Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
Likewise for me. One reasoning I read about is that if you have the RAW file, you can prove the photo was yours in the case of someone stealing and publishing your image.
That’s not an issue for me, but I record RAW+JPG on my D700 anyway. I only look at the JPG, and that’s what I copy to my PC. The RAW files just sit on my CF card. Why? Because for me, JPG is more than good enough. On my X-Pro1 I just use JPG and it’s excellent - for me at least.
Gerry M
Gerry
I shoot RAW & JPEG in all my digital bodies and save to multiple external HD's. Storage is cheap. For me, JPEG's are like contact sheets and RAW for the final product. My $.05 worth.
Wenge
Registered User
Some cameras put out real good jpegs today in 2021 (I noticed after trying to fix under-exposed shots in PS thinking I lost the raw files) the A7r4 and GFX 100s files output jpegs that are alot more fixable/malleable than just a few years ago on other cameras. But will never not shoot raw again.. can shoot at base iso, underexpose 2-3+ faster stops if needed, and recover like it was 'correctly' exposed (hand-held benefits/ibis on both).
farlymac
PF McFarland
It was long after I gave up the idea of being a professional photographer when things started going digital. I didn't learn that RAW files existed until I'd been shooting digital for a few years. But it was even longer after that before I actually had a camera that would record RAW files. When I started messing around with the files it seemed quite counter to what I had been doing, which was to try and get the image in camera to look quite like I saw it, not to have to massage it for another five to fifteen minutes in Photoshop. Kind of took the fun out of it.
So now I have some newer equipment capable of recording the RAW files, even RAW+JPG if I want, but I still prefer post-processing the JPG files for one main reason...file size. My system is close to passing the Plimsoll mark, plus it's getting pretty long in the tooth, so now in order to take advantage of all this RAW technology I need to replace my computer system, which may cost me as much or more than replacing my older cameras, because I'm not going to do it halfway. I've wasted too much time and money going that route before.
For the time being I'm going to stay firmly in the JPG camp, though I do also save files in RAW, hopefully for later usage. Like when I replace the computer and software. I can set up my cameras to produce the image look I want with minimal post, so that's good enough for now. Problem is, by the time I get a new computer system it will likely already be outdated. Then I can start the cycle all over again.
PF
So now I have some newer equipment capable of recording the RAW files, even RAW+JPG if I want, but I still prefer post-processing the JPG files for one main reason...file size. My system is close to passing the Plimsoll mark, plus it's getting pretty long in the tooth, so now in order to take advantage of all this RAW technology I need to replace my computer system, which may cost me as much or more than replacing my older cameras, because I'm not going to do it halfway. I've wasted too much time and money going that route before.
For the time being I'm going to stay firmly in the JPG camp, though I do also save files in RAW, hopefully for later usage. Like when I replace the computer and software. I can set up my cameras to produce the image look I want with minimal post, so that's good enough for now. Problem is, by the time I get a new computer system it will likely already be outdated. Then I can start the cycle all over again.
PF
peterm1
Veteran
Its funny that in certain respects my experience of moving to digital from film, then later discovering RAW files is very similar to yours but I went the opposite way as regards shooting RAW.
I think from what you say is that it possibly has to do with my philosophy of image making compared with yours. (Unlike you, I do not that much really care about what comes out of the camera I am only concerned with how the end result looks). In fact for years I wanted to have a darkroom to do my own film printing (though I was never so keen on doing my own developing) but I never had the luxury of having a spare room to convert for this purpose.
When I moved to digital I found it freed me up not just to shoot more without the worry of the cost of film and developing, but also it gave me the luxury of post processing in a way I wanted to but never could before. I already had a computer so it was a small and almost costless step to learn digital post processing (mostly by trial and error - mainly error). And then later on, like you I discovered RAW files and how much better they are than JPG ones - my experience was that RAW files REALLY are much more flexible and powerful than JPG files. Though admittedly its a b%tch that they sometimes do need quite so much work in post because they come out of camera so different to how you imagined they might be. Admittedly you can with many modern cameras shoot and save as JPG and RAW together thereby getting the best of both worlds but this then leads back to the potential problem you have alluded to - that of the storage.
(I have often thought that some camera company should develop a "half way house" solution for file types - one where you could preset the camera to record certain levels of processing in camera but then save the file, if not as a RAW file, then at least as an uncompressed tiff file for output to your computer. I say this because I believe that most of the quality compromise inherent in shooting JPG files is in the compression inherent in JPG files, not in the in-camera processing per se. Having said that, storage today is really very cheap. Just recently I bought a 4 terabyte external hard drive for $120 AUD. Honest to God, I do not think I could fill that with RAW images if I tried for the rest of my days.
