RAW vs JPG

I've shot my last 500 or so JPG. I found that I chimp enough and shoot enough to "Save" the one that wasn't quite right with RAW just never happened. I just went with another one. I also posted a link to a pro wedding shooter recently that charges more for RAW becuase of the extra time and effort.

It is up to the photographer, that is why the camera has 'settings'. I would say the majority of forum visitors and pixel peepers shoot RAW. I've rediscovered that emotion, composition, lighting, etc are far-far more important than worrying about absolute sharpness and RAW.

Cept those bird dudes, you shoot birds, you need SHARP......

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?

Yup I sure could. All I have to do is right click and click on properties. The JPEG converted from RAW will be larger. Why do you think that is?

Someone else has already done that: post #58,

A max jpg from my 20D is about 2,754 KB. The exact same shot with the jpg extracted from the 12-bit RAW "negative" is 4,315 KB which is 1.57X larger.
Think of it as a free upgrade to your camera.

Yeah, I agree about size. I have JPEGs that are like near RAW file size.

I agree that this a preference thing but I was thinking how the post processing could be made simpler.

My assumption which might be wrong is when the camera takes a jpeg does it first take the RAW image then process it into a jpeg using the selected picture style and white balance settings.

If so then there are three options - JPEG only (saves on space and PP but no "negative"), RAW plus JPEG (memory hungry but best of both worlds) and RAW only (more space than JPEG, you get a "negative" and can create a JPEG later).

For RAW only, its a pity that the camera (30D in my case) doesn't give you the option when viewing files on camera to create a JPEG from RAW at the push of a button - that for me would be the best solution. Failing that a one button option in DPP would be good as well - perhaps DPP does this but if so I haven't found it. What do others think?

Jon D wrote in post #5719924
For RAW only, its a pity that the camera (30D in my case) doesn't give you the option when viewing files on camera to create a JPEG from RAW at the push of a button - that for me would be the best solution. Failing that a one button option in DPP would be good as well - perhaps DPP does this but if so I haven't found it. What do others think?

If you're viewing a RAW on the camera then essentially you are looking at a jpeg. You can then set your RAW processor to 'as shot' and it should be damn near what you saw on the LCD.

Kenski,
I also only shoot jpeg and always have with all my DSLR's
Probably because I shot for years with slide and negative films and I like to get it right in the camera.

I once did a test comparing Raw to Jpeg, I took a photo in Raw and Largest Jpeg with my 5D. I then printed a 100% crop from both using DPP (didn't even have to convert the raw) and I nor others could tell the difference between the prints. At a 100% crop no difference was seen, yes it even surprised me a bit

With hundreds of large prints I am very happy shooting Jpeg

Pardon my English.
Raw files are what the sensor sees. It does not care the white balance or the picture style that you set. The software inside the camera converts them into jpeg and saves. Reasons why I choose Raw :-

1. Sometimes I accidently changed my white balance into something else like Fluorescent instead of outdoor. If I had shot in JPEG, my shot is wasted. With Raw, I just convert them in Adobe Bridge to the correct the white balance.
   
2. Raw is uncook. I can then cook my shots into what I like.
   
3. Security reason. If someone stole your actual JPEG files, change the EXIF and sell them, how can you prove that the photos are actually yours.

In2Photos wrote in post #5718837
Yup I sure could. All I have to do is right click and click on properties. The JPEG converted from RAW will be larger. Why do you think that is?

Okay, but now he's just going to pick a lower quality setting for the JPEG conversion . Convert them both to uncompressed TIFF and they are both going to be the same size.

e-k

If I would be able to nail exposure and white balance on every shot, I would probably still shoot FILM.

gnnbtrn wrote in post #5720827
If I would be able to nail exposure and white balance on every shot, I would probably still shoot FILM.

That's what's good about film, no need to worry about white balance because you can't change it and more latitude for exposure accidents still being OK.

Either today or tomorrow I will get a raw conversion and jpg on here. In the middle of a kitchen rebuild right now... Just finishing up. Gonna see if I can get both files close to the same size without decreasing quality of the RAW.

I have an expo disc so Im going to balance it right away too....

It's a matter of preference and convenience.

Depending on what and how you shoot, and how much you shoot, shooting JPG definitely can make a lot of sense. In other cases RAW will be better because even though you may have shot & exposed perfectly, it may be impossible to get the look you originally wanted without making some modifications to the image through the curves or other tools. If you wish to do this, shooting RAW makes much more sense because you have more data to pull from when making these manipulations.

Kenski wrote in post #5721162
Either today or tomorrow I will get a raw conversion and jpg on here. In the middle of a kitchen rebuild right now... Just finishing up. Gonna see if I can get both files close to the same size without decreasing quality of the RAW.

I have an expo disc so Im going to balance it right away too....

do not post good pictures
make sure you got exposure wrong, and do not use your expodisk, pretend you forgot it at home. Because this is the situation when you really NEED raw.

gnnbtrn wrote in post #5721250
do not post good pictures
make sure you got exposure wrong, and do not use your expodisk, pretend you forgot it at home. Because this is the situation when you really NEED raw.

Oh no... That wasn't the point of this thread.. Like I said, it was stated that if you can expose and WB correctly, then there should be no reason to shoot in raw. Im NO professional so RAW is the way for me lol