How do you shoot? raw vs jpeg

Hackbone

Just taking a poll to see how you shoot. Choose one.

coldclimb

Ah, but it depends! If I'll be getting a really high volume or lighting is good and I'm not concerned about missing something critical, as in some of my shoots of construction jobsites, I'll use jpeg. If it's important that I get every perfect shot I can like in a portrait session, or if lighting is less than nice, I'll shoot raw. Space is cheap these days, but I still have a hard time using up 20 gigs of space for a single shoot!

reyvee61

Always 14bit uncompressed RAW

chuckinsocal

Hackbone wrote: »

Just taking a poll to see how you shoot. Choose one.

RAW 100% of the time. The downside is that I have to process every shot I take which can be a bit tedious sometimes. The upside is that I get full control of that processing and of how the final image looks and in the long run that off sets the need to process each image.

MileHighAko

I started out only shooting in jpg, because I didn't know any better.

Then I switched to 100% RAW, again because I didn't know any better.

Now my format and size is a calculated decision, just like deciding to shoot in manual vs. aperture, etc. I try to be crisp in those decisions, vs. just using one format because it's the safest. At current, 70% RAW, 30% something else.

zoomer

I shoot both, depending on the situation and/or the lighting variation.

Hackbone

Personally I always shoot raw, even weddings with 4 or 5 hundred shots. However I'm not much of an overshooter. That is certain death and to me marks you as one not certain of what your doing.
It's too easy to bump a setting when shooting and raw will save you more than a jpeg.
Try to think of raw as a negative and jpeg as a polaroid.

r3t1awr3yd

RAW changed my life....

Mitchell

Both. If I'm shooting outdoor sports with consistent skies, I'll shoot JPG. This helps my speed and cuts down on my processing of hundreds of files. For any type of event photography (weddings, etc..) with mixed lighting, I always shoot RAW. Lately, I've been shooting both with portraits using my strobes. I'm finding that for this type of controlled setting with manually set WB, there is no advantage to me in shooting RAW.

Svennie

I shoot RAW+jpg
But in more general: depends. For photo shoots, weddings etc definitely RAW. Other more point and shoot opportunities like the local taekwondo grading: jpg. These will end up on internet in low res anyway, so I save myself the trouble

cab.in.boston

reyvee61 wrote: »

Always 14bit uncompressed RAW

Why uncompressed when lossless is, well, lossless?

Justiceiro

RAW has saved my behind on more than one occasion.

kris10jo

recently converted to raw...

Andy

I'm sorry but this question is not a good one. Use the right format for the job. I shoot RAW for all my landscapes, and portraits and commercial work.

But I shoot JPG for all of my event work. I work with my camera settings, experiment, and get really comfortable and familiar with them. And when I shoot an event with 1000s of shots, I have it nailed right out of the camera and I don't have to do any post processing at all to present and sell my photos.

Hackbone

Even for my event work it is still raw and that has saved me several times. It is way too easy to move a setting especially during an event. At least for me it is.

Why raw........read this....http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml

Icebear

RAW + LR presets. Why not?
The only reason I might ever shoot JPEG is 'cause my cameras will give me a higher frame rate. But I can get 5-6 fps with RAW and that's plenty fer me.

Jeremy Winterberg

I shoot jpg more and more these days. I use an expodisc and get near perfect results sooc, both white balance and exposure. Really saves time in post processing.

yendikeno

Voted
shoot raw pretty much 99% of the time.

kevinpw

When I started I only used JPEGs because I didn't know what the heck RAW was. Then I learned about RAW, and I shot 100% in RAW. Recently I felt that when lighting is good, especially outdoors under the sun, RAW doesn't help me much, so I'll use JPEG to save on HD space and processing time. If I'm in a rather dark place, or indoors, or using external flash, I'd choose RAW.

I chose JPEG in the poll just because I knew most people would choose RAW

kevinpw

Jeremy Winterberg wrote: »

I shoot jpg more and more these days. I use an expodisc and get near perfect results sooc, both white balance and exposure. Really saves time in post processing.

What is an expodisc?

Jeremy Winterberg

kevinpw wrote: »

What is an expodisc?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=expodisc

Its a custom white balance tool. But you can also use it to set exposure. Its very handy, and super easy to use.

Debashis_A_ghosh

I shoot Raw when I want to get every bit of detail that I can retrieve form the shot. The JPEG version created in the camera lacks the details/sharpnesn...clarity (for lack of better words). This is usually when I am out shooting portraits for friends and family in a session dedicated to taking pictuires, or when I am out shooting insect Macros.
For general purpose street shots where I am not very concerendd about whether or not I get the shot I go with jpeg.

The biggest negative of RAW format for me is that once I have a good image in jpeg (Raw converted to jpeg) I find it very very tough to bring myself to delete the RAW file. Resultantly I keep runnig out of disc space. I need to start taking DVD copies and then delete off the RAW files form my hard drives.

Hackbone

kevinpw wrote: »

What is an expodisc?

It is a special filter that goes on the front of the lens and will give you a white balance to start from.

Tip.......you buy them to screw into the lens you are using it on. Buy the largest one instead and then you can hold it on the front of any lens your using to get the white balance.

mercphoto

Hackbone wrote: »

Just taking a poll to see how you shoot. Choose one.

I shoot RAW 100% of the time. Even when I do track events and walk away with 1,500+ photos of cars on the track. Overkill? Yes it is. But I have a workflow down in Aperture that makes it a breeze. I have to admit though, if I ever ditch the 40D for a 7D I'll reconsider this, if only from a file size standpoint.

ivar

Raw, mainly. I generally don't shoot the type of shots where JPG is easier.

Since this is interesting to more than just people shooters, I've moved this to the Technique forum

BuddyLee

I answered RAW just because this is the people forum. Portraits, weddings, low light, i shoot raw because, why not? I have the needed space in memory cards and with today's work flow, working with raw is not difficult. I shoot a lot of sporting events where it is required I shoot JPG. I think this helps keep me honest. Even when I shoot raw, i try my hardest to get the shot i want in the camera.

catspaw

most of the time, RAW. in the E-PL1, JPG :P

Hackbone

I want to keep harping on this. Raw will save you headaches when that instance of mishap happens and it will.

It's not a question of size (speaking of computers) but quality. Please read http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...aw-files.shtml

pathfinder

Andy wrote: »

I'm sorry but this question is not a good one. Use the right format for the job. I shoot RAW for all my landscapes, and portraits and commercial work.

But I shoot JPG for all of my event work. I work with my camera settings, experiment, and get really comfortable and familiar with them. And when I shoot an event with 1000s of shots, I have it nailed right out of the camera and I don't have to do any post processing at all to present and sell my photos.

Yup, I shoot both, depending on the situations.

I even shoot RAW + jpg at times.

Why are things always expressed as either/ or?

I like both.

Hackbone

richy wrote: »

Because what else would we be doing if we weren't destroying electrons rehashing old arguments that don't have an absolute answer (the best kind ) , we might have to go do some work lol. That really would kill the internet.

Did not know it was an old rehash. Sorry you wasted your time.

Jeremy Winterberg

Hackbone wrote: »

Did not know it was an old rehash.

really?