Poll: Do you shoot RAW or JPEG?

[michaelb]

And if you shoot RAW, which conversion software do you use?

I'm still shooting JPEG, wondering if the potential advatages of RAW are worth the effort.

[Rhys]

And if you shoot RAW, which conversion software do you use?

I'm still shooting JPEG, wondering if the potential advatages of RAW are worth the effort.

I was skeptical of RAW. What convinced me was that with a photo of a barn I could rescue the sky, lightening the barn and darkening the sky. With the 12-bits of RAW I could do this. With the 8-bits of JPEG I simply could not have done it and would have ended up with an underexposed barn or an overexposed sky or something that looked very chunky with blocks of cartoon-like colour. I'm sold on RAW. It's worth it if you can afford the extra memory cards and storage devices/media.

[Sungrazer]

I shoot JPEG, at least for now. I don't have Photoshop or any post processing knowledge, and I'm not excited about putting in that much work. We'll see. If I come across something I think is a great shot, I'll probably shoot RAW+JPEG in case I don't get the exposure right the first time.

[Rhys]

I shoot JPEG, at least for now. I don't have Photoshop or any post processing knowledge, and I'm not excited about putting in that much work. We'll see. If I come across something I think is a great shot, I'll probably shoot RAW+JPEG in case I don't get the exposure right the first time.

DPP is pretty decent. I don't believe in much photo editing either. I play with curves and covert to JPEG.

[Riley]

i only shoot jpegs, its a very commercial corner im in and you cant justify the time for raw with it per $

the only possibility for raw is the money shot, the street view of the house

and horror of horrors, althought i have CS8 i use paint shop pro 9 because i can automate virtually anything that i need to do, sans change sky colours. all the interior frames are processed that way as it evens the lighting. load 20 images and walk away. return later to straighten the verticals by hand

Riley

[kjosker]

I shoot jpegs only. I was dragged kicking and screaming into the digital age from film, and I just couldn't see sitting at a computer after a day's shooting.

After awhile, someone explained why I should post process, explaining pixels and all that. I never cared for Photoshop, and being a Mac person, when Apple came out with iPhoto, I began postprocessing. iPhoto is great for sharpening, color balancing, contrast manipulation, and most of all, STRAIGHTENING!

But I still shoot Jpegs. Probably because it meets my not too critical needs.

[RichNY]

After awhile, someone explained why I should post process, explaining pixels and all that. I never cared for Photoshop, and being a Mac person, when Apple came out with iPhoto, I began postprocessing. iPhoto is great for sharpening, color balancing, contrast manipulation, and most of all, STRAIGHTENING!


Aperature is a big upgrade from iPhoto, handles raw, and can be had for as little as $149.

[ReF]

well this kinda poll has certainly been done before. i shoot RAW only. i don't see them here, but they appeared in other threads >>> the comments about having to spend hours in front of the computer because one shoot RAW don't make sense to me. you can easily apply a set of development conditions to all photos at least with the canon software and do a batch process, then walk away and let the software do it's thing. i don't see how that would be any different than having parameters applied to all photos in-camera to jpegs, except that there is additional flexibility for images that need it. i use DPP and RIT (the one in zoombrowser)

[The Mangler]

I always shoot RAW, process it with DPP.

Sometimes (if I remember) I'll switch it to a small JPEG for a picture that I'm going to use for a custom white balance. I just hate wasting memory on a picture of a sheet of paper, or whatever else I'm using for the white balance.

[cwphoto]

I'm with Stupid ^.:D

[Sungrazer]

Question 1b for me would be how many of you RAW shooters keep your original files? I know hard disk space is relatively cheap, but some people might need to shoot in JPEG just to keep file sizes down.

you can easily apply a set of development conditions to all photos at least with the canon software and do a batch process, then walk away and let the software do it's thing.

(for anyone) Do you find that all your photos from a shoot need the same post processing? And somewhat related, how do the results of something like Auto Levels compare to tweaking the settings manually?

