Comments on: RAW vs. JPEG: Who wins?

By: Chris Bradbury

Chris Bradbury — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:13:40 +0000

I shoot raw all the time.
Butterflies and dragonflies are my favourite subjects.
For me, It’s not about being a good photographer. It’s about getting a good photograph.

I concentrate on the subject, shoot single frames to choose the moment when focus and composition come together, as I don’t want to search through hundreds of images to find my lucky sharp shot. A monopod and flash ensure that most shots will be free of hand shake or subject movement.
Back home, the main adjustments I make are the same every time, correcting or calibrating the sensor as I see it.
I have had a very badly exposed shot that recovered enough in Lightroom to be very popular on Flickr, and even used for an online encyclopaedia as a subject header.

By: Thierry

Thierry — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 17:47:51 +0000

Very interesting and easy to read. To me shooting in RAW or JPG is often an issue for a simple reason: I am not always able to access a powerful computer to process my images.
–
At home, I have a big iMac that can easily rune several softwares at a time, in these conditions, I find RAW much a better option for all the setting and post process it allows.
–
When I travel, I carry a rather old (5 years) laptop. Post processing RAW files is a real pain with this computer, but JPGs are ok.
–
That’s why when I am home I set the camera on RAW. When I’m on a trip I try my best to keep the camera on RAW+JPG, and if I really need to shoot a moving subject (which is not at all my main practice but happens once in a while) I set the camera on JPG.
–
Last, I just want to add that my D300 never really disappointed me regarding this issue, neither in RAW, nor in JPG. The image quality is really good in both formats.
–
Congrats for your work, your site is really interesting.
Cheers!

By: David H. Hessell

David H. Hessell — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 17:58:28 +0000

Debate? What debate?

Use whatever works for you. Simple.

As a part-time college photography instructor, it is all JPEG. I want them to shoot JPEG just like I used to have students shoot slide film — I want to see what THEY shoot, not what comes back from the lab/computer.

Second, as a free-lance travel photographer that shoots for several travel companies, again, It is all JPEG. It is all about file size. RAW files are huge and the companies don’t like using them. OK by me.

Plus — and the main reason I shoot nothing but JPEG — I like to get the image in the camera as best as I can. Period. Again, I shot slide film for years and just carrired that over into my digital work.

JPEG works for me. My website. My e-mails. My editors. My students. My SDHC cards. My Photoshop skills. My computer. My vision. My peace of mind.

Life is Good. No debate.

By: Max Young

Max Young — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 00:27:13 +0000

True, we could go around in circles all day long talking about raw v jpg, but as for me, it’s jpg all the way.

My 5D Mkii cranks out amazing flower jpgs (with some in-camera tweaking first). Very occasionally, if the light is changing every few seconds, I will shoot raw just in case, but 95% of the time the Canon nails the exposure.

The critical factor for me is time. The jpg files are huge in themselves – the raw files are humungous, and my oldish macbook takes ages to process each file, so it’s just out of the question. Oftentimes I turn the quality setting down to small jpg (5mp size) which for most things is enough. Heck, I’ve sold tack sharp 30″ x 20″ prints from 6mp files.

By: További okoskodás a RAW formátumról. « Johnny fotós blogja

További okoskodás a RAW formátumról. « Johnny fotós blogja — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 07:03:10 +0000

[...] olvasgattam tegnap este még a témáról. Két dolog: 1. http://photonaturalist.net/raw-vs-jpeg-who-wins/ 2. Csipkebokor vessző 3. Profit 4. RAW [...]

