which of you shoot with which? and more importantly, could somebody explain to me the main differences of these two formats? what are the pros and cons of each? thank you.
As already noted, this has been discussed here and pretty much on every photo forum many times, and you'll find that folks tend to get pretty passionate on both sides of the argument.
FWIW, I shoot raw almost all the time. The reason being that I am not always 100% accurate with my exposure, and raw allows more latitude and flexibility for me in post processing.
I'll share what I do. Raw is more flexible and allows you to change exp., WB, and other stuff more than you can with JPGs. I shoot Raw+Jpeg. I open up the Jpegs in a basic photo wiewer and delete the ones that I obviously don't want, deleting their matching raws at the same time. Now I delete the jpegs, all of 'em. Then I have only the raws I want. I like this, but a knock against it is it takes a while for the buffer to write to the card. Don't say it takes up a lot of card space--that's not an excuse. Go buy an 8GB card for 20 bucks.
I'll share what I do. Raw is more flexible and allows you to change exp., WB, and other stuff more than you can with JPGs. I shoot Raw+Jpeg. I open up the Jpegs in a basic photo wiewer and delete the ones that I obviously don't want, deleting their matching raws at the same time. Now I delete the jpegs, all of 'em. Then I have only the raws I want. I like this, but a knock against it is it takes a while for the buffer to write to the card. Don't say it takes up a lot of card space--that's not an excuse. Go buy an 8GB card for 20 bucks.
i have read some guides on jpg vs raw. they were helpful and so is your reply. thank you for sharing. for now i think i will shoot jpg, until learn more about exposure and LR. i have only been at it for a month or so, so i am still very much a greenhorn, haha. but learning fast, thanks to this forum, other internet guides, wikipedia, and bryan peterson's 'understanding exposure'. hopefully soon i will have a much stronger grasp on this wonderful hobby and be able to shoot more artistic and quality photos as well as understand the post-shooting, editing process. thanks again.
i have read some guides on jpg vs raw. they were helpful and so is your reply. thank you for sharing. for now i think i will shoot jpg, until learn more about exposure and LR. i have only been at it for a month or so, so i am still very much a greenhorn, haha. but learning fast, thanks to this forum, other internet guides, wikipedia, and bryan peterson's 'understanding exposure'. hopefully soon i will have a much stronger grasp on this wonderful hobby and be able to shoot more artistic and quality photos as well as understand the post-shooting, editing process. thanks again.
I have beeen blasted for this before but I will say it again......Shooting jpg until you learn is like a film photographer shooting Polaroid until he/she/it learns more about exposure and such.....If you shoot raw or raw+jpg at the begining and learn to process the raws properly you are way ahead on your game
Learning to process the raw files is not that hard with a book and resources off the web.......if you just want to shoot snapshots then yeah shoot jpg and let the camera process it for you ...you push shutter and the end product is the vision of some engineer in Japan...Books "REAL WORLD Camera raw" by Frazxier / Schewe (I believe) and for LR....Scott Kelby's "Lightroom for Photographers" copies for LR1,2 &3 can be found on Amazon.
My reasons for shooting RAW is pretty simple...I want photo files with as much usable info as possible and jpg just does not give you that......
I shoot raw+jpeg for the same reasons as ThatCanonGuy does.....for me it is faster when I can look at a huge image in windows viewer rather than
small images in the Lr window ( i do not have to wear my reading glasses for sorting my pix that way).......then I dispose of all the unwanted rawsand their jpgs.....
also I shoot the combo because I have several clients that want images in a gallery the same night as the event happens......they understand they are not processed,
but it gives them an idea of how a performance looks (some of these are lighting designers and the producers of the event...then when I am done processing the final images replace the
original uploads and are ready for purchase................
I would second the notion of trying raw+JPG until you get your nerve up to go raw all the way. I've got a number of old JPGs that I would love to be able to go back and re-process with the new tools (and skills) I have now. This way you still get the comfort of JPG and all the benefit of raw should you choose to exercise it. Memory cards are cheap.
so are hard drives.....I am now starting to convert or transfer all my images that are on Pata drives to Sata.....the new drives will be the largest Notebook internal drives I can find...as they will fit my docks as well as a desktop internal drive will........and instead of carrying my laptop with me to transfer I now have 14 - 8gb CF cards and the number will only grow as i do not want to carry the weight of a laptop or even external storage drives when I am away from home...I do take laptop for processing but it stays in hotel or if staying with acquaintances it stays in their house................