[cwphoto]

I keep 'em all Grazer - all 500GB of them!:(

[Bluedog]

100% in RAW and in the past strictly used RawShooter Premium but have most recently made the switch the Adobe Lightroom beta 4. Which will be a Free upgrade for us RSP owners upon the final release in 2007.

[24Peter]

Large and fine... ;)

[forno]

At the moment I only have a 1GB card so I vary between RAW and jpeg depending on how many shots I think I will be taking.

I also want to check out the highlight/shadow editing in DPP as I want to go RAW

[ReF]

Question 1b for me would be how many of you RAW shooters keep your original files? I know hard disk space is relatively cheap, but some people might need to shoot in JPEG just to keep file sizes down.



(for anyone) Do you find that all your photos from a shoot need the same post processing? And somewhat related, how do the results of something like Auto Levels compare to tweaking the settings manually?


well if the question is based off my quote then the part that was left out was very important for what i was trying to say:

i don't see how that would be any different than having parameters applied to all photos in-camera to jpegs, except that there is additional flexibility for images that need it.

the point was just to counter the statements sometimes made about having to spend much more time on RAW. if a person wanted all the same parameters applied to all images as when shooting JPEG it can easily be done in RAW as well.

to answer your question, i never process all the images from a shoot. i just check for "keepers," convert the best ones into TIFF, and put a copy of it into a collective folder. if there are several good shots but are too similar in appearance then i'll just pick my favorite of the bunch, so i usually don't have large volumes to convert/process. there are times when all the "keepers" in a shoot need the same adjustments or none needed any tweaking so yeah, all images in a shoot having the same parameters does happen. auto levels can get real weird with the colors and have other unwanted effects but you could always try it first and go to manual adjustment if it doesn't work out.

i keep all images except the real duds and have about the same amount of gigs in photos as CW. sometimes i don't have time to process all the ones i wantd to and forget, or go back and see stuff in a new light so i'm not into tossing stuff to save space. it's only like $100 for about 300gb, which holds A LOT of images so the cost of storage space isn't a big deal to IMO.

[D Thompson]

I only shoot RAW and yes, like cwphoto, I keep them all. I've used Canon's DPP alot, but lately I use Adobe Camera Raw to bring into CS2.

[noyjimi]

I shoot RAW, and part of the reason is that I will expose to the right on purpose depending on the situation. I use ACR for processing.

[The Mangler]

Question 1b for me would be how many of you RAW shooters keep your original files? I know hard disk space is relatively cheap, but some people might need to shoot in JPEG just to keep file sizes down.
I keep all of the RAWs, but I only process the ones I like. Once the "My Pictures" folder becomes sufficiently massive I burn a few DVDs. After that I delete them from my computer (except for the ones I want easy access to) and start the process over.

I've been labeling the DVDs with the first & last file numbers and the date of the first & last picture. I thought about re-arranging them by subject catagory, but that's going to be a lot of work... :(

[Sungrazer]

I've been labeling the DVDs with the first & last file numbers and the date of the first & last picture. I thought about re-arranging them by subject catagory, but that's going to be a lot of work... :(

I've been pretty diligent about organizing my photos by subject from the start. Of course I don't have near as many as it sounds like you do. I also rename each file according to the photo's subject - no "IMG_XXXX" files here. I do all this but am too lazy to unload the dryer. :D

[Riley]

raw file sizes are larger, that will effect the speed
yes you can get pc's/macs with more grunt
but it still makes jpeg processing faster

that said, i well understand the position where the best quality is required, and i recognise the higher quality that can be achieved
its just that we dont need the best all that often

but im thinking about using raw for some of the street shots (called the money shot) and the occasional cover we do

Riley

[BonjiB]

100% raw 100% of the time with the small jpeg option so i can see which file is which easily within windows explorer thumbnail view. I carry with me 4 1 gig cards to a shoot and have never needed more than that.... i'm under the philosophy that more pictures doesn't equal better pictures. I'd rather know what i want to shoot... do it right the first time rather than take a buncha pictures and sift through a buncha crappy ones to catch the winning shots. I can tell right after i've pushed the button whether the shot will be a keeper or not and if it's not i delete it right away. That way I just burn each shoot to a dvd after i'm done PP and printing it and archive it in the bigass cd wallet. Piece of cake.

