch processing, I'd have to:
Open the image.
Open the correction dialog box. Make that correction. Close it.
Open the next correction dialog box. Make that correction. Close it.
Open the next correction dialog box. Make that correction. Close it.
Open the next correction dialog box. Make that correction. Close it.
Etc, etc...

With RAW, I can just move this slider, move that slider, etc 'till it's time to convert the images. Much faster for me. And, while I have made Actions to "Open the next correction dialog box." in PS, I still prefer to make all possible changes before conversion, which I feel is the same as working in 16-bit in PS.

Then there's this: Take 2 identical shots, one in RAW & one at max jpeg. Use a tripod to be sure each shot has the exact information in it. Convert the RAW file to jpeg. Look at the two file sizes.
A max jpg from my 20D is 2,754 KB. The exact same shot with the jpg extracted from RAW is 4,315 KB which is 1.57X larger.
Why throw those extra bits away? True, you might not see the difference on your screen (72ppi!), but if you're making prints... ;)

And as has been pointed, this discussion will just keep on... & on... &... :D

[Digitalwave]

I only shoot in raw these days. Half of the time I probably don't need to, but it never hurts (unless I need more room in my buffer, or am running out of memory...).