RAW or JPEG

[Sella174]

100% JPEG ...

I started with RAW when switching to digital (because everybody said so); played with DPP; came to the conclusion that basically I used the same "recipe" over and over and over; adjusted the camera to the same settings and the results out-of-camera are better than those of DPP from RAW files.

A friend suggested I ditch DPP for PhotoShop (this was before Lightroom, etc.); took one look at the pricetag and bought a piece of L-glass instead.

The editing "limitations" of JPEG doesn't bother me ... I'm an old hand at positive films.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

100% JPEG ...

I started with RAW when switching to digital (because everybody said so); played with DPP; came to the conclusion that basically I used the same "recipe" over and over and over; adjusted the camera to the same settings and the results out-of-camera are better than those of DPP from RAW files.

A friend suggested I ditch DPP for PhotoShop (this was before Lightroom, etc.); took one look at the pricetag and bought a piece of L-glass instead.

The editing "limitations" of JPEG doesn't bother me ... I'm an old hand at positive films.

I will speak softly to anyone listening. :-X I also prefer JPEG photos for almost all that I do. Most users Canonrumors presupposes that all RAW processing is very well done. But, I've seen several RAW distasteful, not exceeding one well-adjusted in-camera JPEG. : Obviously, RAW allows you to save some user errors, but if the picture was well done directly on the camera, do not need much treatment even. When I made my first Photoshop tutorial, I took my Fujifilm Provalue 200 for photolab reveal and scan. The next day, I took the CD with the scanned photos and gaped. There was nothing to fix in Photoshop. Then I cut size 20x25 cm 300 DPI and sent to print and it looks great. After I started with digital (Rebel XT), my Photoshop skills were much more required. I still try to make digital look like film Fuji. I think I'm getting old.

 

[Jeffrey]

Only raw. Sure, almost anyone can take a raw image and make it look like something that has never existed. I refer to those images as Velveeta cheese in that it is over-processed "something".

Those of us who do not over-saturate and over-sharpen though can tweak the images into something realistic and wonderful. It is worth a bit of extra effort to be able to tweak the 15 images I really want to keep out of a 500 image birds in flight shoot and make them into something that I'd like to look at again in the future.

 

[poias]

I am Ren Kockwell and I only shoot JPGs because in 5 years, RAWs will be unreadable anyway. I will be shooting away with my Fujifilm while you are crying for losing your RAWs. Plus I can take JPGs and my floppy disk can hold all 2 of them, where as I would need 15 floppies to hold just one RAW. And don't get me started on cheap crap like D800 with its mega pixels. My 12 year old D1 takes just as good picture and gives me 5 fps, without clogging my 2004 Mac Book Pro.

 

[terminatahx]

I didn't pay thousands of dead presidents to shoot in point and shoot format. RAW always.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

There is nothing wrong with using jpeg. All cameras do shoot in raw, then built-in conversion software adds sharpening, NR, contrast, adjusts exposure, and converts to jpeg. Once it is finished, its baked in and you can't back out.

So, its merely a choice of letting the camera do the conversion according to a formula that guesses right XX% of the time, or letting a high powered computer do a more thorough job of processing it, and allowing you to back out the conversion and change it if the software guessed wrong. Along the way, you can do some tricks to enhance difficult images like selective NR and a host of others.

For many, time is more critical than having to tweak a image, so they take the jpeg route, and for them its the right solution.

 

[Sella174]

I didn't pay thousands of dead presidents to shoot in point and shoot format. RAW always.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha ... unless you manually focus and manually determine exposure for each and every shot, you're using your DSLR in P&S mode ... irrespective of your preferred file format.

 

[tommy84]

I bought a used 1D3 to be able to shoot RAW at motorsport events trackside. I did a few RAW with the 40D before in the paddock and jpeg trackside, but now with the 1D3 it's all RAW. Received the camera from the previous owner, changed RAW+L to RAW only and never touched the menu since...
I'm sad that I didn't do more RAW in the past, back in the days when the 300D gave you a stunning burst of 4 pictures before the buffer was full - and that was with jpeg...