So I persist in shooting RAW files (or RAW plus JPG sometimes such as when I want a black and white file straight from the camera) and have basically given up on shooting JPG only. This way at least if the JPG is too compromised for my taste I still have the RAW file to work on in post. There is one other reason I do this. I shoot a lot of street photos and some landscapes etc. In this type of shot there is almost always some sky present and I have found through bitter experience that if the image is exposed normally (i.e. with no exposure compensation) that bright sky will almost always result in blown highlights. I hate blown highlights. They are ugly. With RAW files on the other hand, there is so much extra information in them that it is an easy matter to under-expose such shots by up to a stop, thereby reducing the chances of blown highlights and I will still be able to readily recover shadows in post without really any effort at all. (This is with a good modern CMOS sensor of course). For me this is something I could not do without.
But it is too each his own.
farlymac
PF McFarland
Its funny that in certain respects my experience of moving to digital from film, then later discovering RAW files is very similar to yours but I went the opposite way as regards shooting RAW.
I think from what you say is that it possibly has to do with my philosophy of image making compared with yours. (Unlike you, I do not that much really care about what comes out of the camera I am only concerned with how the end result looks). In fact for years I wanted to have a darkroom to do my own film printing (though I was never so keen on doing my own developing) but I never had the luxury of having a spare room to convert for this purpose.
But it is too each his own.
So true. Another thing that keeps me from going completely RAW is the software. I use PS Elements mostly, and every once in awhile Affinity for things like panoramas that my current version of PSE is crippled in (I don't know why, the program says it will do the same stuff as the previous version I owned, but it just doesn't work for some reason). Affinity will process RAW files, but it's kind of confusing when they first give you a display image to choose, and then you have to fix that instead of just showing the sliders right away. It's a cumbersome process, and they use some terminology that doesn't match what I'm familiar with. Plus for some of the actions I do in Elements, I would have to get a different Affinity program, which means having to work on an image in two to three different programs instead of doing it all in one. So until I upgrade my computer, and dump the DSL line for cable I won't be running any pro-grade Adobe programs, and I'm really leery of getting the latest PS Elements unless I can get more information on it. I don't mind doing the workflow, it's just I don't have the proper set-up for it.
PF
Michael Markey
Veteran
I tend to shoot just RAW although I don`t know why because I don`t do a lot of PP.
Sometimes I`ve shot both RAW and jpg.
Can`t really see any advantage in not shooting Raw despite my minimal PP .
Storage and time isn`t really an issue and it`s always there as a fall back if I want to change the look of a shot some time in the future.
Keeps my options open.
Sometimes I`ve shot both RAW and jpg.
Can`t really see any advantage in not shooting Raw despite my minimal PP .
Storage and time isn`t really an issue and it`s always there as a fall back if I want to change the look of a shot some time in the future.
Keeps my options open.
Richard G
Veteran
Fuji X100. Nearly always jpeg. Occasionally press the RAW button provided for something challenging. Not for years.
M9 compressed DNG. For months I did just shoot colour jpg. Till a couple of shots that mattered left me no room to move. One night occasion with awful coloured lighting I was also pleased to shoot black and white jpg and RAW. The colour image for review was unspeakable so the black and white review was so welcome. In fact the M9 black and white jpgs are really good.
Monochrom no such option as compressed DNG: 34 MB DNG. Ouch. But this camera’s output is the one where I may have invested the most time and effort and want the most from it.
M9 compressed DNG. For months I did just shoot colour jpg. Till a couple of shots that mattered left me no room to move. One night occasion with awful coloured lighting I was also pleased to shoot black and white jpg and RAW. The colour image for review was unspeakable so the black and white review was so welcome. In fact the M9 black and white jpgs are really good.
Monochrom no such option as compressed DNG: 34 MB DNG. Ouch. But this camera’s output is the one where I may have invested the most time and effort and want the most from it.
leicapixie
Well-known
Billions of folks shoot JPEG.Billions! Photographers want to feel part of the process, like when we developed and printed all our own work. I love JPEG. If a camera "Needs" RAW, it is primitive.
Price, name, PR ain't gonna change it. I do indeed have a small camera that has RAW. Waste of time. Many cameras even on "manual" ignore your settings! Check data!. But if it makes you happy, great.
Price, name, PR ain't gonna change it. I do indeed have a small camera that has RAW. Waste of time. Many cameras even on "manual" ignore your settings! Check data!. But if it makes you happy, great.
Axel
singleshooter
It remembers me like the discussions were in early film times (negative/slide) or about cars (hand shifted/automatic) or about working tools.
