You should put up an option for both. Most DSLR's allow for the storage of a RAW and JPEG image from the shot. This allows me ultimate editability along with the ability to just throw up quick JPEG's. Add in a big memory card and the ipod camera exchange thingy and I have over 70 gigs of storage. Plenty for a long trip.
If I had to pick, you should always shot in RAW. I am guessing the fun new digi you just got shipped to you has a little guide on the editing of RAW images.
Depends on the intended use of the image. If the intended finished product is an 8x10 print then Jpeg is just fine. Raw takes up a lot of space and if you generate a high volume of work it adds up quickly. If it is a commercial job, Fine art, magazine or calander subscription then you should definatly shoot raw.. JMOP
It depends on what you want, JPEG uses less memory and is a format that does not require post processing. So is more convenient. However in order to reduce the size of the file, JPEG compresses the file and discards unwanted info, therefore there is some loss of quality.
RAW files are very large and will have to be processed from RAW to TIFF or JPEG which takes time. However RAW gives you all the info the camera originally recorded which gives you better quality images and more flexibility when it comes to post processing.
If you never intend to print large images, storage is an issue, or you don’t spend any time processing your pictures, then JPEG is fine. On the other hand if storage is not an issue and quality is then RAW may be better.
Having said that the highest JPEG setting on most DSLR’s is of such good quality that unless you study the unprocessed images very closely you probably will not see the difference.
That is what i was getting at. Fine large Jpeg from a decent dslr will make a PERFECT 20x30 poster provideing it is in focus and exposed properly. For 99.9% of your amature shooting experience the only real reason to shoot raw is to learn how to do it. For quality magazine work, professional landscape, calander, stock and commercial photography raw is the prefered medium. Wedding, sports, editorial, event photography and your personal trip report will be 100% acceptable when shot in large Jpeg. The company that I work for in the winter even shoots on large medium Jpeg instead of large Fine jpeg. I have seen dozens of posters go out the door that look great. The key as allways for large prints is to nail the exposure and focus. I am often getting chewed out for not compressing my files enough. Any time I bring in files larger than 1.2mb I get a talking to. The reality of 6 photographers each bringing in six hundred 8mb to 14mb files at the same time on a sat afternoon that all need to be processed and up at the front desk to sell in 30min is just not realistic. In the beginning i fought it tooth and nail as my 1d markII N has a fine tune adjustable jpeg setting. I would creep it up to 8 or 9 and get chewed out. finally i gave in and set it on six ( they wanted 5) and my shots are still decent even though they are seriously compressed. When i shoot events for my own company I keep the compression up arround 8 and am totally satisfyed with the end result.
thanks for your help guys. I've been shooting large, fine JPEG and never had a quality issue. recently a friend told me i should be shooting Raw and thought i'd ask around.
I shoot RAW + jpg small, and I use the jpegs as a quick way to view the photos without having to open up a raw file. RAW also lets you make more adjustments to the photo before you open it up into the regular part of photoshop.
While it surely does take up more space, think of it this way: you bracket a scene and take 3 photos, one metered for the sky (highlights), one for the ground (shadows) and one for your midtones, to then piece them together later. You could do that and have 12mb's of jpegs (depending on the size of your photo) or take one raw shot at 12mb per file. Now it doesnt always work that way (sometimes ill have to take two raw photos, one for highlights and one for shadows, if the scene has a lot of contrast) but RAW will save you photos to have to sort through, but not always the space that they take up.
Also depends what you are shooting. Rapid fire will slow down if you are shooting RAW+JPEG. When I'm shooting a triathlon or cycling event, I move over to just RAW. Other than that, I'm with gregpphoto on the RAW + JPEG. Especially with climbing, or slower action stuff. I would advise to shoot RAW just so you can learn how to process your pics. A RAW file is like a digital negative, so if you screw up the exposure on an image you can fix it (for the most part) in photoshop in RAW edit.
Don't think anybody mentioned the ability to easily change white balance after the fact. Also with a 16 bit image there is a lot more information there to correct exposure/extend dynamic range later. You can see this if you ever adjust the levels in ps. With a regular jpeg you will see gaps in the histogram (missing information), not so with a 16 bit image. For a better explanation, check out the "bible": Real World Camera Raw, by Bruce Fraser. Not everybody wants to spend that much time post processing images, only you can decide what's right for you.
None of that means a rats ass if you don't sell the photo. If you are selling prints and you are makeing great prints from Jpegs that are selling then you are doing just fine. If you are shooting raw and spending ages post processing while only useing your photos to upload for free on RC.com then you are just annother run of the mill tech weinie. You need to know how to shoot raw in the event that you have a comercial shoot or plan to submit photos to high end magazines. Shooting raw for event photography is generaly not nessicary or practicle. JMOP
None of that means a rats ass if you don't sell the photo. If you are selling prints and you are makeing great prints from Jpegs that are selling then you are doing just fine. If you are shooting raw and spending ages post processing while only useing your photos to upload for free on RC.com then you are just annother run of the mill tech weinie. You need to know how to shoot raw in the event that you have a comercial shoot or plan to submit photos to high end magazines. Shooting raw for event photography is generaly not nessicary or practicle. JMOP
Personally I don't understand why anyone would intentionally not get the most from their camera. Why would you spend $300-9000 to shoot 8 bit jpegs that suck the life out of the DR and lose detail as they selectively denoise when you could be shooting 12/14/16/22bit RAW files.
Furthermore, RAW workflow doesn't take a whole lot more time.
And forget about WB, setting it on the camera is never perfect anyway. Now I just leave it on any setting or AWB and then correct, either via batch or individually in RAW conversion.
Sure, shooting a cute shot of the cat and dog on the couch doesn't require raw, but any shot that I will potentially print should be shot in RAW.
It's a diservice to yourself and your equipment and your wallet to waste the money you spent buying the best you can afford and then shooting in 8b compressed formats.
And finally, you can't go back and shoot every image, even a landscape can change day to day. RAW gives you a high quality file that you can work with time and time again. A JPEG is essentially, a second generation image IMO, that has only so much tolerance for editing in post processing.
2 /
20%
