R-D1: Do you shoot RAW or JPEG?

R-D1: Do you shoot RAW or JPEG?

  • I shoot exclusively JPEG.

    Votes: 15 10.3%

  • I shoot exclusively RAW.

    Votes: 66 45.5%

  • I shoot both, but tend to use the RAW file.

    Votes: 39 26.9%

  • I shoot both, but tend to use the JPEG file.

    Votes: 20 13.8%

  • I shoot JPEG for monochrome images.

    Votes: 6 4.1%

  • I shoot JPEGs for "less serious" photographs and RAW for special stuff.

    Votes: 4 2.8%

  • I choose depending on space left on my card(s).

    Votes: 3 2.1%

  • I shoot RAW when the exposure is tricky, and JPEG most other times.

    Votes: 4 2.8%
  • Total voters
    145
dreilly

dreilly

Chillin' in Geneva
Local time
8:54 AM
Joined
Dec 25, 2004
Messages
1,045
I'm curious who shoots JPEGS and who shoots RAW with the R-D1. I love the Out Of the Camera (OOC) JPEGs from the R-D1, though I've recently been experimenting with RAW files. What are your habits? It's multiple choice, so choose all those that apply.
 
Raw files will always be better, if only for the noise reduction software that comes with LR3+ (1600 is perfectly usable) and once you've learnt your way around an editing program you'll be lost having to revert back to jpg.

If it's just a throwaway snap then sure shoot jpg, but if you're doing anything seriously you probably shouldn't be shooting anything other than raw.
 
I shoot RAW and then batch process them using the Epson PhotoRAW. No matter what lens I use, the JPEGs that I get straight out of it have too much vignetting for my liking. The images from the batch are created at a reduced resolution (1504x1000). I use these for review and also keep them as an archive. I'll then use the Epson plug-in to bring the "keepers" into PhotoShop for some final tweaking. I might mention that I use the R-D1 exclusively for b/w images.
 
An interesting follow on poll would be workflow for raw, what processor people use, etc.

I use LR3 and do color noise reduction on JPEGs and RAW files there. I like the R-D1 vignetting but I can get rid of it with JPEGs as well in LR3.
 
I shoot raw + jpeg all the time. I have been using the raw files more frequently in the last year or so, as I've become more comfortable with and more knowledgeable of Adobe Camera Raw. Most, but not all, of my prints are from raw files. I tended to use jpegs for quicker processing when I wanted to post quickly to flickr and pbase.

Even if I were to use jpegs more frequently, I would still shoot raw + jpeg. There are some files which need the ability to get the extra detail in the highlights sometimes lost in jpegs. Also, raw converters have been improving, so it's sometimes possible to improve the results from an older file.

At this point, even if I were to abandon jpeg processing, I like the raw + jpeg combination, because I use Photo Mechanic to rename, edit and sometimes sort, and it works quicker and with bigger previews using the jpeg.
 
only raw, after shooting raw for the first time and understanding what i could do with it, i never again shot jpegs.
 
jpg: RD-1 and my sportsshooting with Canon dSLRs
RAW/DNG: everything else

when i had one, i thought the RD-1's jpgs were really nice right from the box.

i'm 100% lightroom, btw
 
JPEG's only for me. When I first got the camera I shot RAW+JPEG's to see if there was any discernible difference in quality between the two. There wasn't, and still isn't, to my eye. The camera almost always gets the exposure and white balance right first time, so I have no need to change these things later in post-production. It also takes Photoshop an age to open RAW files from the R-D1 and since I usually only spend a minute or two in post-production on each photo JPEG's are a lot faster and easier to work with. Add the fact that the R-D1 can only take cards up to 2GB, and that I only take the card out of the camera and load the photos onto my computer once or twice a month and JPEG's make much more sense for me. I'm planning on getting a used X100 soon, and will almost certainly shoot only JPEG's with it too.
 
You should try a good raw converter like Capture One. There is a world of difference noise wise and colors are superb IMHO.
 
Thanks for the alternative perspective Dave. That's where I am at this point, though I am still fiddling with RAW to see if it grows on me. I've tried a few files through Lightroom 3 and I haven't seen much difference between the processed raw and the JPEG. But these images haven't been critical ones where I'm really trying to save an exposure, etc. I do wish the top dial had a selection for JPEG, RAW+JPEG and RAW instead of the JPEG high/JPEG normal/Raw setting there now.
 
the exposure meter is off on both my rd1 bodies and was off in the one i traded away earlier this year. i thinnk they are all off a bit from what i have read.
jpeg is nowhere near as good as a raw file with 3 minutes work done on it.
 
back alley said:
the exposure meter is off on both my rd1 bodies and was off in the one i traded away earlier this year. i thinnk they are all off a bit from what i have read....
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think that's right. On auto mine seems to expose ~ -2/3 of a stop. It's easier to pull something out of the shadows than create it from shot highlights.
 
I'm using both. Jpegs are just fine for quick posting in my flickr but if I should need some post processing then I prefer having a raw file.
I'm a b&w shooter anyway and having the raw file for post proessing is always and advantage IMHO.
Converters: LR3 (quick), silver efex pro2 for serious tuning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom