RAW vs JPEG debate in the light of 5DIII improvements

[KeithR]

Ho hum...

Not every photgrapher has the ability to control his subject matter; or where it is in relation to the light; or the quality of the light itself: no offence to wedding 'togs or studio shooters, but in terms of what you shoot, you've really got it pretty easy.

For those of us who have no such control, and who often have to take "the" shot within a second or less of seeing it - regardless of how or where the light is - the use of Raw is the epitome of the "no brainer".

I shoot natural/available light birds, sport and indoor gigs, and every single time I come home from a shoot I thank the Gods of photography that I've got Raw files and excellent converters like Lightroom at my disposal.

If your photography doesn't - literally - need Raw, that just tells me that your photographic circumstances aren't particularly challenging.

For myself, I simply could not achieve the standard of quality that I aspire to (and although I'm not a pro, my efforts are pretty well regarded by several pro bird 'togs in the UK and the US with whom I'm acquainted) without Raw.

[KeithR]

That is simply not true.  The IQ of a good JPEG with a nailed exposure and manual WB is just as good as the IQ of a RAW processed image.

You shoot weddings - you've got it easy. Yes, I'm very well aware of the pressures of wedding photography, and the photography itself is way down on that list.

You've got all the time in the world (comparatively speaking) to put your subjects where you want them; to get the light right; to take a ton of frames, chimping between shots to check the histogram, to get the shot you want.

Come back to me when you've successfully tried shooting uncooperative, tiny, hyperactive birds that are inviariably in the wrong place for the (routinely crappy) light I deal with in the UK, and get back to me...

[KeithR]

One of the top celebrity wedding photographers in the world Mike Colon shoots JPEG and he charges over $20,000 per wedding and I am sure his work would be classified as "critical client work". 

And yet, having just looked through his entire site for "insight", I find that it's utterly banal, technically adequate (at best) photography...

In short, it really makes my points for me.

[Janco]

That is simply not true.  The IQ of a good JPEG with a nailed exposure and manual WB is just as good as the IQ of a RAW processed image.

You shoot weddings - you've got it easy. Yes, I'm very well aware of the pressures of wedding photography, and the photography itself is way down on that list.

You've got all the time in the world (comparatively speaking) to put your subjects where you want them; to get the light right; to take a ton of frames, chimping between shots to check the histogram, to get the shot you want.

Come back to me when you've successfully tried shooting uncooperative, tiny, hyperactive birds that are inviariably in the wrong place for the (routinely crappy) light I deal with in the UK, and get back to me...

I don't see how RAW helps more with those hyperactive birds than at weddings, I think there's more the AF that needs to be top notch. I still think most important reasons to decide between RAW and jpeg shooting are the desired output speed and also the target of the image. Fast output/small prints/web jpeg is as fine or better suited than RAW. With large prints or if you have the time to tweak your image to the best, RAW is certainly better. I also don't think it's right to say weddingers have it easier than birders. A wedding is a one time event and there's lots of pressure from the clients.... not saying birding is easy of course!

[jaayres20]

That is simply not true.  The IQ of a good JPEG with a nailed exposure and manual WB is just as good as the IQ of a RAW processed image.

You shoot weddings - you've got it easy. Yes, I'm very well aware of the pressures of wedding photography, and the photography itself is way down on that list.

You've got all the time in the world (comparatively speaking) to put your subjects where you want them; to get the light right; to take a ton of frames, chimping between shots to check the histogram, to get the shot you want.

Come back to me when you've successfully tried shooting uncooperative, tiny, hyperactive birds that are inviariably in the wrong place for the (routinely crappy) light I deal with in the UK, and get back to me...

Out of a 10 hour day I have control of about 30-45 minutes to put my subjects where I want them and find the best light.  The rest of the time I am usually challenged by the worst lighting possible and I have no control of the subjects in relation to bad or worse light.  Most locations have mixed light sources and low or no light.  There is hardly ever time to do any chimping between shots because you can't miss anything important at a wedding and nobody is going to slow down while you check your histogram.  If you miss a shot you get to try again.  If I miss an important shot I could get sued.  I have respect for your photography and I have never tried it but don't bash mine because you think I have it easy.  I am sure if you ask 5 wedding photographers you know they will all tell you how difficult it is. 

[briansquibb]

Out of a 10 hour day I have control of about 30-45 minutes to put my subjects where I want them and find the best light.  The rest of the time I am usually challenged by the worst lighting possible and I have no control of the subjects in relation to bad or worse light.  Most locations have mixed light sources and low or no light.  There is hardly ever time to do any chimping between shots because you can't miss anything important at a wedding and nobody is going to slow down while you check your histogram.  If you miss a shot you get to try again.  If I miss an important shot I could get sued.  I have respect for your photography and I have never tried it but don't bash mine because you think I have it easy.  I am sure if you ask 5 wedding photographers you know they will all tell you how difficult it is.

I do both - you can always wait for another bird to come along ....

[scottkinfw]

I think that is the point here.  Raw gives more latitude to correct sub-optimal pics.  That is not to say that the photographer is not technically good, it is to say that in the event where you may not have good lighting etc., this is a lifesaver. 