[LoveOfSelene]

100% Raw. I used to shoot all jpegs until I tried out Raw and the possibilities. I will never go back (unless I have to).

Amen to BonjiB's philosophy. :)

I don't know if it's me or not. But some reason when most people start out in photography they shoot like a million pictures at a time, then as they gain expeirence they shoot not so many shots and mostly shoot keepers. I know I enjoyed the many pictures as a beginner, but after a while you get tired of sorting and looking through them.

Just a couple of worthless cents,
Binh

[aparmley]

There was no pole??

100% all NATURAWL - "Simply, unfooled around with."

I agree with ReF's many good points.

My RAW story:

I used to shoot JPEG only - I didn't want to spend more time at the computer. But, I also didn't want to be one of those anti-RAW people who never tried RAW. so I took a few gig worth of RAW images and fooled around with RAW and it took forever to edit my images. Confirmed! - RAW takes forever! Jpegs are so much faster. . . So I continued shooting JPEG. . . Then after doing a lot more reading I decided that maybe I should give RAW ago again. Why? You thought I was a JPEGer for life? The reason why I decided to give RAW another go was because I didn't really know anything about RAW conversion or the RAW converter I was using. . . When I first tried RAW I didn't really understand any of it - which pretty much set up the "self-fulfilling prophecy" I experienced before. So I bought a book on RAW. read up on RAW anywhere I could. . . After working with RAW for a week or so and learning my conversion application I found out something very interesting - I was spending less time editing my RAW images than I'd spend editing my jpegs. Amazingly enough and ironically enough - importing/sorting/ranking/organizing/converting/editing a card full of RAW images was so much faster than importing/sorting/organizing/editing a card full of JPEGs. All the little extra layers and tips and tricks to improve jpegs were eliminated because I am able to make simple adjustments to my RAW files that achieve the same result - but faster.

Anyway - Point of the story is this - for me, once I got over myself and learned RAW in and out - it was faster for me to work with RAW images than the old way of working with JPEGS. I also really like how the shooting RAW really makes the whole "Digital Darkroom" process complete. With RAW images I have my digital negative - I use apps to develope that into a JPEG for web/print - But I still have my RAW image that I can make other conversions with when ever I feel like it. It gives me that complete feeling that I supposed came with film - have the negatives in a save place and cataloged ready for more developing if need be.

RAW isn't for everyone. But RAW makes so much more sense to me and its so much nicer to work with than an edited jpeg.

[ReF]

There was no pole??

100% all NATURAWL - "Simply, unfooled around with."

I agree with ReF's many good points.

My RAW story:

I used to shoot JPEG only - I didn't want to spend more time at the computer. But, I also didn't want to be one of those anti-RAW people who never tried RAW. so I took a few gig worth of RAW images and fooled around with RAW and it took forever to edit my images. Confirmed! - RAW takes forever! Jpegs are so much faster. . . So I continued shooting JPEG. . . Then after doing a lot more reading I decided that maybe I should give RAW ago again. Why? You thought I was a JPEGer for life? The reason why I decided to give RAW another go was because I didn't really know anything about RAW conversion or the RAW converter I was using. . . When I first tried RAW I didn't really understand any of it - which pretty much set up the "self-fulfilling prophecy" I experienced before. So I bought a book on RAW. read up on RAW anywhere I could. . . After working with RAW for a week or so and learning my conversion application I found out something very interesting - I was spending less time editing my RAW images than I'd spend editing my jpegs. Amazingly enough and ironically enough - importing/sorting/ranking/organizing/converting/editing a card full of RAW images was so much faster than importing/sorting/organizing/editing a card full of JPEGs. All the little extra layers and tips and tricks to improve jpegs were eliminated because I am able to make simple adjustments to my RAW files that achieve the same result - but faster.