Good idea Art, never thought about using CFs for HDs...;~)
they are a whole lot cheaper...my 8gb Cf's run under $20 now and I may be moving up to 16gb in the future depending on FF camera I decide on in the next year or 3.....................
There was a great thread on this recently which covered the ground exhaustively I thought.
Now this week I got back from an event at which I shot RAW - linked elsewhere on Dgrin - and now find myself wondering how to process the shots. I wish I had shot Jpeg and Raw so the Jpegs would give me an idea!
With Raw you are leaving all options open, but in many practical cases you might as well shoot Jpeg thus saving time. This seemed to be the main message from the earlier discussion. Shooting both on occasion is an option I wish I had taken at Eindhoven Glow.
Perhaps it is just Lightroom (or LR + Canon) but my RAW images always come into LR with the color balance set to as-shot which means whatever AWB (or other setting) says it should be from the camera. I don't understand the need for the jpeg to give one an idea of what the image should look like.
I would second the notion of trying raw+JPG until you get your nerve up to go raw all the way.
Not sure I understand why you need to "get your nerve up" to shoot Raw? When I made the switch to digital, I started out shooting JPG, but eventually moved to just Raw. Unless I have really screwed something up, processing a Raw shot takes no longer, and isn't any more difficult, than processing a JPG.
What I meant was that in my experience, some people are held back from shooting raw because they are worried about not being able to process the raw to look like the JPG they are used to having. There is a learning curve to the various flavors of raw processing software, and if you are used to just shooting and having a camera-processed JPG ready to go, and you are not a software person, it can be intimidating to just go full on raw when you are first starting out.
What I meant was that in my experience, some people are held back from shooting raw because they are worried about not being able to process the raw to look like the JPG they are used to having.
It's an issue that isn't talked about as much: taking the camera LCD as The Truth which many people naturally do. The leap a JPEG shooter has to make is realizing that there is no right rendering, that the camera JPEG is just the camera maker's opinion, that there is no need to fall in love with that "look" unless you want to, that you might want something different. When you want something different you can then set it as a default processing in your raw software.
The analogy with film would be once you reach the realization that the print the drugstore processor gives you is not actually the best possible print that could be made from the negative ; The JPEG is not necessarily the best possible image that could be made from a raw.
Once the cognitive leap is made, a photographer may start placing less value on the appearance of the LCD/JPEG and paying more attention to the histogram qualities that indicate that the data will provide maximum flexibility in raw editing.
Shoot RAW + jpg to start with, so you feel the security of having an SOOC jpg, but also have a RAW file to edit. At some point, you will come to realize that SOOC jpgs, while quite good at times, are not always nearly as good as the file you can create, with care, with a Raw file and Adobe Camera Raw 5.*, or Lightroom 3.*
Once you are really comfortable with dual processing of Raw files for two separate exposures as Special Objects, you will no longer be asking if Raw files are as good as jpgs. You will know the correct answer.
One of the beauties of RAW files, is that they have not been processed, developed, souped. Just like a film that had not been developed. When newer, better chemistry came along, better images could be obtained from undeveloped film, but once developed, film could not be altered.
Jpgs are developed film.
Raw files are raw, undeveloped negatives.
Raw editing software is improving year by year, due to improvements in software and hardware capabilities.
I can go back to RAW files I shot with a 20D 5 years ago, and re-edit them with the new Adobe RAW engine from CS5/LR3 and get even better files, than I got from my 20D RAW files the first time in CS2 or CS3. The images really are noticeably better..
Do not misunderstand, I am not a zealot. I shoot lots of jpgs, especially for wildlife and action sports, if I am at risk of my buffer over flowing in my camera from high frame rate shooting.
I shoot RAW or JPG and sometimes I shoot RAW+JPG. Each depends on what I'm shooting. When shooting sports, no way I'll shoot RAW. Well, maybe I could shoot sRaw and get away with it.. but shooting Med Fine JPG gives me a 99 shot buffer on a 5DII where shooting sRaw (medium, not the small) I believe gives me a 13 shot buffer. I don't necessarily need 99 shots, but it's nice to have if I do... I think comfort level has something to do with it as well. Knowing your equipment inside/out really helps.
