JPG or RAW

MDalby

I am a Nikon user. Do you shoot in JPEG or RAW? Is it worth the extra hastle getting RAW files transferred over to JPG?

Tnanks,

MD

KCBearcat

MDalby wrote:

I am a Nikon user. Do you shoot in JPEG or RAW? Is it worth the extra hastle getting RAW files transferred over to JPG?

Tnanks,

MD

I shoot in RAW if only because it doesn't compress the photo before I've had a chance to play with it in pp.

mercphoto

MDalby wrote:

I am a Nikon user. Do you shoot in JPEG or RAW? Is it worth the extra hastle getting RAW files transferred over to JPG?

You couldn't possibly ask a more vague question and I'll explain why. What is your shot volume? Do you shoot 20, 50 or maybe 100 per outing? Or do you shoot 1,500 to 2,000 per outing? Are you shooting for yourself and family, or are you shooting for clients? And if shooting for profit, are your print prices high or low? Do you get $5 for an 8x10? or $20? or $50? And if you do shoot RAW are you going to simply do push-button conversion or will you adjust exposure, constrast, saturation yourself? Will you set your own black and white points? Adjust your own curves?

Back towards the end of my days of shooting MX and karts I was still shooting 1,000 to 1,500 shots per race but doing so in RAW. My RAW workflow got streamlined, which was the only way I could handle it. I made it a habit of a batch conversion using auto-corrections and making small JPGs. Those got transferred to my Exposure Manager account for purchase, and I would hand-tweak only the images actually ordered. (The down-side, the customer only sees an auto-corrected preview before ordering and not the actual image, which you need to find an effective way of communicating that to them).

When I was (briefly) shooting for a local youth sports photographer doing Pop Warner Football I was doing four games on a Saturday, taking home 2,000+ photos, and he insisted I shoot JPG and do nothing more than crop before uploading.

In the end, I think the answer of whether its worth the extra hassle is going to boil down to how much money per print you're getting from your customers (if they buy 4x6's at $2.50 each what's the point of putting in too much work), what percent of images are actually selling (i.e. are you spending time tweaking photos nobody buys), and lastly but very importantly can your customers even tell the difference?

KMCC

For what it's worth, every media outlet that I've shot for has wanted JPEG images.

Matt518

Well said Bill.

It really comes down to what you're selling, and for how much. If you're just selling small "snapshot" prints for a cheap price, .jpeg is the way to go - no post processing required and most people wouldn't know the difference. Your time invested is minimal, and so is the return.

If, however, you're selling larger prints of photos for higher prices, and you're willing to invest some time in post work to bring out the best in them, raw is the only way to go.

For any person to decide whether to shoot raw or jpeg, you have to know what's happening under each circumstance, and whether or not that will produce a product that is your "end goal". Jpeg's are processed in camera and compressed, albeit lossy compression, so there is a degradation in quality. Raw's are theoretically not processed in camera (except for minimal processing) and uncompressed, so there is no degradation in quality. If I expect a customer to pay $20, $50 or even $100 or more for a larger print, I would want them to receive a product that has quality commensurate to the price they're paying, but that's just me.

Matt518

KMCC wrote:

For what it's worth, every media outlet that I've shot for has wanted JPEG images.

Not trying to be offensive, but what format you shoot in and what you sell are two different things, for different reasons. Even though they may want jpegs, that doesn't proclude shooting in raw and processing before submission, if there is time to do so. Under strict circumstances, shooting and submitting jpegs may be best - let them handle the processing.

Matt518

Matt518 wrote:

Not trying to be offensive, but what format you shoot in and what you sell are two different things, for different reasons. Even though they may want jpegs, that doesn't proclude shooting in raw and processing before submission, if there is time to do so. Under strict circumstances, shooting and submitting jpegs may be best - let them handle the processing.

Wow, now that I've read that it sounded a little abrasive. That certainly was not my intention.

KMCC

Matt518 wrote:

Wow, now that I've read that it sounded a little abrasive. That certainly was not my intention.

I'd agree. I don't think I mentioned anything about post processing; or the lack thereof.

I was merely making the point that in my experience, media outlets are happy with JPEG.

In actual fact, I post-process every digital file that is offered for sale or submitted to a media outlet unless that outlet specifically requests unprocessed files.

Matt518

KMCC wrote:

I'd agree. I don't think I mentioned anything about post processing; or the lack thereof.

I was merely making the point that in my experience, media outlets are happy with JPEG.

In actual fact, I post-process every digital file that is offered for sale or submitted to a media outlet unless that outlet specifically requests unprocessed files.