If you have ideal conditions, jpeg may be the way to go, maybe not.  Raw will give a lot more options to be creative in pp.

Regarding the debate wedding vs. nature, they are different, and both have challenges.  On the whole, however, shooting in the wild is way different, and raw is a lifesaver. 

If you can shoot jpeg at a wedding and get 20K/per, I want to be your assistant. 


sek

From what I understood of it, their problems with the in-camera Jpeg processing were to do with the default settings for noise reduction and sharpening which could be turned off? Personally I shoot just RAWs, but I don't have any special reason for doing so, except that it's easier in post to alter stuff if I messed up when shooting.

[awinphoto]

That is simply not true.  The IQ of a good JPEG with a nailed exposure and manual WB is just as good as the IQ of a RAW processed image.

You shoot weddings - you've got it easy. Yes, I'm very well aware of the pressures of wedding photography, and the photography itself is way down on that list.

You've got all the time in the world (comparatively speaking) to put your subjects where you want them; to get the light right; to take a ton of frames, chimping between shots to check the histogram, to get the shot you want.

Come back to me when you've successfully tried shooting uncooperative, tiny, hyperactive birds that are inviariably in the wrong place for the (routinely crappy) light I deal with in the UK, and get back to me...

Keith, I got to say your stretching to say he's got it easy with weddings... Afterall it's not like he can put studio strobes and softboxes up their at the alter... It's not like he can have assistants with portable lamps running around with him to light custom lighting ratios on the bride and groom while they are dancing...  I have shot weddings before, needless to say I dont make my living shooting weddings and if I did, I would have burnt out a long time ago.  Heck, with my studio and product photography, you can say that I dont push the cameras limits and have it easy, but then again with everything being so deliberate.... Yes i have 100% control of my lighting, but it's not to say I dont work my butt off to get lighting just right, get the overall scene staged just right and deal with sometimes thousands of dollars in products or budgets, both with sales managers, marketing managers, art directors, CEO's and such breathing down my neck in studio making sure I get the best image for their needs. 

Also my other branch of photography, architecture, shooting for companies like wells fargo, they want their pictures like yesterday, and if I cant deliver, they find someone else... It is that cut throat and that quick.  I agree RAW gives you more detail, more quality, and gives you the better overall product, but what I am also saying is sometimes, given the situation, time of production, time of post, sometimes you get the luxury to do heavy post and muck around with images, sometimes not.  Sometimes you need every ounce of resolution and detail and file, and other time most of all advantage you get will be thrown out once they downres the file, clip out backgrounds, shove it on their websites...  Ideally we all should be shooting raw, but sometimes it's just not practical. 

[PhilDrinkwater]

Ahhh... RAW vs JPEG.... The religion of digital photographers 

The funny thing about these discussions is that they DON'T tend to concentrate on the pros and cons and they DO tend to concentrate on convincing people that what "you" use is right.

However, just like a lens or a camera body or a composition choice, there's no right and wrong, just a cost / benefit analysis based on your needs.

One of the oft missed benefits of RAW is the ability to profile cameras and make different bodies look like each other, as well as produce "correct" colours. Other than that I'm sure we've all been around long enough to know the pros and cons by now... if not, feel free to ask and I'll list them all ... again

[K-amps]

I shoot RAW.

Paul Wright

http://blogs.ubc.ca/timblonk/files/2011/04/Fro_1.jpg   

[awinphoto]

I shoot RAW.

Paul Wright

http://blogs.ubc.ca/timblonk/files/2011/04/Fro_1.jpg   

awesome haha

[lexonio]

Well I wasn't initially saying: "I SHOOT JPEG! (we should make such a t-shirt as well btw) PROVE ME WRONG!", it's just that I'm so used to using Lightroom, and since I didn't have any important work to do, I shot JPEG since LR didn't support mkIII RAW at the time, and I wasn't specifically disappointed with the outcome. But I switched from T2i to 5DmkIII, so the lack of disappointment may have been due to this quite substantial fact

I just wanted to hear what you guys think, since I value the opinion of CR's community. Since, well, the site is awesome, the community's awesome and people taking part in discussions are awesome as well.

Sorry for abundance of positive emotions, I'm still thrilled by my MKIII :<

[PhilDrinkwater]

Well I wasn't initially saying: "I SHOOT JPEG! (we should make such a t-shirt as well btw) PROVE ME WRONG!", it's just that I'm so used to using Lightroom, and since I didn't have any important work to do, I shot JPEG since LR didn't support mkIII RAW at the time, and I wasn't specifically disappointed with the outcome. But I switched from T2i to 5DmkIII, so the lack of disappointment may have been due to this quite substantial fact

I just wanted to hear what you guys think, since I value the opinion of CR's community. Since, well, the site is awesome, the community's awesome and people taking part in discussions are awesome as well.

Sorry for abundance of positive emotions, I'm still thrilled by my MKIII :<

Sorry if you thought my post was directed at you ... not if you thought it was, but it wasn't It was a general comment