Shoot RAW + jpg to start with, so you feel the security of having an SOOC jpg, but also have a RAW file to edit. At some point, you will come to realize that SOOC jpgs, while quite good at times, are not always nearly as good as the file you can create, with care, with a Raw file and Adobe Camera Raw 5.*, or Lightroom 3.*
Once you are really comfortable with dual processing of Raw files for two separate exposures as Special Objects, you will no longer be asking if Raw files are as good as jpgs. You will know the correct answer.
One of the beauties of RAW files, is that they have not been processed, developed, souped. Just like a film that had not been developed. When newer, better chemistry came along, better images could be obtained from undeveloped film, but once developed, film could not be altered.
Jpgs are developed film.
Raw files are raw, undeveloped negatives.
Raw editing software is improving year by year, due to improvements in software and hardware capabilities.
I can go back to RAW files I shot with a 20D 5 years ago, and re-edit them with the new Adobe RAW engine from CS5/LR3 and get even better files, than I got from my 20D RAW files the first time in CS2 or CS3. The images really are noticeably better..
Do not misunderstand, I am not a zealot. I shoot lots of jpgs, especially for wildlife and action sports, if I am at risk of my buffer over flowing in my camera from high frame rate shooting.
this is all very helpful. thank you everybody for your advice. i will try shooting JPG+RAW. I have light room 2, but i suppose i should upgrade to 3. do any of you know any good resources (online or otherwise) on learning to understand the histogram? thanks.
Perhaps it is just Lightroom (or LR + Canon) but my RAW images always come into LR with the color balance set to as-shot which means whatever AWB (or other setting) says it should be from the camera. I don't understand the need for the jpeg to give one an idea of what the image should look like.
Correct, RAW files (at least Nikon NEF ones) include an embedded JPG, even if you don't shoot RAW + JPG. When I import my RAW files into LR3, I get full size previews from that embedded file. The extra storage that RAW+JPG requires doesn't make sense for me. But I'm not shooting where I may have to deliver photos immediately with no processing. I just import all my RAW files, PP the ones I want to, and ignore the others. I don't even delete very often. I fill HDDs on my server machine and will add new HDDs as necessary, while LR maintains knowledge of which photos are on which drives.
I have shot RAW only since I got the DSLR. I figure if I "accidentally" capture something awesome, I want to have all the data available to me. I don't want to go back in 5 years when I've improved (hopefully) and wish that I'd shot a particular photo in RAW as opposed to JPG so that I could work some PP magic on it. Plus, storage is so ridiculously cheap these days, for me it just makes more sense. Now, if I were a pro, shooting hundreds of thousands of files every year, maybe I'd think differently...
Correct, RAW files (at least Nikon NEF ones) include an embedded JPG, even if you don't shoot RAW + JPG. When I import my RAW files into LR3, I get full size previews from that embedded file. The extra storage that RAW+JPG requires doesn't make sense for me. But I'm not shooting where I may have to deliver photos immediately with no processing. I just import all my RAW files, PP the ones I want to, and ignore the others. I don't even delete very often. I fill HDDs on my server machine and will add new HDDs as necessary, while LR maintains knowledge of which photos are on which drives.
I have shot RAW only since I got the DSLR. I figure if I "accidentally" capture something awesome, I want to have all the data available to me. I don't want to go back in 5 years when I've improved (hopefully) and wish that I'd shot a particular photo in RAW as opposed to JPG so that I could work some PP magic on it. Plus, storage is so ridiculously cheap these days, for me it just makes more sense. Now, if I were a pro, shooting hundreds of thousands of files every year, maybe I'd think differently...
Canon as well are embedded full size JPG. There are some programs that will extract the embedded JPG. my reason for shooting both is speed of processing if I'm in a hurry. I don't want to add another step to the processing if I don't need to. Yeah, it's a waste of space, but as mentioned before, space is cheap..
What I meant was that in my experience, some people are held back from shooting raw because they are worried about not being able to process the raw to look like the JPG they are used to having.
Fair point...and by coincidence, the latest issue of Popular Photography (Dec 2010) showed up in my mailbox yesterday, and they have a quick step-by-step tutorial on editing raw images in ACR.
Raw vs JPG is like arguing who has the cutest kids
Jpg, gives smaller file sizes, instant use, quick to email via cell phone to editors. Generally used by sports / events / journos. Although they also tend to shoot raw + jpg and use the raws for the glossies / stock / portfolio and the jpgs for onsite transmission for web & newsprint.
