RAW Vs JPG

[Robbo7D]

Probably a dumb question & I think I "may" be able to answer it myself, but here goes:

If i shoot in raw, does that allow "more" to be done to the photo with PP? ie: I use Lightroom3, by shooting in raw are there more options in editing for me to use than by shooting in jpg? If so, what extra options will I see?

BTW, I use a Canon7D

[ElectricImages]

Probably a dumb question & I think I "may" be able to answer it myself, but here goes:

If i shoot in raw, does that allow "more" to be done to the photo with PP? ie: I use Lightroom3, by shooting in raw are there more options in editing for me to use than by shooting in jpg? If so, what extra options will I see?

BTW, I use a Canon7D
There are no dumb questions, only dumb silences. :)

RAW gives you a LOT more control in PP. You can adjust exposure, white balance, and... well, a whole lot of other properties from a RAW file; you do not get the same flexibility from JPG.

In addition to giving you a lot more control of your standard processing, shooting a RAW file also allows you to create HDR files from a single image, if that floats your boat. :)

Shoot RAW! Always! (unless your card is critically low on memory, and you just have to get a few more shots in!)

[Robbo7D]

Thx for that. Actually, I think I can shoot both raw & jpg simultaneously with the 7D. Then I can see for myself the differences in pp between raw & jpg. Sometimes just asking a dumb question you answer it yourself....does that make you dumb?:o

[ElectricImages]

Yeah, it's good to figure things out for yourself too, but it doesn't hurt at all to ask either. Both have their place! :)

You can definitely shoot RAW+jpg at the same time, so if memory isn't a problem, you can certainly do that if you wish. I think most serious photographers go down the RAW route since they aren't likely to be happy with the JPG files straight out of the camera, without any processing. :)

Good luck with the shooting.

[Adrian Fischer]

It may depend on what your shooting. Sports for instance may require lots of rapid fire shots. I shoot kitesurfing and in an afternoon I might shoot well over a thousand images not all of which will be keepers. Its a numbers game. You need to shoot lots to get a few that are spot on. Shooting in raw can be problematic if your shooting lots of bursts as your transfer buffer may fill up and then you have a problem. When Im in the studio though, I most definitely shoot raw for the PP capability. Horses for courses.

[Damo77]

Hi Robbo, I've discussed Raw and its workflow a bit here (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=8155262&l=f92f1bc26b&id=580143382).

[Sutto]

+1 for not always shooting in RAW (following on from Adrian).

When I first started shooting everyone I spoke to said shoot RAW, so I did and I didn't mind the PP. Then I started shooting the track stuff and found it a pain going through near a 1000 shots. The next time I went down to the track I pulled up a couple of the pro photographers there and asked what they shot in..... all of them said jpeg. They didn't have the time to go through a couple of 1000 shoots of a weekend and the delay in rapid shots wasn't worth the shooting in RAW.

So I guess it depends on what you're shooting and what light is available.

[fess67]

I think the RAW v JPG is always going to be one of those topics that ends up with a 'it depends' answer.

As stated already, RAW allows for more control at the PP stage but often shooting JPG allows you to process faster and that is worth it. If you need to produce images quickly (party pics for Facebook that you want to post that night etc etc, then JPG wins hands down). Want more control over manipulations without losing quality, go RAW.

The situation and your needs will dictate your preference. Truth is, both are fine so use each as you require.

[arthurking83]

....... all of them said jpeg. They didn't have the time to go through a couple of 1000 shoots of a weekend and the delay in rapid shots wasn't worth the shooting in RAW.

...

Everyone has their reasons and methods, but this argument simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Apart from the camera's ability to shoot jpg frames faster and for a much longer duration(buffer size), I still see absolutely no reason for shooting jpg.

If you find yourself in a situation where you need to shoot a series of 100 frames at the camera's max FPS rate, then jpg ultimately makes sense.
If you are always shooting within the camera's capabilities then raw always makes much more sense, as a form of insurance against getting the shot of a lifetime and it being in a high quality format.
And the genre of photography is totally independent of the file format used in camera ... the performance requirement would be the sole basis of decision to use jpg or raw.

FWIW, this argument that it's quicker to 'process' jpgs compoared to raw files simply doesn't cut it.
It is a trivial and mindless matter to extract high quality jpg images from the raw file with some simple and effective software(IJFR or ExifTool) are two that I've used and as simple as a single click of a tab. 1000 raw files would take approximately 5-10mins to extract the jpg file, although I've never tried that many, I think my max count was in the 200-300 range in a particular folder and it took about a minute or so.. From there, you then get a jpg file to quickly process and Bob's 'ya Uncle.
In this scenario you get the quick jpg(is 5-10mins really an inconvenience ?) files you require AND you get the higher quality better printing raw files for any further use.

I suppose I've never found myself in a situation where I've shot 100 frames in succession at 6fps, so I simply can't see any reason to shoot in jpg mode(which I have tried, and regretted)... max frame rate is not affected(as I understand it in most DSLRs) so it's only the buffer that becomes the bottleneck when you shoot in raw.

So, with respect to the trackside pro's situation here or the facebookworm over there requiring 1000 uploadable images in 30mins time, they would have a lappie next to themselves with the ability to download the raw files on the memory card.
One of the software installed on that lappie would be IJFR(Instant Jpg From Raw). It's not even really a program in the normal sense, it's added to the rightclick context menu where(from memory) all you need to do is rightclick the image(s) and use the IJFR option. The raw file is instantly transformed into a jpg file.
Mind you there are a few things to note with this method. The jpg is not a conversion, but an extraction. In the raw file there are two jpg files, one small 160pixel thumbnail file and a full res file that is rendered as the camera enhancements have been set in the camera!
The extracted jpg is always the hi res version.

quick, easy .... and in a sense ... the best of both worlds :th3:

[404shots]

If shooting for myself or a client - I shoot in RAW - I didnt see it mentioned, but when editing a RAW photo, it is non desctrucive, and you if you apply something you dont like, you can always go back and change it. You change the properties of the photo - not the photo itself.

I shoot in jpg if covering an event to sell back to participants - goint through 4000 photos from a weekend is too big a job!

I find lightroom makes things alot easier also.

[Sutto]

Cheers Arthur, taken your points onboard and will look into IJFR.

[StevieL]

It does depend on what you shoot and how much time you have to alter your photos afterwards.

I will always shoot in RAW as I am a landscape photographer and we aim to get a few nice shots per year.

The problem with shooting JPG for me is that if I have not nailed the white balance of the photo then in JPG it is much harder to get it perfect.

With RAW you can adjust your Kelvin or temperature of the shot quite easily and without sacrificing quality.

RAW photos are better quality. Something that I need being a landscape photographer and printing my panoramic's to 1.5m or 2m wide.

JPG is easy to share.

JPGs are destructible.

I would imagine if I had to PP 1000 shots from a shoot - even with opening multiple RAW files at once and synchronising them it would be quite an effort. But if you are after the optimum quality and result - shoot RAW.


Steve