 

[nightbreath]

If you want your images to resemble art, shoot RAW. Camera cannot capture what our eyes see.
From the other hand, if your aim is to keep your workflow straightforward, keep everything simple

 

[serendipidy]

If you want your images to resemble art, shoot RAW. Camera cannot capture what our eyes see.
From the other hand, if your aim is to keep your workflow straightforward, keep everything simple

Wow! Fantastic work

 

[Sporgon]

Fantastic !

 

[Scott_McPhee]

100% RAW for me - no brainer.

Dont think my 5D3 has ever taken a JPEG shot.

 

[duydaniel]

shoot raw and forget about exposure because
Nikon D800 can let you underexpose as much as 5 stops and rescue that in raw 8)

 

[poias]

shoot raw and forget about exposure because
Nikon D800 can let you underexpose as much as 5 stops and rescue that in raw 8)

Why would you want to underexpose and rescue when you can just expose properly and don't strain the sensor too much? Did you underexpose your film and hope to "increase" the exposure in the darkroom?

Sensor capabilities are overblow. Shoot properly, frame properly, and 1mpx camera is fine for all of our facebook needs.

 

[Ruined]

IMO RAW's main draw is -possibly- saving your butt from catastrophic user error, assuming you have a modern camera *and* lenses that support IS. In the past, one could often save a blurred shot or increase quality by using photoshop/lightroom with a RAW instead of using in-camera processing. But the in-camera processing is so good with digital cameras, there are minimal benefits to going the RAW route *except* a safety fallback if you totally blow an important shot. Even some really significant problems can be corrected and tweaked using a JPG source, unless you over or under expose a shot so badly that there is no detail left to recover.

But, I do realize there is a stigma with JPG, or perhaps "pro" perception with RAW. Like, if you don't shoot in RAW you are an amateur or something to that effect - left over from the old days when RAW did provide an IQ advantage due to poor in-camera processing unlike today.

In summary, if the skill is there, then it boils down 100% to preference & workflow IMO as RAW offers little practical advantage with modern cameras. In some cameras it may even hinder you as you miss the best shot due to running out of buffer.

 

[Hillsilly]

I am Ren Kockwell and I only shoot JPGs because in 5 years, RAWs will be unreadable anyway. I will be shooting away with my Fujifilm while you are crying for losing your RAWs. Plus I can take JPGs and my floppy disk can hold all 2 of them, where as I would need 15 floppies to hold just one RAW. And don't get me started on cheap crap like D800 with its mega pixels. My 12 year old D1 takes just as good picture and gives me 5 fps, without clogging my 2004 Mac Book Pro.

That's funny, but so true. I shoot JPEG+RAW with my Fuji. But nearly all of the time, I love the JPEG result and don't bother opening the RAW file. My Olympus also produces nice JPEGs too. But with my Canon's, I shoot RAW only as I know I won't be happy with JPEG, so why bother with it. I don't want to knock Canon, but other cameras seem to produce nicer JPEGs.

 

[candc]

I shoot raw+jpeg and I use the dxo converter on the raw files if the lens needs heavy correction but I think that most of the newer cameras including the canons do a very good job of producing jpegs once you get the output settings to your liking.

 

[yablonsky]

only RAW.

I use Adobe Camera Raw to convert my images to JPEG. ACR has very good options to adjust exposure settings, black, white, lights, shadows, etc. Photoshop I only use for <1% of my images.

 

[Sella174]

Just an innocent question ... most of you that does RAW are using pretty expensive, top-of-the-range cameras and lenses, yet your big argument in favour of RAW is the ability to fix exposure, do lens corrections, and apply noise reduction. Huh? ???

 

[privatebydesign]

Just an innocent question ... most of you that does RAW are using pretty expensive, top-of-the-range cameras and lenses, yet your big argument in favour of RAW is the ability to fix exposure, do lens corrections, and apply noise reduction. Huh? ???

You miss the point, the cameras and lenses are capable of capturing massively more information than a jpeg can display, why would you choose to use an expensive camera and lenses and throw 3/4 of the image it captured away, permanently, immediately?

P.S. There are a couple of good reasons to do that but not in general use.