raw or jpeg?

[back alley]

playing around today i discovered that from the m that raw is much better than the jpeg results...i was too used the excellent jpegs from the fuji and frankly spoiled by them and the much easier post processing routine.
with the eos m i think i need to shoot and process raw to get the best results...

 

[Jamie Pillers]

In the beginning I used RAW all the time, and based on much web chatter, assumed that using jpeg was for 'beginners' only. But today, I work at trying to wrestle jpegs to conform to my liking. To me, using jpeg is like using film. You are very much constrained by the film's characteristics, with not much wiggle room. I like how using jpeg takes me back to that kind of constraint. Using jpeg, I have to think carefully about the shooting conditions and how the particular camera responds to them. Then adjust the jpeg settings accordingly. Today I feel like when I set the camera to RAW, I'm just being too lazy to consider what settings are appropriate for the moment. And… yes I understand all the technical stuff about how RAW files give one more room for adjustments later. But I've come to a point where I couldn't care less about that. I love jpeg photography… when I get it right, that is. 😛

 

[ruby.monkey]

Once upon a time I shot jpeg only, since my computer was old and slow and the apps I used made raw handling tiresome (and didn't support one of my cameras). Now that I have Lightroom and Photoshop on a comfortably powerful MacBook, I shoot raw only.

Once I get my scanner hooked up to the MacBook I'll start doing similar for all my scans.

 

[peterm1]

Pretty much always shoot RAW with my DSLR cameras unless I am specifically just shooting small resolution shots for the internet and do not need the quality or am using one of my small cameras and am just after a fun snap. Being designed more for the casual shooter some of those cameras produce some darned nice in camera images. Even then, though if the lighting is difficult I pretty much know that unless I shoot RAW I may have trouble with the image (e.g. recovering blown highlights) if I shoot jpg. Having said this my niece is a photographer as is her partner and they both say they usually shoot jpg. Then again I suppose in studio work its easier to control variables like lighting so there is less to lose from not using RAW.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

The quality difference is so extreme, that I can't understand why anyone would shoot JPEG. It isn't just the ability to change white balance. My Canon 5DmkII RAW files have better resolution, less noise, more accurate color, and better tonality than JPEGs from the camera. This has been true of the other digital SLRs I have used, namely the old Nikon D70 and the Kodak DCS 14n.

 

[Keith]

Jpegs are fine if they are correctly exposed. I can lift exposure on a raw file from my 240 by a couple of stops and lose very little quality ... a jpeg will turn to mush, particularly in the shadows!

This discussion seems to crop up fairly regularly around here and it seems really pointless. If you work constantly with raw files their strengths become obvious very quickly and you don't really contemplate using jpeg.

Each to their own though.

 

[Michael Markey]

No hard and fast rule ... it depends on the camera.
The jpegs out of my Sigma Merrills aren`t really that good so I shoot Raw.
They weren`t very good out of my Canon either but from the Richo GRV they`re fine .

 

[jarski]

Why use jpeg at all when there's raw?

for socialist media ( 😉 )

 

[Michael Markey]

Why use jpeg at all when there's raw?

Quicker Ned and good enough for the web.
Depends what you are doing with them.
I shoot alot of social stuff for friends ...they`re happy .
I doubt whether most of them have even heard of RAW or indeed jpeg come to that . 🙂

 

[alistair.o]

As Michael said: "...Quicker Ned and good enough for the web"

I always set the menu to Raw and fine Large jpegs. Storage these days is so cheap and with the jpegs I can see instantly which are for the skip.

 

[Keith]

For me it comes down to disaster recovery when I get it wrong ... ie chronic under exposure.

 

[Michael Markey]

Coincidentally David Alan Harvey has just posted on FB in effect saying that the jpegs out of the MM are good enough for exhibition prints.

Some folk will still like to adjust of course but its worth bearing in mind that its not a straightforward case of RAW good jepeg bad ...at least not these days.

Keith ...yes I got it wrong with some shots yesterday and the RAW enabled me to recover ...somewhat.

 

[Keith]

Coincidentally David Alan Harvey has just posted on FB in effect saying that the jpegs out of the MM are good enough for exhibition prints.

Some folk will still like to adjust of course but its worth bearing in mind that its not a straightforward case of RAW good jepeg bad ...at least not these days.

Keith ...yes I got it wrong with some shots yesterday and the RAW enabled me to recover ...somewhat.

Was that with a Merrill file Michael?

 

[Michael Markey]

Was that with a Merrill file Michael?

Yes (DP3M) ... for some reason I`d left it on a high iso ...duh 😱

Last min decision to take it ...I was using the M3 ,135 Elmarit but that wasn`t working out.

 

[Keith]

Yes (DP3M) ... for some reason I`d left it on a high iso ...duh 😱

Last min decision to take it ...I was using the M3 ,135 Elmarit but that wasn`t working out.

Ah ... and the Merrill files don't actually have a heap of leeway IMO. I've underexposed images by three stops with the D700 and been able to get a satisfactory result in post.

 

[Michael Markey]

Ah ... and the Merrill files don't actually have a heap of leeway IMO. I've underexposed images by three stops with the D700 and been able to get a satisfactory result in post.

That`s right and I was being generous when I said recovery too 😀
I always shoot Raw with them and then convert to Tiffs ...finally jpeg.

 

[daveleo]

....... Using jpeg, I have to think carefully about the shooting conditions and how the particular camera responds to them. Then adjust the jpeg settings accordingly. Today I feel like when I set the camera to RAW, I'm just being too lazy to consider what settings are appropriate for the moment. ...... 😛

I am with Jamie on this. I set my Fuji's to RAW when I am being lazy and saying "I'll fix it when I get home".

That is a respectable way to shoot, however it's also a lazy way to shoot.

EDIT: "jpg vs. raw" is somewhat analogous to "pre-processing vs. post-processing"

 

[Bike Tourist]

jpeg is all 95% of us need in 95% of situations. There are some (very) special circumstances where raw (why capitalize it?) can be used to advantage. I make second and third iterations of jpegs all the time and they are accepted by picky stock agency reviewers.

If people want to mess around and have fun with raw manipulations that's fine with me. Just don't insist it's the only way to go.

 

[Mcary]

I shoot raw for some of the same reason that other's have already mentioned in this thread. Also if I'm just taking quick snaps or something that I don't want to do a lot post processing selecting "Auto" under the "Tone" menu in LR gives pretty good results. Additional utilizing the "Sync" setting options reduces processing time when working with images shot under the same conditions.

I've noticed is some people see all the different control/options in programs like LR and think that all of them have to be used to process each and every image which of course isn't the case as you can use a few or as many as you need or want. For some images I use all for other I just use WB, Lens correction, sharping and the White and Black point and contrast sliders (tone Menu).

 

[Robin P]

jpg is like going back to using slide film where you had to get it right in camera, raw is like having the fun of processing and printing from a neg when you get home.