For all of them my understanding is that for me the absolutely best solution is the one that fits my needs.
JPGs did not have had a "limit" for my photography ever.
I have respect for people who spent much time in darkrooms or with digital tools. And I understand that it is part of their photography.
But a new discussion about raw vs. jpg in 2021?
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I've never delivered photos direct from the camera to a client, whether film or digital. So my choice of whether, when using a digital camera, to capture and store raw data vs rendered images (TIFF or JPEG) in-camera has been/is wholly based on what my cameras are capable of and the workflow I need to obtain it.
My first several digital cameras were only capable of storing rendered images in JPEG format. I learned how to set the cameras to obtain what I wanted, with the various notions of whether I wanted/needed the out of camera results to be 'finished' renderings or renderings suitable for further image processing. (Note that I had been doing digital image processing for at least 15 years prior to there being an affordable digital camera to work with, so I knew at least the minimums of what to expect from that.)
When I obtained the first camera I owned that included the ability to store raw data, I spent time learning how to do raw processing. To me, it represented a simplification of the shooting workflow (no need to choose different settings for different notions of what I needed out of the camera) at the cost of additional time and effort in rendering post facto. This seemed a worthwhile trade off—we are typically pressed for time when making exposures moreso than when processing what we've captured. The early raw processing tools were somewhat slow and clumsy to use, so it was often a bit of an annoyance, but even so results improved due to there being more data to work with: greater headroom and broader dynamic range, more adjustability, etc. The cost and downside were the speed of processing and the amount of storage require to support saving the data in intermediate steps presented serious constraints.
Then the tools improved in quantum leaps. Computers doubled, redoubled, redoubled again and again in power, reducing compute time to a tiny fraction of what it was at the beginning. Storage prices dropped by orders of magnitude over a very short time. Parametric editing without having to save chains of intermediate work reduced storage requirements wholesale as well. The raw processing applications now automated a huge amount of the work needed to the point where I could actually get away with many image rendering needs simply by running them through the image processing workflow at the defaults. The constraints in time, space, and cost of post facto rendering of photographs have become almost trivial compared to what they once where, to the point where it is in most cases of no consequence to the workflow.
The end result of this is that I tend to save exposures as raw data only and do all the rendering in post facto processing. This is the most similar to my film camera workflow, where my a priori decisions are limited to exposure, focus, framing, and timing ... all the other work is post facto. That said, I still have a couple of cameras that require more time, and others that only store rendered data. For example, the Light L16 camera's rendering app, Lumen, allows post-facto choosing of simulated aperture and some degrees of freedom in determining best focus plane on original capture data, and it takes a good bit of time to take the settings you've applied and render out even a raw file processable in other image processing apps.
So ... The choice of whether to save captures as raw or JPEG should be driven by the camera capabilities, the needs of the image you are trying to produce, your skills in using the available tools, and the timeline (and possibly other requirements) of the client you are supplying the images too. Making a pronouncement of doing something one way in all cases and all situations ignores these criteria and choices, and is likely an unhelpful thing to do.
G
My first several digital cameras were only capable of storing rendered images in JPEG format. I learned how to set the cameras to obtain what I wanted, with the various notions of whether I wanted/needed the out of camera results to be 'finished' renderings or renderings suitable for further image processing. (Note that I had been doing digital image processing for at least 15 years prior to there being an affordable digital camera to work with, so I knew at least the minimums of what to expect from that.)
When I obtained the first camera I owned that included the ability to store raw data, I spent time learning how to do raw processing. To me, it represented a simplification of the shooting workflow (no need to choose different settings for different notions of what I needed out of the camera) at the cost of additional time and effort in rendering post facto. This seemed a worthwhile trade off—we are typically pressed for time when making exposures moreso than when processing what we've captured. The early raw processing tools were somewhat slow and clumsy to use, so it was often a bit of an annoyance, but even so results improved due to there being more data to work with: greater headroom and broader dynamic range, more adjustability, etc. The cost and downside were the speed of processing and the amount of storage require to support saving the data in intermediate steps presented serious constraints.
Then the tools improved in quantum leaps. Computers doubled, redoubled, redoubled again and again in power, reducing compute time to a tiny fraction of what it was at the beginning. Storage prices dropped by orders of magnitude over a very short time. Parametric editing without having to save chains of intermediate work reduced storage requirements wholesale as well. The raw processing applications now automated a huge amount of the work needed to the point where I could actually get away with many image rendering needs simply by running them through the image processing workflow at the defaults. The constraints in time, space, and cost of post facto rendering of photographs have become almost trivial compared to what they once where, to the point where it is in most cases of no consequence to the workflow.
