I am engaged in yet another RAW vs. JPEG debate on another board. I found this perfect video that explains it all; clearly and in everyday language. I hope you find it useful...these RAW vs. JPEG debates go in waves across the internet...
@thomastoth - I just started into the world of RAW a little while back---and let me tell you, it is GREAT! I'd never go back to shooting jpeg unless I absolutely had to!
Seems like a good place to ask this question … Background: I've always shot JPEG (largest size). When I got my new camera, started also shooting RAW (largest size). Got a bit confused at first until I realised how to use RAW (still wouldn't say I'm completely confident). HOWEVER, my problem is space!! These raw files are so huge!! (I did also realise I'd been shooting both … sorted that one out, but the problem still remains …).
So, at this point my compromise is this: Shoot JPEG when it's everyday, shots of my kids, outings, 365 stuff, whatever. Shoot RAW when it's an important event/job and I want the best results or potentially need the extra editing leeway, or in tricky lighting situations. So Q1: What do you think of this as a compromise? and Q2: what about RAW M or RAW S … I've never really gone there … are they worth it? Better than large JPEG??
It is too bad this only compared RAW to black and white JPG. It really didn't give a valid visual comparison. I'm still shooting JPG for one reason that never seems to be mentioned in lessons like this, and that is the increased computer time needed for RAW. I know all the arguments that there is data "thrown away" by JPG, but if the remaining data is adequate it is a good trade-off for me to reduce the amount of time spent on the computer. I welcome rebuttals, but keep in mind I am talking about MY personal situation.
@aliha You've identified one of the key drawbacks of RAW images - they are HUGE! You ask some fantastic questions. Let me offer my opinion and see what others in the 365 community think. I apologize in advance for the long post.
For me, it's all about control and print size. Shooting RAW gives me all the control over every aspect of my shot. Have you ever looked at a shot and said "Wow. Look at that. My shots don't look like that." It's the combination of the technology in the camera, the experience of the person behind the lens, but it is also the processing technique used. I was so frustrated for such a long time because I didn't make the connection between the shot out of the camera and the shot after processing.
There are so many old school shooters that talk about "getting it all in the camera", but I'm not sure that can be true anymore. There are some beautiful shots out of camera, but I would think that most everything is retouched in one way or another. Everything. That's our reality of the digital age. RAW gives us all that control.
Remember, when you shoot JPEG your camera is processing the image in the camera! It's making all the WB, Color Balance, effects and other decisions FOR YOU! Sure, its fast and easy, but a machine is making the calls and I don't like that. Why let my camera make the processing calls, especially if I am shooting in M and making all the exposure calls. It made sense for me to shoot RAW and make the edits in PS or LR because I was touching every shot anyway.
Second point with regards to RAW M or RAW S is printing. Everything I take has the potential to be purchased by a client as a printed piece. The M or S reduce the overall pixel size reducing the potential size of the printed piece. Sure, clients are not breaking down the door to buy 24X36 inch canvas wrapped pieces, but if they wanted them, I don't have to do anything to my images to make them beautiful at that size.
That's why we buy cameras with huge mega-pixel counts! It's for the prints. If you NEVER print off the shots and only use the shots on the web, then you could get away with RAW M or RAW S. Heck, you could get away with a 5MegaPixel camera if all you were doing is putting them on the web. The huge mega-pixel counts allow for huge amounts of detail in your shot. If you are reducing the shot down to 640X480 to post on Facebook, all that detail is gone anyway.
I stopped shooting JPEGs about 6 months ago because I was never using them and I didn't like the idea of letting the camera process for me. That's my choice. Don't think for a second that it's the only right or wrong way. It's what works for me. I touch EVERY photo that shows up anywhere. Control Freak Thomas needs the RAW.
You may very well LOVE the shots your camera takes as a JPEG and all you want to do is simple editing or apply a filter or two. JPEG works great. And, it's fast. I did a 6 hour shoot on Saturday and it's taken me about 12 hours to edit the RAW images. People may not have that kind of time. I choose to make the time because I want the images to look like a Thomas image, not a Canon image.
@rvwalker Time is right. It takes time to download the RAW images to your computer and time to process the shots. My little Mac beachball icon spins for hours as I am uploading. I look at it as time well spent for the extra value it brings. You want to talk fast? The photographers shooting at the Olympics process in JPEG.
"The second a photographer fires the shutter on a camera, the resulting image—a high quality JPEG, not an uncompressed RAW file—is transported by ethernet to Getty's central editing office in about 1.5 seconds. There, a team of three editors processes the photo. The first selects the best image and crops it for composition; the second editor color corrects; and the third adds metadata. The whole editing process is done in 30-40 seconds. Once the last editor is done, the image is blasted to the world. It takes about 90 seconds for the images to travel over redundant 100 Mbit/s dedicated lines to Getty's data servers in the the United States."