By: Al Williams

Al Williams — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:14:00 +0000

RAW is much more flexible and retains all the information of the captured data. JPEG files are a wonderful means of distribution, but I’ve never thrown away negatives after printing them and I don’t like “throwing away” data by shooting JPEG (with one exception). As an artist, I want to have as much flexibility to develop my images by reprinting them over time just as I did (and continue to do in black and white) in the traditional darkroom. My Pentax K10D shoots 16bit color. 16 bit RAW files must be converted to 8 bit as part of the processing necessary to create a JPEG. Even in a tiny 4×6 print, a “trained eye” can see a difference between a print from an 8 bit JPEG and a 16 bit PSD (Photoshop File). Keep in mind, when I say “trained eye” I’m talking as a former color lab tech who spent a year printing custom color eight hours a day in a traditional darkroom. Most people wouldn’t notice a difference unless you told them what to look for, many not even then. For family photos and my professional portrait work, I shoot in RAW + JPEG setting my camera to produce 2MP JPEG files for quick sharing or proofing. The only time I shoot JPEG only is when I shoot little league sports. Shooting several frames per second from the time the quarterback releases the ball until it reaches the receiver’s hands gets me shots that I just can’t capture in RAW, and I can still crop and get good quality prints from my 10MP JPEG files. If you are are serious about your photography as a means of artistic expression and you want your whole body of work to be able to grow with you as your editing skills become more refined, then you should shoot and archive your RAW files. If you don’t have the time to learn the editing skills necessary to take advantage of RAW or if convenience is something you consider as important as optimum image quality, then RAW is not for you. RAW is more work, but to those with a deep abiding passion for creating images it is a labor of love. With a passion for photography still growing strong twenty years after it was ignited by seeing my first b&w print slowly change from a blank sheet of paper to a photograph, for me it’s a no brainer. RAW, except when capturing bursts, is always better in the end because any RAW file can easily produce a range of JPEG files of different sizes as needed for sharing or commercial printing. You can’t recreate that original RAW data from a JPEG.

By: Hagen

Hagen — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:13:50 +0000

Post processing jpg is also faster than RAW: smaller size, less data to change. I haven’t timed it though.

How often do you need to “save” a photo?

I shoot jpg most of the time for speed. On the 50D with an Ultra3 card, it’s non stop large/fine jpgs for 90 shots. But primarily for me it’s speed of processing and trying different post processing settings when experimenting with the look of an image.

Still learning so I’ll also shoot 2-3 shots with different settings, framing and perspectives when the situation allows. I also do not make a living shooting so perhaps do not need the ultimate in end results.

Has anyone quantified/considered the actual quality benefits? If jpg provides 80% or the potential, is that extra 20% worth it? It is for some, so there really is no “raw or jpg” better. Each for the purpose as everyone has mentioned.

By: Steve Berardi

Steve Berardi — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 03:50:21 +0000

@Matt – I agree, that technically the real debate is between in & out of camera processing, but since the option on your camera is to shoot RAW or JPEG, I thought that was a better way to discuss the issue.

@Terri / Zack- That’s another good reason to shoot in JPEG.. For times when quality isn’t necessarily the #1 goal. Sometimes convenience is the winner

@Vicky / Steve – another great point most cameras allow you to shoot a small JPEG and a RAW for each shot.. which lets you quickly preview the JPEGs on your computer, instead of waiting longer to see the RAW.

Thanks everyone for your great comments! Glad this article generated some discussion

I’m in the process of doing more research on RAW processing and all the little technical details, so I’m looking forward to writing a more detailed report probably next month sometime, here on PN.

By: Monte Taylor

Monte Taylor — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 02:06:58 +0000

Each has it’s benefits of course, and the not so good parts. But, anyone serious about getting good images would place themselves in a position of getting both RAW and JPEG, i.e. using Canon 1D Mark III bodies (and others that do the same) which allow one to shoot RAW on one card and JPEG on the other. This maxmizes the benefit of each format and doesn’t place one in the position of losing the opportunity, especially in the area of wildlife photography or any fast movement object.
Cheers

By: renee @ FIMBY

renee @ FIMBY — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 03:02:18 +0000

Just wanted to say thanks for this great post. I am very slowly working my way to becoming a better landscape photographer and posts like this are very helpful. I shoot in RAW by the way.