The end result of this is that I tend to save exposures as raw data only and do all the rendering in post facto processing. This is the most similar to my film camera workflow, where my a priori decisions are limited to exposure, focus, framing, and timing ... all the other work is post facto. That said, I still have a couple of cameras that require more time, and others that only store rendered data. For example, the Light L16 camera's rendering app, Lumen, allows post-facto choosing of simulated aperture and some degrees of freedom in determining best focus plane on original capture data, and it takes a good bit of time to take the settings you've applied and render out even a raw file processable in other image processing apps.
So ... The choice of whether to save captures as raw or JPEG should be driven by the camera capabilities, the needs of the image you are trying to produce, your skills in using the available tools, and the timeline (and possibly other requirements) of the client you are supplying the images too. Making a pronouncement of doing something one way in all cases and all situations ignores these criteria and choices, and is likely an unhelpful thing to do.
G
willie_901
Veteran
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I am not sure this makes sense.
Axel
singleshooter
We had such statements of "lost data" when music or video went digital. I do not agree with that.
We have to live with whatever a sensor-creator or softwaredeveloper means to be a "good" picture.
Nobody will see the "real" picture than the photographer in the moment he presses the button.
The rest is post-processing. Automatic or manual.
Wenge
Registered User
almost like playing vinyl on a 70's Marantz 2325 receiver vs today's Mp3 file, it just sounds 'better' with the vinyl sometimes, you can hear the dust and guitarists' fingerprints between the notes and on each string (without being 'cleaned up').
Dogman
Veteran
Digital photos are going to get processed. Just depends on software in camera or in computer. Or both. Same with film--you process it in developer to obtain the characteristics you desire. It's the nature of the processing--you compromise. You give up something to get something, lose to gain.
Quote Joni Mitchell: "Somethings lost but somethings gained in living every day."
Quote Joni Mitchell: "Somethings lost but somethings gained in living every day."
willie_901
Veteran
Well, it doesn't.
peterm1
Veteran
I did not know that one could even buy PSE still. I used to use it exclusively (it was cheap, easy to learn and powerful enough for almost any photographer). But one day when interstate on business for a long assignment my laptop crashed and I lost my PSE and as I was away from home I could not locate a copy offline (this was in the years before downloading software was quite so readily available as now). Looking for an alternative I tried a one month free trial of Corel Paintshop Pro just to keep me going till I got home again. By that time Corel PSP had grown into something very like Adobe PSE in terms of its capabilities (after a rocky start some years before when it was much under powered and featured) and it was even cheaper. It convinced me to go down that route until Lightroom came along a few years later which is even easier to use. But I still use Corel PSP as a plugin running under Lightroom when I need some of its specific capabilities that are not shared with Lightroom. This combo works well for me. My Lightroom is the last one which allowed you to buy it outright as I did not think paying monthly was worth it for me, despite the updates that this made available. Never the less, combining software in this manner (using one as the main editor and others, effectively as plugins running under it) I think provides the best of all worlds as you can move an image between such programs more or less seamlessly when editing.
BTW if you are seriously interested in panoramas and are not satisfied with the composite editor you have, I think it is still possible to find Microsoft Image Composite Editor (sometimes known as Microsoft I.C.E.). It is free (or was) and I find it is powerful enough for 99% of my panorama needs. It's pretty capable too in terms of its ability to align images in a manner which makes the composite image seamless and without obvious joins etc. Especially if working with landscapes. It's worth a try if you can find it and if you still cannot get PSE functioning for this purpose.
This link may work (I have not checked). Image Composite Editor (64-Bit) - Free download and software reviews - CNET Download
farlymac
PF McFarland
Thanks, Peter. One can still get PSE in stores and online (though Adobe buries it in the pages and menus), but at the moment I can't even use the 2022 version because my CPU is no longer supported. I used to only update my PSE on the even numbered versions (6, 8, and 10) but when they switched to the new numbering system (years) I just kind of waited until they made enough changes to make it worthwhile to upgrade. So for now I'm stuck with the 2019 model, and Affinity. My issue with the Affinity panorama stitching is it only does one thing, you have no control over how the final image will look except for exposure, color balance, and crop. I can't take two photos and make them into a side-by-side comparison image, or composite multiple images without apparently buying one of the three other programs Affinity sells. I'm just going to wait until I can replace my computer system sometime in the next few months. I'd like to get another desktop instead of this laptop, plus a faster Internet connection, then go full bore on the PS/LR experience. I'm tired of messing around with all these pretenders.
PF