I understand, but the OP was inquiring about shooting in jpeg vs. raw, not necessarily what is submitted to the client (i.e. the end result). Most, if not all raw files are converted to jpeg after processing, so stating that jpegs are desired by media outlets is a moot point.

KMCC

Matt518 wrote:

I understand, but the OP was inquiring about shooting in jpeg vs. raw, not necessarily what is submitted to the client (i.e. the end result). Most, if not all raw files are converted to jpeg after processing, so stating that jpegs are desired by media outlets is a moot point.

And I was replying in the context of the discussion having been expanded by the second poster and merely offering up the point that shooting in RAW may not be necessary in some cases.

In keeping with the preface of my original post, "For what it's worth", if you find no value in my comment, please disregard it.

Have a Happy New Year.

BradfordBenn

My personal non professional opinion. I shoot RAW when I can. The reason is that if I have a photo that needs some more work to make better (like pretty much all my shots) there is more data there for the processing to work with. While the fact that there are editing programs and conversion schemes... etc. to me the idea that I can work with as much "raw" data (pun intended) as possible is what I prefer.

Now I will freely admit that most of the time I just do a quick batch convert in Lightroom to output JPGs to upload to SmugMug, there are a few that I have gone in and done some tweaking on to make pop a little more. The fact that I had more data to work with in my opinion was key to being successful.

Of course your mileage may vary, but my basic approach is to keep as much data as possible through the process and decimate it at the last step possible, outputting to JPG.

ian408

There are many sides to RAW v. JPG argument. The truth is if it's right in camera, the format does not matter as much. You should strive to get your exposure and composition correct in camera so that you need to do less PP after the fact.

Regarding media outlets. Is their selection JPG because they don't or can't deal with the many definitions of a "raw" format?

KMCC

ian408 wrote:

There are many sides to RAW v. JPG argument. The truth is if it's right in camera, the format does not matter as much. You should strive to get your exposure and composition correct in camera so that you need to do less PP after the fact.

Well said.

Regarding media outlets. Is their selection JPG because they don't or can't deal with the many definitions of a "raw" format?

I think that it's simply a case of minimizing the amount of time and effort required to obtain an image which will reproduce well in print.

In the case of newspapers, JPEG is more than adequate given the quality of the image that gets reproduced on newsprint. But even with the longer lead times that magazines have prior to publication, a well exposed and composed JPEG typically meets their requirements.

Slinky0390

It all depends, If you want the flexibility of fixing a white balance mistake or you want some exposure control after the shot is taken, you pretty much have to go with RAW. But if you have no desire of using any type of PP workflow then you could shoot JPEG. Just regarding the question as a file format preference is almost impossible because there are distinct advantages/disadvantages depending on which one you go with, it's not like the HD-DVD/BluRay format war where they were virtually the same. Personally, I switch formats depending on what I'm shooting. If I am shooting a sports event, I tend to be trigger happy, so I save space by shooting JPEG, however, if I'm shooting landscapes, portraits, etc. I'll shoot RAW because I like being able to tweak the photos slightly in Lightroom.

johng

ian408 wrote:

There are many sides to RAW v. JPG argument. The truth is if it's right in camera, the format does not matter as much. You should strive to get your exposure and composition correct in camera so that you need to do less PP after the fact.

Bingo! The biggest benefit to RAW is it allows you to correct exposure and WB issues. Once you get those correct in-camera the benefits of RAW diminish very quickly. But you still have the drawbacks - added workflow, added space, and depending on your camera buffer issues.

The only time I shoot raw for sports is in indoor situations where a custom WB isn't possible - which is maybe 5% of the gyms I've shot in. Otherwise to me it's not worth the added cost to shoot RAW.

Contrast that with my non sports flash photos - I always shoot RAW for my flash work just because if I can't use FEL I've found it very difficult to get consistent flash results with my Canon gear. So I find I need the benefits RAW provides in those situations.

Not saying my way is the only way. Just saying what has worked for me - other people could have different experiences that are equally valid.

ian408

If you are a CS3 user, you can open a jpeg in Camera Raw. And while you don't get complete control, you do get many of the benefits camera raw gives you if using a RAW/NEF file.

baldmountain

johng wrote:

Bingo! The biggest benefit to RAW is it allows you to correct exposure and WB issues. Once you get those correct in-camera the benefits of RAW diminish very quickly.

+1 I always shoot RAW so I can more easily adjust white balance.

MDalby

Tahnk you for EVERYONE for your input and advice on this topic. I am going to give RAW a try but I don't know if I am proficient enough in post processing to really justify the added space and hastle. I am pretty sure for my needs, JPG is sufficient. I will just have to invest in some more UDMA cards.

Thank you!