RAW vs JPG

I know I'll probably start a war with this one but I am second shooting weddings with a guy here in Virgina over the summer and spent quite a bit of time talking to him.... I found out he ONLY SHOOTS IN JPG. He shot film his only life (30+ years) and at first he shot raw till he met some guy from Canada.... He was telling me about his style and how he shoots blah blah blah.. Learned alot but he told me this guy puts on seminars and he went to go check him out. At this seminar the guy brought up JPG vs RAW and said, If you can expose a shot properly, there is NO reason to shoot in RAW. I found this quite intresting because EVERYONE HERE SWEARS by RAW... Now, he does shoot with a Nikon, dont think that makes a difference but who knows.

Just throwing this out to see who bites and what you have to say....

It's not a war. It's a preference. I prefer RAW even though it is more work.

yeah, I forgot, you not only have to get the exposure down, but also WB... If you can do this, your golden.... He says it takes away several steps from his work load.

I thinks it's about work flow. If you use Lightroom or Aperture, raw is not a problem. Getting your settings right the first time is important but it's the fine tuning and photo effects, raw is the way to go.

To each his own!

If you are dead on with both exposure and WB and only plan to print a small picture with very little editing I can also see the point in shooting JPEG. But with 14 bit sensors RAW is just that much better for times when you both get it right and get it wrong. I occasionally shoot JPEG for some of my sports shots to help with processing times, but otherwise it is all RAW.

ironchef31 wrote in post #5716691
I thinks it's about work flow. If you use Lightroom or Aperture, raw is not a problem. Getting your settings right the first time is important but it's the fine tuning and photo effects, raw is the way to go.

It is still faster to work with JPEGs even with programs like LR.

I shoot RAW with a gal who's also JPEG only on her Nikons. We both use Lightroom. I do my thing, she does hers. I can't say her or my images suffer because of our choices of capture format. My biggest reason right now for using RAW other than the default occasional flubbed exposure & white balance is the fact that I shoot different bodies with different JPEG processing parameters. It's easier to sync up RAW files than JPEGs.

Kenski wrote in post #5716578
If you can expose a shot properly, there is NO reason to shoot in RAW.

That's exactly why I shoot RAW.

...not to mention WB.

hahahah.... YEAH.. that is the reason why I shoot raw too... Im getting better but it will be a long while before I get to his caliber

I used to shoot film too (actually I still do) but I always have a tweak with chemicals. I shoot RAW so I can have a tweak with binaries (they're the chemicals that your computer drinks ) JPEG is more like Polaroid which also has its place.

I shoot RAW about 99% of the time, but it doesn't worry me when someone else prefers jpg. To each his own. There's too much conflict around already without having it over something as daft as a file format. There are pros and cons on both sides of course. Personally I'll stick with RAW for the most part, but that's just me.

I always shoot RAW. Even if you nail a shot in camera doesn't mean it's nailed overall. You're stuck with 8bit sRGB images, using Canon Picture styles (none of which really have good color IMO). Even if you only exported JPEGs from RAWs with the default settings you would get better results.

blinded wrote in post #5717459
I always shoot RAW. Even if you nail a shot in camera doesn't mean it's nailed overall. You're stuck with 8bit sRGB images, using Canon Picture styles (none of which really have good color IMO). Even if you only exported JPEGs from RAWs with the default settings you would get better results.

Really.... OK... Tomorrow Im going to try that challenge I think.. Ill put the camera on a tripod and shoot the same subject once in raw, and once in JPG. Post both on here and then we can all guess which one is the RAW export and which one is the straight JPEG.. Think you can nail it?

Pretty tricky as you will need to post the full res files as links, rather than downsampling both images and posting them both as jpegs...otherwise it's a little moot.

The argument doesn't orientate around the ability of jpeg not to look the same as a raw...it is after all derived from raw, so it will be possible...but raw offers the ability to move the image around whilst retaining greater integrity.

Now, the shooter will say " ah yes, but if you nail the exposure, wb etc..."...but that's where the blinkers go on, because someone like me might push and pull an image way beyond what the photographer thought it would go through...and thats where i can point out the differences between a Raw file and a Jpeg. And that's why we ask for raw and jpeg...because the photog might not have had the full brief...or might not interpret it...or have their own ideas...or the files might still need work which can push the IQ.

Kenski wrote in post #5716578
....If you can expose a shot properly, there is NO reason to shoot in RAW....

Just throwing this out to see who bites and what you have to say....

There is time and place and room for both file types, but I have to say we do see this sentiment expressed often and it is simply not an accurate statement.

ONE of RAW's benefits is it's ability to offer more "leeway" in exposure.
One of RAW's benefits.

RAW has many other benefits that jpeg lacks, just as jpeg has some advantages over RAW.

So it may be true that a perfect photographer that shoots getting perfect exposure every shot will not be in a position to benefit from RAWs larger exposure latitude. (and frankly I don;t even think this is true as there are way too many variables, what is a perfect photographer? what is perfect exposure? )
... this would not preclude that same perfect photographer getting perfect exposure every time from benefiting from one or all of RAWs other many advantages over jpeg.

By looking at RAWs benefits so narrowly he has ignored all the reasons I shoot RAW.

• Larger color palette, with more room for correction and adjustment.
  
  
• Greater image detail
  
  
• Larger dynamic range
  
  
• No lossy compression
  
  
• Simply getting 100% of what my cameras investment can provide without sacrificing any quality.
  

Kenski wrote in post #5717500
Really.... OK... Tomorrow Im going to try that challenge I think.. Ill put the camera on a tripod and shoot the same subject once in raw, and once in JPG. Post both on here and then we can all guess which one is the RAW export and which one is the straight JPEG.. Think you can nail it?

lol If you use proprietary software, such as DPP, I probably wouldn't. I think a lot of the benefits of RAW are invisible and might be more noticable if you print or do extensive editing. One thing I don't like are picture styles though, you might be able to see a different depending on what RAW processor you use.