Do you shoot Raw or L JPEG?

[dennykyser]

just wondering what everyone shoots,

Also if you shoot L JPEG can this be edited in PS CS in the same way as one shot in RAW. Can it be sharpened etc?

Be Kind, still learning this new world of digital

[GPR1]

I shoot raw almost exclusively, for the flexibility the raw file gives me in when converting. I'll shoot large JPEG if it's just snapshots of the family, etc.

You can process JPEG in Photoshop just like anything else. You won't actually process a raw file in Photoshop, you'll convert to Tiff or JPEG.

The big disadvantage of JPEG is its compression. Save a JPEG a few times (the first capture, work on it in Photoshop, work on it again, re-saving each time), and the compression will begin to leave very obvious artifacts (squares).

If you're not going to process and reprocess, JPEG might work for you, but shooting in raw and coverting to Tiff or Photoshop format provides more choices down the line.

Greg

[IndyJeff]

I mainly shoot L/F jpeg files. I have done some RAW. This subject has come up on another board and couple of answers that I found to be interesting were....

1. I shoot RAW because it gives me greater latitude for editting changes i.e. color and sharpness

2. If you shoot it right then you don't need to do editting changes.

If I can find it I will post an article by a guy who is a professional photographer and highly respected in his field. Basically he says that too many photogs are relying on PS to correct their mistakes in the field.

[PacAce]

I shoot raw almost exclusively, for the flexibility the raw file gives me in when converting. I'll shoot large JPEG if it's just snapshots of the family, etc.

You can process JPEG in Photoshop just like anything else. You won't actually process a raw file in Photoshop, you'll convert to Tiff or JPEG.

The big disadvantage of JPEG is its compression. Save a JPEG a few times (the first capture, work on it in Photoshop, work on it again, re-saving each time), and the compression will begin to leave very obvious artifacts (squares).

If you're not going to process and reprocess, JPEG might work for you, but shooting in raw and coverting to Tiff or Photoshop format provides more choices down the line.

Greg

If circumstances warrant it, there's no reason why one can not shoot in L-JPEG and then import the images into PS and save them as intermediate work files in TIFF or PSD format. This way one can edit the files as many times as desired or necessary without suffering the JPEG compression losses associated with editing and saving in the JPEG format.

[Morden]

RAW unless I am ever getting seriously low on free memory and there is a fair bit yet to shoot.

[dennykyser]

I have read some of the other sites and the "debates" that go on in there. I can see both sides.

Right now I think I am better at getting the shot right and shooting in L JPEG, the reason being I am not real good at post processing yet.

Trust me I am working on it, I love working with it so I keep shooting some RAW for me to learn on but when I want the pics to count, Cant resist that menu button, and change the format to L JPEG.

[PacAce]

... but when I want the pics to count, Cant resist that menu button, and change the format to L JPEG.

I think this is another misconception about shooting RAW. You DON'T HAVE to be a big and heavy user of PS editing to shoot in RAW and get good pictures. AAMOF, you can shoot RAW and get equal pictures as shooting JPEG without even having to go through PS editing. All you need to do is run the RAW images through a RAW converter program like Canon's File Viewer Utility, PS, BreezeBrowser, etc. If you convert the RAW images "as shot", they should look just like what you'd get if you had shot JPEG in camera.

So the point I'm trying to make here is, if you really want to shoot in RAW, there's no reason why you shouldn't. You're not going to miss out on anything if you do.

[motophoto]

Maybe its just me, but I really can not see much of a difference in raw and jpg. :roll:

[dennykyser]

I have yet to be able to do that with raw. The canon programs take a while to convert them, and they seem to need sharpening.

Remember I am use to get it right when you shoot, mail film to lab, and get back what you shot, so exposure, crop etc was done when you shot.

I believe as I learn photoshop CS more I will shoot more RAW but there is a learning phase in it for me.

[PacAce]

Maybe its just me, but I really can not see much of a difference in raw and jpg. :roll:

That's exactly the point I was trying to make with my previous post. The only time it really shows (to RAW's advantage) is when you have to do more than your "average" processing of the image.

[PacAce]

I have yet to be able to do that with raw. The canon programs take a while to convert them, and they seem to need sharpening.

Remember I am use to get it right when you shoot, mail film to lab, and get back what you shot, so exposure, crop etc was done when you shot.

I believe as I learn photoshop CS more I will shoot more RAW but there is a learning phase in it for me.

I don't think anybody's talking about throwing everything you've learned about composing and editing in-camera out the window just because you're going to shoot RAW. If there is time to compose and "edit" the shot before releasing the shutter, then it's better to do that, regardless of whether you're shooting JPEG or RAW.

[psk4363]

:)

95% of my images are shot in RAW, and the remainder in JPEG Large/Fine.

Cheers,
Barry

[G3]

I shoot RAW, do minor tweaking in the Photoshop Raw processor (if needed), covert to tiff for final post-processing, then save the final copy in jpeg. Then I offload the tiff and RAW files to CD for archival and delete them from my hard disk leaving only the jpeg version on my computer.

[robertwgross]

I have yet to be able to do that with raw. The canon programs take a while to convert them, and they seem to need sharpening.


You might be in need of a faster computer, or else the computer you have is bogged down with too many other processes going on.

Mine whips through four RAWs per minute, or slightly faster. I generally start the conversion, go get a proper cup of tea, and when I return to my computer, it is done.

---Bob Gross---

[FotoPhreak]

I shoot raw almost exclusively, for the flexibility the raw file gives me in when converting. I'll shoot large JPEG if it's just snapshots of the family, etc.

You can process JPEG in Photoshop just like anything else. You won't actually process a raw file in Photoshop, you'll convert to Tiff or JPEG.

The big disadvantage of JPEG is its compression. Save a JPEG a few times (the first capture, work on it in Photoshop, work on it again, re-saving each time), and the compression will begin to leave very obvious artifacts (squares).

If you're not going to process and reprocess, JPEG might work for you, but shooting in raw and coverting to Tiff or Photoshop format provides more choices down the line.

Greg

Question: If a conversition is required to JPEG from RAW, how is this different/eliminate the 'artifacts' that you mentioned when post-processing straight from JPEG?

[msnow]

100% RAW. "There is no subsititue".

[PacAce]

Question: If a conversition is required to JPEG from RAW, how is this different/eliminate the 'artifacts' that you mentioned when post-processing straight from JPEG?

The thing is that the post-processing is done BEFORE the file is converted to JPEG. Therefore, there is no artifacts to worry about.

And you don't have to convert to JPEG. You can leave it in TIFF or PSD format. I only convert when the image is ready to get uploaded to the web or is ready for printing.

[FotoPhreak]

Question: If a conversition is required to JPEG from RAW, how is this different/eliminate the 'artifacts' that you mentioned when post-processing straight from JPEG?

The thing is that the post-processing is done BEFORE the file is converted to JPEG. Therefore, there is no artifacts to worry about.

And you don't have to convert to JPEG. You can leave it in TIFF or PSD format. I only convert when the image is ready to get uploaded to the web or is ready for printing.

Yeah thanks PacAce.

I realised that I had overlooked the fact that normally save to PSD/TIFF before final conversion after I posted.

Thanks for clearing this up though.

Question: Which do you recommend between TIFF/PSD, or is there little difference between the two?

Or do you just use PSD if you are going to be post-processing in PS?

[PacAce]

Yeah thanks PacAce.
Question: Which do you recommend between TIFF/PSD, or is there little difference between the two?

Or do you just use PSD if you are going to be post-processing in PS?

If I'm working with the File View Utility (and there are times when I do use this program), I'll save to TIFF. However, when I'm working with PS CS and need to save "work in progress", I'll save in PSD because I'll probably have a layer or two created and I think PSD is the only way to save these layers intact. It's too bad I can't also save the history as well. Or can I and I just don't know it?

[hammysd]

I shoot 95% of the time in RAW. The reason being is the processing control. White balance, exposure, shadows etc are controllable. As previous replies have indicated, it is best to get the shot right in the first place. With a very good shot, you might make it a great shot with just a little nudge here or there. So rather than hearing "Nice shot!" you get silence or Wow! followed by silence.

Secondly, the control of your image is in 16 bit for most adjustments. This is like driving a Porsche rather than a Jeep (I drive a jeep and nothing against Jeeps). Output is just a incrementally better image! Wow!

hammysd

[FotoPhreak]

... PSD is the only way to save these layers intact. It's too bad I can't also save the history as well. Or can I and I just don't know it?

Yeah I'd be interested in knowing if this is possible to.

[dennykyser]

I am sure that me being new to digital is what is making it more of a chore than it needs to be. I know eventually I will join the ranks of Raw 100% but while I am working out the kinks, will do both.

