Shoot JPEG again with 5D3

[helpful]

The RAW v JPEG debate really should be nothing more than a workflow question, and workflow questions are entirely related to the type of photography you're doing.

If you're shooting landscapes in the spirit of Ansel Adams, you'd be a fool to not shoot in RAW. You're going to be twisting and stretching that image in so many ways that you'll need all the data you can get, and the time it takes the converter to do its thing isn't even a blip on the radar.

If you're shooting the Super Bowl for Sports Illustrated, you'll be unemployed in a heartbeat if you don't shoot JPEG. You're not going to be doing any post-processing at all. If your shots need post-processing (other than cropping), it's because you messed up the exposure; make that newbie mistrake again and you're fired. And the editors don't want RAW; they want JPEGs, and they don't have time to run everything through a batch converter -- they need those JPEGs NOW.

Almost makes you wonder if, maybe, perhaps, possibly, there's a reason why the cameras support both formats and have so many options for picking which to record....

Cheers,

b&

I like your viewpoint!

 

[davidbellissima]

I shoot weddings. RAW files go into the CF card and JPEGs into the SD card as a backup only. Why throw away the flexibility of RAW files when you have the choice...? Memory is cheap.

 

[te4o]

You can look at the RGB histogram of the white paper shot (after setting the white balance) in order to set your exposure. (And this time, just use the same shutter speed and ISO that you expect to use for the action you plan to be shooting). Take a picture of the paper when it is directly facing the light source and you should see a thin high peak for each color channel. Change the exposure (I am assuming you are using manual exposure to be able to control aperture, shutter speed, and ISO) so that the peak for each color channel is about 10% below the right of the histogram. Your paper should be directly reflecting ("aimed at") the light source under the same lighting conditions that your subjects will be photographed in.

Helpful, great explanation. Now, if eg. the red channel is overexposed on the custom WB shot of your paper how do you correct that? Do you manually adjust your WB more towards blue, amber, green or whatever combination is necessary? Or do you use WB bracketing?
I know, this is not necessary with RAWs and makes post-shooting correction easier but would be nice to know how to shoot right in camera.
Thanks

 

[Tcapp]

But why get yourself a 5D3 to shoot JPEG? There must have been a bazillion words written in the RAW vs JPEG debate and the pro-RAW conclusions remain totally valid.

Frankly it freaks me out to shoot JPEG on any camera other than my phone...the potential for post-pro grief makes it a non-starter. If you know for 100% certain your output requirements are modest, check out mRAW.

I bought 2 5D3s to shoot JPEG only. I have shot RAW exclusively for years and edited probably over 100,000 RAW and JPEG images. RAW is really only a benefit to me when I miss the exposure or WB. Sure RAW captures a lot more information but if you don't need that information then it is a waste. I shoot 20-30 weddings a year and probably shoot 3000-5000 pictures per wedding and a good JPEG is just as good as a RAW image unless your settings are off or you plan on doing extensive dodging or burning. If you shoot manual and dial in the WB using the Kelvin color temperature and the WB shift to properly balance the color of the light source your JPEG is going to be as good if not better than if it were taken in RAW.

Why shoot 5000 photos at one wedding?

Not saying what you are doing is wrong, I'm just genuinely curious. I usually take about 1000 per wedding, and I feel that is a lot. How many photos go into an album you make?

5000 photos would kill my workflow. It would take too much time. Time = money, so less photos means more money.

So, just curious why you shoot so many? How many keepers do you get out of that 5k?

 

[briansquibb]

Why shoot 5000 photos at one wedding?

Not saying what you are doing is wrong, I'm just genuinely curious. I usually take about 1000 per wedding, and I feel that is a lot. How many photos go into an album you make?

I reckon on 1000 per wedding of which 200-300 are kept on the DVD they get

 

[Tcapp]

Why shoot 5000 photos at one wedding?

Not saying what you are doing is wrong, I'm just genuinely curious. I usually take about 1000 per wedding, and I feel that is a lot. How many photos go into an album you make?

I reckon on 1000 per wedding of which 200-300 are kept on the DVD they get

See, that I think is totally reasonable!

 

[te4o]

After some more extensive comparisons I must apologize to the forum:
There is a lot more immediately visible IQ with RAW as compared to the JPEGs from the 5D3.
So, I switched off the parallel RAW+JPEG recording to both cards.
From the workflow point of view this is a different issue, can't comment on that.

 

[jaayres20]

But why get yourself a 5D3 to shoot JPEG? There must have been a bazillion words written in the RAW vs JPEG debate and the pro-RAW conclusions remain totally valid.

Frankly it freaks me out to shoot JPEG on any camera other than my phone...the potential for post-pro grief makes it a non-starter. If you know for 100% certain your output requirements are modest, check out mRAW.

I bought 2 5D3s to shoot JPEG only. I have shot RAW exclusively for years and edited probably over 100,000 RAW and JPEG images. RAW is really only a benefit to me when I miss the exposure or WB. Sure RAW captures a lot more information but if you don't need that information then it is a waste. I shoot 20-30 weddings a year and probably shoot 3000-5000 pictures per wedding and a good JPEG is just as good as a RAW image unless your settings are off or you plan on doing extensive dodging or burning. If you shoot manual and dial in the WB using the Kelvin color temperature and the WB shift to properly balance the color of the light source your JPEG is going to be as good if not better than if it were taken in RAW.