Anyway - Point of the story is this - for me, once I got over myself and learned RAW in and out - it was faster for me to work with RAW images than the old way of working with JPEGS. I also really like how the shooting RAW really makes the whole "Digital Darkroom" process complete. With RAW images I have my digital negative - I use apps to develope that into a JPEG for web/print - But I still have my RAW image that I can make other conversions with when ever I feel like it. It gives me that complete feeling that I supposed came with film - have the negatives in a save place and cataloged ready for more developing if need be.

RAW isn't for everyone. But RAW makes so much more sense to me and its so much nicer to work with than an edited jpeg.


i gotta agree there. if an image needs any kind of tweaking i find it's actually a lot easier and faster in RAW. if i increase the EV in RAW the contrast and colors seem to be adjusted for at the same time. if i do in PS then i usually have to tack on a contrast or curves, and saturation layer if i'm brightening things up, and desaturate if i'm darkening. if AWB messed up and none of the WB presets look right, adjusting WB is so much easier in RAW. if one converter isn't working out for one of those "problem images" then i've got other choices.

[BonjiB]

I just use adobe camera right in photoshop, let it do it's auto thing and go "hmm, do i like that?" Of course the answer is usually "no" and i do some tweaking with the actual image processing then i open it up and do what i'm going to do... usually doesn't require much more than a little sharpening and a print or a save. The thing i USED to love best about raw and why i would use it is because i didn't know how to properly set white balance in my camera but ever since i learned how to do the custom white balance thing i rarely have to adjust color temp anymore. I mainly use raw for adjust exposure to the perfect level (good balance of shadows to highlights.) The camera's meter rarely gets it 100% spot on which in the final image can make the difference between a really awesome photo and an ok one.

[Vich]

100% in RAW and in the past strictly used RawShooter Premium but have most recently made the switch the Adobe Lightroom beta 4. Which will be a Free upgrade for us RSP owners upon the final release in 2007.

Hey, thanks for the good news!

To OP: Raw, because it's so much easier to PP.

Can think of several RAW advantages.
- Original, by definition, cannot be altered. Hey; if witness a bank heist and there's a $200,000 reward for "information leading to conviction" ... Still waiting!
- Much faster PP (due to RSP options).
- More PP options.
- Color Balancing isn't such a guesswork, provided I can correctly balance 1 photo from the batch.
- If I get that 1 photo-of-a-lifetime, I know I didn't lower my potential due to resolution.
- I can convert to 16 bit TIFF for better processing and less loss if I get a real keeper. (fits with "More PP options")
- Many in-camera settings become irrelevant. Example; if I over-saturate for 2 years then realize they look junky, all those precious shots are ruined. With RAW, I can say "back She goes".

Negatives:
- More disk space.
- RSP doesn't convert JPGs as well as Canon (I don't think)
- Less rapid-fire photos.
- Far less photos per 2GB memory card.
- Immediate printing not available.
- Archive life of "Original" likely to have a shorter lifespan, but then, I can easily convert every session to max-sized JPG and store that.

Actually; I'm sick of processing 600 photos for 1 outing, so I don't care that only 200 fit on one card. If I had to review 1000 photos, I'd probably only glance at the thumbnails on most. I think I like having the size limitation. If I were on a 1 week vacation without my laptop to download to, I would use JPG. Otherwise; it's RAW only.

I keep all originals unless it's for some useless test, then I trash the whole thing after selecting the 1 or 2 I needed. OK, seriously OOF or otherwise completly useless shots get deleted too. But if I have 30 shots of essentially the same thing, yes, I keep them all.