Raw gives larger file sizes, less instant flexibility (unless you shoot raw+jpg), wider DR, freedom to set wb later, potentially higher 'quality'.
I shoot raw for a few reasons, mostly I shoot in silly light levels (midday beach weddings anyone ) so it helps to have the extra dr and color depth. Another local tog shoots raw, his results are awesome. Theres no right one for everyone. Storage is cheap, you can get great results with jpg so the 'downsides' aren't huge to either. Neither is a mistake (unless you shoot raw and want to email from trackside, then you are just a numpty).
Some pros shoot jpg to save on space but honestly, its not a huge consideration. Neither is processing time. I tend to spend between 30 and 90 minutes in post for every hour shooting. I shoot maybe 100k shots a year. I buy a couple of external drives from costco or whereever and a few cakes (well maybe more than a few) of dvd's and theyre all accessible and backed up. LR makes raw a lot easier!
I don't like using DVD's for backups. They're slow and don't hold much, and much more expensive than external USB drives.
I don't like using DVD's for backups. They're slow and don't hold much, and much more expensive than external USB drives.
I use DVDs over HDs; no moving parts and typically higher storage density of data - at least my experience so far. Also one does not have to worry about having the right cable or driver etc... I also do use SmugMug for part of my backup strategy as that has the highest data durability I have found.
I don't like using DVD's for backups. They're slow and don't hold much, and much more expensive than external USB drives.
From experience....Cd/DVD can corrupt instantly for no reason....I have 2 stacks over 100 each (total over 400 disks) that aI have yet to find a recovery software that will pull anything off them except tiny thumbs (talking 50x50 pixels ).....I have had hardrives go belly up but I have only had 1 that was silent about its death..... and even it was recoverable.....I have had 2 hdds that I still own but just cannot make myself pay $2500 per drive for recovery...even tho the raw images would be nice to have, but have been able to make myself do it....luckily they are just landscapes and wildlife
Disk storage media is too unpredictable and I do not trust the off the shelf retail brands.....and my amount of storage I am needing makes them too expensive also...harddrives are way less expensive that disk media and much more reliable and even as I buy them 3 at a time so I have my back ups if one does die that gives me two to fall back on.....hardrives all the way....and right now I am starting to move off of desktop drives to internal laptop drives for the physical space savings......
Comments
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Link to my Smugmug site
FWIW, I shoot raw almost all the time. The reason being that I am not always 100% accurate with my exposure, and raw allows more latitude and flexibility for me in post processing.
AZFred
i have read some guides on jpg vs raw. they were helpful and so is your reply. thank you for sharing. for now i think i will shoot jpg, until learn more about exposure and LR. i have only been at it for a month or so, so i am still very much a greenhorn, haha. but learning fast, thanks to this forum, other internet guides, wikipedia, and bryan peterson's 'understanding exposure'. hopefully soon i will have a much stronger grasp on this wonderful hobby and be able to shoot more artistic and quality photos as well as understand the post-shooting, editing process. thanks again.
Learning to process the raw files is not that hard with a book and resources off the web.......if you just want to shoot snapshots then yeah shoot jpg and let the camera process it for you ...you push shutter and the end product is the vision of some engineer in Japan...Books "REAL WORLD Camera raw" by Frazxier / Schewe (I believe) and for LR....Scott Kelby's "Lightroom for Photographers" copies for LR1,2 &3 can be found on Amazon.
My reasons for shooting RAW is pretty simple...I want photo files with as much usable info as possible and jpg just does not give you that......
I shoot raw+jpeg for the same reasons as ThatCanonGuy does.....for me it is faster when I can look at a huge image in windows viewer rather than
small images in the Lr window ( i do not have to wear my reading glasses for sorting my pix that way).......then I dispose of all the unwanted rawsand their jpgs.....
also I shoot the combo because I have several clients that want images in a gallery the same night as the event happens......they understand they are not processed,
but it gives them an idea of how a performance looks (some of these are lighting designers and the producers of the event...then when I am done processing the final images replace the
original uploads and are ready for purchase................
Lightroomers.com
they are a whole lot cheaper...my 8gb Cf's run under $20 now and I may be moving up to 16gb in the future depending on FF camera I decide on in the next year or 3.....................
The others do go in and out of stock weekly....really fast.
Now this week I got back from an event at which I shot RAW - linked elsewhere on Dgrin - and now find myself wondering how to process the shots. I wish I had shot Jpeg and Raw so the Jpegs would give me an idea!
