TXForester
Well-known
Depends on your purpose. For records keeping or some other documentation, jpeg may be fine. If the photo isn't very important, then the quality of the image may not matter. For serious work, use raw.
raw or jpeg?
- Thread starter back alley
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 67
- Views 13K
lukitas
second hand noob
I shoot black and white by default. RAW (or RAF, as is the case with me) is the bees knees. I can do colour filtering in post. I can play with highlights and shadows, curves and clarity. Don't mind the chore, it's part of the editing process. I find it about as much fun as working a darkroom.
About JPEGs, rarely do they come out to exactly where I would like them to be. Maybe that is because I am shooting black and white, but I like to have my blues darker than the reds, and the greens slightly lighter. A straight JPEG never gives the drama I want from a sky, except when the scene is grossly underexposed.
Raw is the puppet, as they say in flanders.
cheers
About JPEGs, rarely do they come out to exactly where I would like them to be. Maybe that is because I am shooting black and white, but I like to have my blues darker than the reds, and the greens slightly lighter. A straight JPEG never gives the drama I want from a sky, except when the scene is grossly underexposed.
Raw is the puppet, as they say in flanders.
cheers
narsuitus
Well-known
I primarily shoot jpeg images for the following reasons:
1. I use a number of different digital cameras and find it much easier to standardize on jpeg files rather than contending with a variety of different RAW image files.
2. Many of my customers want jpeg files; not RAW file.
3. Some of my post-processing software programs cannot use some of my RAW files.
4. Some of my post-processing software programs do not offer a batch feature and I would spend too much time post-processing images one-by-one.
5. I come from a color transparency background where it was in my best interest to get the image correct in the camera rather than relying on post-processing to correct mistakes.
6. I do not have the time or desire to post-process RAW images.
1. I use a number of different digital cameras and find it much easier to standardize on jpeg files rather than contending with a variety of different RAW image files.
2. Many of my customers want jpeg files; not RAW file.
3. Some of my post-processing software programs cannot use some of my RAW files.
4. Some of my post-processing software programs do not offer a batch feature and I would spend too much time post-processing images one-by-one.
5. I come from a color transparency background where it was in my best interest to get the image correct in the camera rather than relying on post-processing to correct mistakes.
6. I do not have the time or desire to post-process RAW images.
Corran
Well-known
Of course, which is why you edit and finalize RAW files to jpegs for delivery.
If you have clients and you are shooting straight to JPEG, you may be doing them a disservice. There are some huge benefits to RAW editing that will give higher image quality in almost all cases - if at least a little bit.
JPEGs are like cheap film scans from the corner drugstore while edited RAWs are like a pro lab or doing the prints yourself, with care.
Even if you have a background in shooting transparency, are you never making a mistake or encountering a situation where you need to get the shot in sub-optimal conditions? With most modern cameras you can pull a ton of detail out of the shadows, for instance, or fix white balance in changing light.
Again, you are doing a disservice to your clients. Unless what you mean is shots for friends/fun. But you specifically said "customers" so I'm assuming you are getting paid. At which point I say to the above that you are delivering a half-finished product. I think you would be mad at a contractor who built you a patio but didn't put the final stain on the wood? Or pick your own metaphor.
narsuitus
Well-known
When I shot a lot of large format sheet film at $1 to $5 per shot, I tried very hard to not make mistakes.
When shooting digital in sub-optimal conditions, bracketing exposure, bracketing focus, and bracketing white balance helps to assure the capture of at least one decent image that will need little post-processing.
narsuitus
Well-known
When I need to produce a high-quality finished product, I shoot medium or large format film rather than small format digital.
Corran
Well-known
I appreciate where you are coming from (I shoot LF film as well) and I even understand that bracketing can help. But that still doesn't excuse not shooting RAWs for commercial work.
Feel free to do what you want, but I would guess that 99.5% of professional commercial photographers (not weekend soccer moms mind you) are shooting/processing RAWs. It's just what you do to get the best product and have the most flexibility.
I shoot a lot of low-light work - events and such. I also have shot a lot of musicals and concerts where flash is not allowed, the action is fast-paced, and I usually don't have the ability to get a feel for the show beforehand. Shooting straight to jpeg and getting good images would be basically impossible in this situation. You don't have time to bracket white balance when you've got action on stage going on. Also, underexposing and pulling up shadows works amazingly well when I need reach and I'm shooting my 300mm f/2.8, but still don't have the light to shoot at a proper shutter speed.
Feel free to do what you want, but I would guess that 99.5% of professional commercial photographers (not weekend soccer moms mind you) are shooting/processing RAWs. It's just what you do to get the best product and have the most flexibility.
I shoot a lot of low-light work - events and such. I also have shot a lot of musicals and concerts where flash is not allowed, the action is fast-paced, and I usually don't have the ability to get a feel for the show beforehand. Shooting straight to jpeg and getting good images would be basically impossible in this situation. You don't have time to bracket white balance when you've got action on stage going on. Also, underexposing and pulling up shadows works amazingly well when I need reach and I'm shooting my 300mm f/2.8, but still don't have the light to shoot at a proper shutter speed.
narsuitus
Well-known
I am a semi-retired professional photographer, which may be close to a weekend soccer mom, and wish the best to those who shoot/process RAW. RAW just does not fit into my current life style and digital workflow.
I too shoot no-flash fast-action low-light events such as weddings, theatre, and stage performances. Using constant f/2.8 aperture Nikon zoom lenses that cover a 14mm to 200mm focal length range on an SLR body plus a couple of fast (f/1.4 and f/1.2) prime lenses on a Fuji X-Pro1 mirrorless body allow me to capture the images I need without having to expose for the highlights and post-process for the shadows.
Don't get me wrong. I still have to use post-processing editing software. I just do not have to use it as much or as often when I shoot jpeg and that meshes with my current lifestyle.
