JPeg vs RAW. What do you shoot?

[Zivnuska]

For us photogs who shoot sports, Do you shoot JPeg or RAW? Why?

Answer:

JPeg if you shoot >80% JPeg

Both if you shoot each

RAW if you shoot >80% RAW



I'll give my own answer later.

[jra]

I generally shoot RAW so that I can easily correct WB issues along with tweaking the other settings. I then batch process to JPEG. IMO, RAW doesn't really cost me much additional time but gives me a lot of added flexibility. The only reason I could see not to shoot RAW would be if the deadlines were really tight and every second counts......I generally don't shoot under those circumstances.

[kenjancef]

Always shoot RAW, and agree with jra on all points.

[Ryan1524]

90% RAW, unless it's a high-volume job.

[Panoz]

RAW vs. JPEG is a religious argument - no real answer, personal preference. Why can't we all just get along?

[tkbslc]

I used to be 100% RAW, but then I got tired of having to batch convert things like family get togethers and pictures of kids at the park. Now I'm about about 2/3 JPEG and save RAW for serious/planned shots or stuff I only get one shot at. If it's never going to end up anywhere but facebook or a 4x6 in the photo album, I just stopped caring about that last 5% of picture quality.

[iLvision]

80% RAW
20% JPEG

Really depends on the situation. If you’re just shooting some junk that you wont be editing later on (I.e 1k of vacation photos) why not shoot JPEG?
Now if you’re shooting a wedding, no way Jose, RAW only.

[primoz]

I can say it's 100% jpeg for me. I don't know if I did 1000 frames in raw in all my life It's just way to slow to shoot raw, when your photos need to be with newspapers minutes after end of race, so in our business there's no other way then jpeg... or you are out of business pretty soon

[Black Mesa Images]

Originally Posted by jra

I generally shoot RAW so that I can easily correct WB issues along with tweaking the other settings. I then batch process to JPEG. IMO, RAW doesn't really cost me much additional time but gives me a lot of added flexibility. The only reason I could see not to shoot RAW would be if the deadlines were really tight and every second counts......I generally don't shoot under those circumstances.

Couldn't have said it better myself

[TooManyShots]

Originally Posted by jra

I generally shoot RAW so that I can easily correct WB issues along with tweaking the other settings. I then batch process to JPEG. IMO, RAW doesn't really cost me much additional time but gives me a lot of added flexibility. The only reason I could see not to shoot RAW would be if the deadlines were really tight and every second counts......I generally don't shoot under those circumstances.

I agree. Besides, aren't all your raw shots being batched processed? It costs as much time as in shooting jpeg BUT with less room for corrections. Sure, if you always shoot under the best light and weather condition, jpeg is fine then. If you are shooting for an agency and your deadline is due in few hours, yeah, you have to shoot in jpeg.

[abruckse]

90% jpeg. RAW is saved for times and places where I can't nail exposure/wb for whatever reason. I might start doing both to different cards, just so I have more flexibility to edit portfolio/wall worthy stuff (which is rare, lol).

[NickJushchyshyn]

It depends. All portraits, formals, location, etc. shooting is done raw. Virtually all our action work is shot high volume (1000+ per hour) .... memory cards simply can't keep up with recording raw files and we tend to have the photos brows-able onsite by game's end so JPG is the way to go (loads more sales than waiting for batch processing and posting online sometime after the games).

[primoz]

Originally Posted by TooManyShots

It costs as much time as in shooting jpeg BUT with less room for corrections.

It's not really my problem, hell... it's actually better for me if people think like this, but still. This what you wrote is pretty far from truth. I don't feel like argue about jpeg vs. raw, since everyone does what he/she wants, and it's certainly not my job to change someone's mind. But this misleading goes on my nerves from time to time (and unfortunately today is one of those day).
I totally agree, time doesn't matter when someone work for his blog, or even for huge client, who needs photos sometimes next month. But in news business, even if I shoot sport, but most of time it still goes under news, seconds matter, especially when shooting for biggest European/World agencies. Not minutes or hours but sometimes literally seconds matter. So because of this (and a bit because of my background in IT industry before), I know and I can judge what is fast and what is not.
But enough of this, and go to the facts.
1. copying files. At the moment most of us still use firewire readers, which means 800Mbps at max. In real life we are nowhere near these 800Mbps, so amount of data which needs to be copied matters even more. And believe it or not, there's few minutes difference between copying 1GB of files or 16GB of files. So you lose quite a bit of time in first step when shooting raw.
2. selection. Even though nowadays computers are pretty fast already, they still process smaller files (4 or 5MB jpeg files) faster then big files (10+MB in raw). Especially when considering most of this work, which needs to be on wire in minute is done on laptops.
3. editing. Yes I agree again, that computers are fast, and converting raw to jpeg is done fast, yet it's still A LOT slower then just cropping and using some levels/curves on (smaller) jpeg file. Even though I don't shoot raw, I still know how much time it takes in Aperture or Lightroom to convert for example 30 files... if you go with batch processing and don't fiddle with each photo. But this leads me to another question... why bother with raw, when you do all settings on first photo, and apply exactly same settings to every single photo in that batch? What more flexibility do you get this way, then doing custom WB and proper aperture/time settings in camera?
And few other things. I agree raw has lots of benefits, including better quality. I also admit, I have no idea what many/most/all of you guys are doing and for who you are working. But personally I had for example (few) cover page on L'Equipe, cover page on few specialized magazines (which normally require better quality stuff then daily newspapers), and daily my photos are published in biggest newspapers around Europe. And until now, noone ever complained my jpeg files are not good enough, and I should shoot in raw.
Just that there won't be some missunderstanding. Yes I agree that for some work, raw is way way better option. But no matter what, it's not, and most likely it won't be for quite some time, faster or at least as fast as jpeg. So please next time when there will be this debate, use any arguments you wish, but for next few years, stay out of speed argument.
And if someone thinks I'm wrong, I'm still all for this what I'm offering every single time, someone comes to me telling me raw is just as fast as jpeg. I'm more then happy to prove my point to this person(s) with simple "competition". Shoot 200 photos, and then send (copy to laptop, pick, caption, edit, send) 15 best ones. Fastest one wins. Unfortunately until now, noone decided to go and do this with me.

[Tonyz]

RAW, always and forever. Files are big, but huge harddrives are cheap.

Batch post processing can be done with 2 mouse clicks. Just add all the basics (color, sharpness, contrast), and then fine tune the shots you really love.

[RichSoansPhotos]

Not this again....there are so many threads on this