I don't think anybody's talking about throwing everything you've learned about composing and editing in-camera out the window just because you're going to shoot RAW. If there is time to compose and "edit" the shot before releasing the shutter, then it's better to do that, regardless of whether you're shooting JPEG or RAW.

I didnt mean to say that anyone was, just saying right now my Jpegs are coming out better than my raw, mainly because I am not converting from Raw and getting the settings as good as they are coming off the camera.

[Vegas Poboy]

Depending on the shoot. Most fast action sports Track, basketball or soccer etc I use large Jpeg. The RAW format is just to slow even with the X40 CF cards. Everything else RAW.

[theoldmoose]

I have yet to be able to do that with raw. The canon programs take a while to convert them, and they seem to need sharpening.


You might be in need of a faster computer, or else the computer you have is bogged down with too many other processes going on.

Mine whips through four RAWs per minute, or slightly faster. I generally start the conversion, go get a proper cup of tea, and when I return to my computer, it is done.

---Bob Gross---

Note he said 'canon programs'. They are notoriously slow at doing this kind of work, and you can't batch conversions, either.

Anyon that is serious about RAW, needs to quit using the Canon software, right now. That's an order. :twisted:

[theoldmoose]

I am sure that me being new to digital is what is making it more of a chore than it needs to be. I know eventually I will join the ranks of Raw 100% but while I am working out the kinks, will do both.

I don't think anybody's talking about throwing everything you've learned about composing and editing in-camera out the window just because you're going to shoot RAW. If there is time to compose and "edit" the shot before releasing the shutter, then it's better to do that, regardless of whether you're shooting JPEG or RAW.

I didnt mean to say that anyone was, just saying right now my Jpegs are coming out better than my raw, mainly because I am not converting from Raw and getting the settings as good as they are coming off the camera.

That could be a function of your RAW software. Some folks have expressed frustration at not being able to easily get the same or at least similar result as the in-camera JPEG processing, if they just leave their RAW converters on auto-pilot.

I appreciate that the more bells and whistles on RAW converters, the more control someone has over their workflow. On the other hand, any given RAW development package out to give a better 'out-of-the-box' experience to newcomers, so they don't end up with this kind of situation. I'm not impressed with RAW converters that use 'enhanced' development curves by default, which give different results from the in-camera processing, in the name of being somehow 'new' and 'improved'.

[dennykyser]

I should state that I did a little using a trial version of C1 and this seemed to work quite well. But this was the Pro Version and was quite pricey, I wonder if the $99.00 would do the conversion from Raw to Tiff, or JPEG as well, then I might could justify it. What I liked about the C1 program was there automatic conversion.

I have not had the time to learn all the sharpening, white balance exposure technics yet so the auto did a good job for me.

Does Photoshop CS have this, I have not used it if it does.

[theoldmoose]

PS CS has a RAW conversion, and not having upgraded to CS yet, I can't give you any first-hand accounts. But, I've heard folks saying that it's not all it's cracked up to be.

I'd go for the C1 software. I had the advantage of having a 300D, so I could get the less expensive DR edition for $49, and it does pretty much everything I could make use of. The $99 version would just be better, IMO.

[Johnnynf]

How do you convert a TIFF into a JPEG? I was trying to do this the other day to send a picture via email, but couldn't figure it out. Sorry if this is off the topic.

[PacAce]

How do you convert a TIFF into a JPEG? I was trying to do this the other day to send a picture via email, but couldn't figure it out. Sorry if this is off the topic.

Just "save as" using your favorite photo editor and specify JPEG as the file format.

[ohenry]

RAW: when you care enough to send the very best. 8)

[theoldmoose]

How do you convert a TIFF into a JPEG? I was trying to do this the other day to send a picture via email, but couldn't figure it out. Sorry if this is off the topic.

In particular, PS has a 'save for web' which re-sizes the image to something much more manageable for web or email use, and even strips out the EXIF info, in addition to changing the format to JPEG.

[dpanicc1]

I shoot RAW if I am interested in optimum image quality because I can adjust exposure, white balance, and provide some level of sharpening before I convert it to a 16-bit TIFF to optimize in PS. However, I certainly hate any post-processing and I am forever trying to "get it right" in the camera the first time. JPGs are great for family and photos that are not that important.