Why shoot 5000 photos at one wedding?

Not saying what you are doing is wrong, I'm just genuinely curious. I usually take about 1000 per wedding, and I feel that is a lot. How many photos go into an album you make?

5000 photos would kill my workflow. It would take too much time. Time = money, so less photos means more money.

So, just curious why you shoot so many? How many keepers do you get out of that 5k?

I am usually shooting for 12 hours with few breaks. I deliver between 1200-1800 edited pictures for the client. It takes me about 8-10 hours to cull and edit a wedding.

 

[wickidwombat]

personally i cant stand the jpg files i just turned it off
the in camera processing is not to my taste

 

[pwp]

I agree. Put the RAW on the CF card and the JPEG onto the SD card.

Does this have any noticeable or measurable effect on the buffer? I'd like my 6 FPS to last as long as possible.

PW

 

[pwp]

[Why don't we at least try to learn how to use the camera as an effective RAW processor, simply because it is?

Raw is very fast if you learn to use the tools. I use jpeg where appropriate, and have nothing against it, but I also know how to process 3000 raw images from a days shoot in a couple of hours or less in raw.

Every technique is 100% valid if it works for you. 2012 cameras & software have handed us a lot of choices. Good! But use the camera as a RAW processor? OK, but what's the point?

99% of the commissioned work that come through my business requires premium output, and stuff-ups could mean a lost or irritated client. So RAW works best here. And JPEG works best for others. All good.

And I'm with Dr Mt Spokane, RAW processing gets very fast with evolved technique and a brisk approach. Last year I did a job shooting an indoor swim meet. The light was a mixture of mercury vapor, fluro and daylight. I usually shoot mRAW at this venue on the Mk4 but the camera was inexplicably set to JPEG for half the meet. I wondered why my buffer was so deep! It actually took longer in post to fix those JPEG's than it would have to process the mRAW files.

Everyone's got their own RAW vs JPEG story. It's whatever floats your boat.

PW

 

[Tcapp]

[Why don't we at least try to learn how to use the camera as an effective RAW processor, simply because it is?

Raw is very fast if you learn to use the tools. I use jpeg where appropriate, and have nothing against it, but I also know how to process 3000 raw images from a days shoot in a couple of hours or less in raw.

Every technique is 100% valid if it works for you. 2012 cameras & software have handed us a lot of choices. Good! But use the camera as a RAW processor? OK, but what's the point?

99% of the commissioned work that come through my business requires premium output, and stuff-ups could mean a lost or irritated client. So RAW works best here. And JPEG works best for others. All good.

And I'm with Dr Mt Spokane, RAW processing gets very fast with evolved technique and a brisk approach. Last year I did a job shooting an indoor swim meet. The light was a mixture of mercury vapor, fluro and daylight. I usually shoot mRAW at this venue on the Mk4 but the camera was inexplicably set to JPEG for half the meet. I wondered why my buffer was so deep! It actually took longer in post to fix those JPEG's than it would have to process the mRAW files.

Everyone's got their own RAW vs JPEG story. It's whatever floats your boat.

PW

My boat floats on water. :

 

[bycostello]

if you can get it right in camera then you don't need raw

 

[pwp]

if you can get it right in camera then you don't need raw

Absolutely correct. And if you can't always get it right in camera you need RAW. My hit rate is not 100%, so....

PW

 

[briansquibb]

if you can get it right in camera then you don't need raw

Absolutely correct. And if you can't always get it right in camera you need RAW. My hit rate is not 100%, so....

PW

Also artistic effects are really hard with jpeg because as soon as manipulation starts then the IQ drops

 

[jaayres20]

if you can get it right in camera then you don't need raw

Absolutely correct. And if you can't always get it right in camera you need RAW. My hit rate is not 100%, so....

PW

My hit rate isn't 100% and I still shoot JPEG. As long as the WB is very close and the exposure is pretty close then there isn't ever a problem for me.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

if you can get it right in camera then you don't need raw

Absolutely correct. And if you can't always get it right in camera you need RAW. My hit rate is not 100%, so....

PW

My hit rate isn't 100% and I still shoot JPEG. As long as the WB is very close and the exposure is pretty close then there isn't ever a problem for me.

Thats why we have both. If it works for you, then you will be happy, at least until a couple newer technology processors come out and your images start to look poorer.


For archival material, images you want to keep forever, consider RAW. The reason I suggest this is that RAW converters continually improve, and you can always reprocess a raw image and get better results with a newer raw converter. JPEG results are locked in. I have some images taken at ISO 3200 when I first got my 5D MK II in 2007 and LR2, and they were noisey. Reprocessing them with LR 3 and now 4 makes them sharper, and less noisey. My older JPEGS stay the same, and tend to look awful compared to the reprocessed raws.

I do use jpegs for images with a short life span, ones I will throw away, but for family photos, ones I want to be available forever, I shoot raw and process a jpeg for current use knowing it can always be reprocessed when a better raw processor arrives.