With Raw you are leaving all options open, but in many practical cases you might as well shoot Jpeg thus saving time. This seemed to be the main message from the earlier discussion. Shooting both on occasion is an option I wish I had taken at Eindhoven Glow.
Who is wise? He who learns from everyone.
My SmugMug Site
http://www.moose135photography.com
Lightroomers.com
It's an issue that isn't talked about as much: taking the camera LCD as The Truth which many people naturally do. The leap a JPEG shooter has to make is realizing that there is no right rendering, that the camera JPEG is just the camera maker's opinion, that there is no need to fall in love with that "look" unless you want to, that you might want something different. When you want something different you can then set it as a default processing in your raw software.
The analogy with film would be once you reach the realization that the print the drugstore processor gives you is not actually the best possible print that could be made from the negative
Once the cognitive leap is made, a photographer may start placing less value on the appearance of the LCD/JPEG and paying more attention to the histogram qualities that indicate that the data will provide maximum flexibility in raw editing.
Shoot RAW + jpg to start with, so you feel the security of having an SOOC jpg, but also have a RAW file to edit. At some point, you will come to realize that SOOC jpgs, while quite good at times, are not always nearly as good as the file you can create, with care, with a Raw file and Adobe Camera Raw 5.*, or Lightroom 3.*
Once you are really comfortable with dual processing of Raw files for two separate exposures as Special Objects, you will no longer be asking if Raw files are as good as jpgs. You will know the correct answer.
One of the beauties of RAW files, is that they have not been processed, developed, souped. Just like a film that had not been developed. When newer, better chemistry came along, better images could be obtained from undeveloped film, but once developed, film could not be altered.
Jpgs are developed film.
Raw files are raw, undeveloped negatives.
Raw editing software is improving year by year, due to improvements in software and hardware capabilities.
I can go back to RAW files I shot with a 20D 5 years ago, and re-edit them with the new Adobe RAW engine from CS5/LR3 and get even better files, than I got from my 20D RAW files the first time in CS2 or CS3. The images really are noticeably better..
Do not misunderstand, I am not a zealot. I shoot lots of jpgs, especially for wildlife and action sports, if I am at risk of my buffer over flowing in my camera from high frame rate shooting.
But my preference is to shoot RAW.
Period.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Absolutely spot-on advice.
Correct, RAW files (at least Nikon NEF ones) include an embedded JPG, even if you don't shoot RAW + JPG. When I import my RAW files into LR3, I get full size previews from that embedded file. The extra storage that RAW+JPG requires doesn't make sense for me. But I'm not shooting where I may have to deliver photos immediately with no processing. I just import all my RAW files, PP the ones I want to, and ignore the others. I don't even delete very often. I fill HDDs on my server machine and will add new HDDs as necessary, while LR maintains knowledge of which photos are on which drives.
I have shot RAW only since I got the DSLR. I figure if I "accidentally" capture something awesome, I want to have all the data available to me. I don't want to go back in 5 years when I've improved (hopefully) and wish that I'd shot a particular photo in RAW as opposed to JPG so that I could work some PP magic on it. Plus, storage is so ridiculously cheap these days, for me it just makes more sense. Now, if I were a pro, shooting hundreds of thousands of files every year, maybe I'd think differently...
My site 365 Project
Canon as well are embedded full size JPG. There are some programs that will extract the embedded JPG. my reason for shooting both is speed of processing if I'm in a hurry. I don't want to add another step to the processing if I don't need to. Yeah, it's a waste of space, but as mentioned before, space is cheap..
http://www.moose135photography.com
I don't like using DVD's for backups. They're slow and don't hold much, and much more expensive than external USB drives.
I use DVDs over HDs; no moving parts and typically higher storage density of data - at least my experience so far. Also one does not have to worry about having the right cable or driver etc... I also do use SmugMug for part of my backup strategy as that has the highest data durability I have found.
Pictures | Website | Blog | Twitter | Contact
Disk storage media is too unpredictable and I do not trust the off the shelf retail brands.....and my amount of storage I am needing makes them too expensive also...harddrives are way less expensive that disk media and much more reliable and even as I buy them 3 at a time so I have my back ups if one does die that gives me two to fall back on.....hardrives all the way....and right now I am starting to move off of desktop drives to internal laptop drives for the physical space savings......