Regards,
Dan

[billfranklin]

You all need to read Ken Rockwell's article on Raw vs jpeg here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

I have shot both raw and jpeg and Ken is right about exposure. If your exposure is right, you don't need raw. Raw takes a lot more time and file space and you still have to convert to either tiff or jpeg. There may be times to shoot raw, but most of the time it is going to be a waste of time if your exposure is correct. Also, from what I have heard from people who know a lot more about this than I will ever know, you can open and close a jpeg 5 times before you begin to see any degradation.
I saw this demostrated in a workwhop by Will Crockett.

Anyway, I will probably never shoot raw again. Just don't see the advantage when I can get 30x40's with jpegs. This is just me, though. You have to do what you think is best for your situation.

Bill F.

[Tom W]

You all need to read Ken Rockwell's article on Raw vs jpeg here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

I have shot both raw and jpeg and Ken is right about exposure. If your exposure is right, you don't need raw. Raw takes a lot more time and file space and you still have to convert to either tiff or jpeg. There may be times to shoot raw, but most of the time it is going to be a waste of time if your exposure is correct. Also, from what I have heard from people who know a lot more about this than I will ever know, you can open and close a jpeg 5 times before you begin to see any degradation.
I saw this demostrated in a workwhop by Will Crockett.

Neither I nor my camera meter has been blessed with the ability to expose perfectly every time. Plus, custom color balance is much easier in RAW than after conversion. I tend to shoot RAW, if only for the fact that it is easy to deal with those issues.

As for JPEG's, you can open and close them forever, but when you save, you degrade. And, depending on the compression level you choose, you can lose a lot of quality in a hurry. Or, you can save at the best (lowest compression) level and hold your quality longer. But I prefer to keep a RAW copy handy, and undamaged for future use. That way, I can work with a JPEG until I ruin it, and still have the RAW image to start over with.

Anyway, I will probably never shoot raw again. Just don't see the advantage when I can get 30x40's with jpegs. This is just me, though. You have to do what you think is best for your situation.

Bill F.

I'm not sure what you're shooting with, but 30X40's are very revealing whether its film or digital. If you shooting with a 6.3, you're starting to stretch your pixels pretty thin.

[dennykyser]

Been playing around today with processing RAW and its getting much easier. Am finally getting to where I can sharp photos using it. I have a lot to learn about white balance yet but am sure that will come with time.

[woodsmth]

I shoot L JPEG when I am shooting alot of "not quite so important" snapshot type photos , but when I am shooting for "the shot" I shoot RAW and post process in PS CS. When I get perfect :roll: :lol: and can always get my camera settings for exposure and white balance set exactly right maybe I'll go to all L JPEG ! :lol: :lol:


That'll be the day!! :lol:

[FotoPhreak]

:?: 's

What is this C1 program you are talking about? (www's where I can read more would be handy)

So what is the final verdict for RAW processing ... C1 or PS CS?

Finally, can you do such conversions on PS 7?

[Canuck]

I shoot RAW as it gives me more to play with, I can cut, crop and to me,
it is a much higher quality than JPEG as it is lossless.

[CyberDyneSystems]

:?: 's

What is this C1 program you are talking about? (www's where I can read more would be handy)

So what is the final verdict for RAW processing ... C1 or PS CS?

Finally, can you do such conversions on PS 7?

Capture1 LE

PSCS is great for RAW conveting and of course it is the best for just about everything else.. but C! is still top dog ofr RAW converting... :)

Download a free trial!

Adobe PS 7 will only work with Canon RAW of you do the following THREE THINGS:

1. Upgrade PS7 to PS7.01 (was free from Adobe.. don't know if they still have the update)

2. You find the Adobe Camera Raw Pluging (No longer available form Adobe.. you will need to find it elsewhere)

3. Hack the ACR Plugin; (The ACR plug in will not support eithere 10D or Drebel out of the box, it requires a quick and fairly simple hack to make it work, or you could maybe get a pre-hacked version)

[Roger_Cavanagh]

You can read my take on this argument here (http://www.rogercavanagh.com/helpinfo/35_rawor.htm). Ken Rockwell's article is an entertaining read, but if he was right, then no pro in the world would be shooting raw.

Regards,

[Marky Mark]

Hi All,

I have had my 10D now since November 2003. When I 1st got it
I shot in Jpeg just because it was easy to open them up in PS 7.0, but
after reading the forums on here I tried shooting in RAW and then using
breeze browser to convert. I have found that the quality I get from the
Raw file is so much better and wonder why I ever used Jpeg. As I print
quite large prints (A2) I find that the sharpness is a lot better with Raw
files.

Thanks to all of you for your info & help.

Mark :D