JPeg vs RAW. What do you shoot?

[RichSoansPhotos]

Originally Posted by 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, and then fine tune the shots you really love.

You can do the same two click processing with jpeg, can't you?

[Tonyz]

Originally Posted by 400dabuser

You can do the same two click processing with jpeg, can't you?

I ment that you do some basic batch processing to the RAW-files in Lightroom (or other program), just to get them to the same processed level of jpegs.

And THEN you select your favorite shots for some deeper editing, like shadow / highlight recovery, white balance, noise reduction color corrections e.t.c. You will achieve much better results, because all your files are still in RAW format and contains alot more data to work with.

[Zivnuska]

I've changed my opinion in the last 3-4 years. At first, I shot Jpeg. I did relatively little post processing and even with Jpeg files I was able to adjust the white balance (somewhat) on those few occasions when I did want to change.

Then I began to more critically tweak the white balance on indoor shots. RAW made it easy to batch correct and gave me more latitude to deal with the off colors from light cycling. The best RAW shots had plenty of detail for large prints. I still shot Jpeg for outdoor shots since AWB did a pretty good job in my 1D3.

Now I've moved almost totally to RAW. Lightroom 4 does a great job in dealing with the harsh shadows encountered in sports that use helmets, caps or visors. RAW lets me get great skin tones when I pull back overexposed areas of the face. There's a lot of detail in the shadow that can be pulled up as well. Time? Yesterday I downloaded 65 RAW images from a 1D IV in 2 minutes. That's two seconds a shot. In short, the recoverable detail from RAW is terrific. Wonderful, inexpensive software makes that detail accessable and useable. Plus, you never know which image you will want to enhance to the max and use in a large format. I'm convinced.

[Noitca]

Raw.

This is a hobby for me so I don't have to deal with deadlines. On top of that, I am not good/confident enough at getting everything close enough to right on the camera at the time of the shot, so RAW is a huge safety net for me.

[xchangx]

I really depends for me. If I'm on a tight, tight deadline then I'll shoot jpg. For nighttime highschool stuff I'll shoot RAW so I can fix the color shifts from the cycling lights and other issues with uneven lighting.

Here's a interesting tid-bit of knowledge: Getty's in-house editing software will not take RAW.

[RickyH]

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.

100% agree

[pcj]

Situational for sure - I shoot RAW for everything, as it really adds no extra time to the processing when you use Aperture, so why wouldn't you?

The exception is when I'm shooting a race - I photograph lots of local road 5ks - and on my 7D I just don't have the same burst and buffer size / speed when I shoot in RAW. Those, I switch to JPG and can shoot forever.

I'm thinking of shooting my next 5k at medium resolution RAW to compensate though - I'll see how it feels.

[abruckse]

Originally Posted by pcj

Situational for sure - I shoot RAW for everything, as it really adds no extra time to the processing when you use Aperture, so why wouldn't you?

Here's my take. I batch process using different presets (arena/field, day or night, etc.) in LR4. If i'm just applying basic edits to all my files, therefore not taking advantage of RAW's flexibility, then why should I shoot RAW? All it does it take more space on my HDD, and makes file transfer slightly longer. I will use it in extreme cases, as to cover my butt in case I mess up.

[Mark1]

I forgot my camera can even shoot in jpeg. I use it just about as ofter and the B&W setting.

[Noitca]

Wow, I switched to jpg for a game the other day due to space concerns (was busy with stuff, and had to deal with a card that was in the camera with pictures from the previous game).

Aweful. After dealing with RAW for so long, editing/fixing jpegs are just flat out hard. Bleh.

[FeXL]

Jpg: event. RAW: everything else.

[pcj]

Originally Posted by abruckse

Here's my take. I batch process using different presets (arena/field, day or night, etc.) in LR4. If i'm just applying basic edits to all my files, therefore not taking advantage of RAW's flexibility, then why should I shoot RAW? All it does it take more space on my HDD, and makes file transfer slightly longer. I will use it in extreme cases, as to cover my butt in case I mess up.

Two reasons

1- the batch edit I make is different / better than the batch JPG processing the camera does for me
2- I'm not so starved for time that the extra few seconds per shot it takes to bring in a RAW file *and have future flexibility if I did want to change stuff* is such a big deal

As my post started though - it's situational - I shoot both and am not telling you how wrong you are for shooting JPG

[edge100]

Raw, always**.

Reasons:

1. I'm going to be culling/editing anyway. This is just as easy to do with a Raw file vs. a jpeg, so why not keep all the advantages of a Raw file?
2. The advantages to shooting in Raw are enormous. Highlight retention, white balance control, higher bit depth, etc, etc.

** - I'm getting a Fuji X-Pro1 shortly, and since LR4 doesn't support the .RAF files from this camera, I will be shooting Jpegs. Will be a bit like shooting slide film again, I supposed.

[slimenta]

It seems like every 6-12 months there is a RAW v JPEG discussion. As a disclaimer, I shoot 100% RAW and have for years. My flow is PM to ACR and convert to JPEG. I do shoot under deadlines and I would agree that it is a little bit slower, but not much. Particularly with thunderbolt and USB 3.0 transfer rates are faster. I do tag in camera which helps. Given the fact that I often shoot in low light, I simply think that it provides a benefit that is worth the small cost in speed.

[Zivnuska]

I went out in the back yard yesterday and shot 100 RAW and later 100 Jpeg images. Using a stopwatch to load the images showed that it took an average of 1.1 seconds longer to load a RAW image to Lightroom 4.

Is the best possible image quality worth a second of your time?