In Getty's world, speed is essential - if they can get the shot out faster than anyone else, they make the money on it. Another perspective to consider!
@aliha like you, I was shooting RAW & JPEG but haven't really had time to sort through all my RAW files. At the moment because I shoot so much wildlife, I have resorted to shooting JPEG this week simply because my laptop is getting filled up and also because I take so many pics to get the shot I want, I land up deleting a load anyway. I think yours is a good idea to shoot in RAW when the light is dodgy or you know that you will have to do/want to do some editing. The Camera Club would probably shoot me for saying this but I don't care!
@rvwalker I agree that it is too bad the instructor did not use a fair color comparison (he is showing something shot in mono--so it's stuck and there is an advantage to limiting ones self to mono too--I did that for a while).
@thomastoth I decided that my year two would be a RAW year because I did not know what others were talking about and I was too focused on "one a day" and learning manual settings. But this year, I'm doing RAW + jpg. I use jpg only when I'm doing big events (soccer) where I'm taking too many to bother processing, and because I have mastered manual, I do come out with shots that need minimal processing.
HOWEVER, RAW is important with processing and I have found that my processing time is cut in HALF now when I have some things I do want to change that I could not really accomplish in Jpg. I also make sure I DUMP whatever I don't work with. No need to clog my computer with valuable space, so now I have the photos I love, the space I need, and my processing skills have improved like my manual skills did in the first year on 365.
I still attempt to get the best shot possible before processing. I'm faster, better, and happier with RAW, but I'm glad I waited to make the shift. I'm going to add this video to my profile so others will understand why I made it one of my goals this year.
JPG is still awesome--it's really about how much you put in beforehand on a shot (in manual in particular) that makes the time/space commitment worth it.
@darylo You are wise to DUMP whatever you don't work with. I have such a hard time doing it...I think "HDD space is cheap...just keep it". I mean, I have garbage just filling up the drives.
I just have such a HARD time clicking that Remove from Disk button. Is there a support group for this type of phobia? I need it.
+1 about the large size of RAW files.. it makes sure you have a good mechanism in place to judge which images are good and which need to be thrown.
lets keep in mind that on any particular scene, sometimes we'd take like 3-5 images of that one thing... do we really NEED to keep 5 almost idential images? nope, pick the best one, turf the other 4. I guarantee that in a few years time when you look back on it, you wont miss those others that you threw away
After watching a youtube clip and had no idea about raw and jpeg. (Still very new to photograghy) I have just switched to RAW. Heres hoping some of my shots come out to see the difference.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
So, at this point my compromise is this: Shoot JPEG when it's everyday, shots of my kids, outings, 365 stuff, whatever. Shoot RAW when it's an important event/job and I want the best results or potentially need the extra editing leeway, or in tricky lighting situations. So Q1: What do you think of this as a compromise? and Q2: what about RAW M or RAW S … I've never really gone there … are they worth it? Better than large JPEG??
For me, it's all about control and print size. Shooting RAW gives me all the control over every aspect of my shot. Have you ever looked at a shot and said "Wow. Look at that. My shots don't look like that." It's the combination of the technology in the camera, the experience of the person behind the lens, but it is also the processing technique used. I was so frustrated for such a long time because I didn't make the connection between the shot out of the camera and the shot after processing.
There are so many old school shooters that talk about "getting it all in the camera", but I'm not sure that can be true anymore. There are some beautiful shots out of camera, but I would think that most everything is retouched in one way or another. Everything. That's our reality of the digital age. RAW gives us all that control.
Remember, when you shoot JPEG your camera is processing the image in the camera! It's making all the WB, Color Balance, effects and other decisions FOR YOU! Sure, its fast and easy, but a machine is making the calls and I don't like that. Why let my camera make the processing calls, especially if I am shooting in M and making all the exposure calls. It made sense for me to shoot RAW and make the edits in PS or LR because I was touching every shot anyway.
Second point with regards to RAW M or RAW S is printing. Everything I take has the potential to be purchased by a client as a printed piece. The M or S reduce the overall pixel size reducing the potential size of the printed piece. Sure, clients are not breaking down the door to buy 24X36 inch canvas wrapped pieces, but if they wanted them, I don't have to do anything to my images to make them beautiful at that size.
That's why we buy cameras with huge mega-pixel counts! It's for the prints. If you NEVER print off the shots and only use the shots on the web, then you could get away with RAW M or RAW S. Heck, you could get away with a 5MegaPixel camera if all you were doing is putting them on the web. The huge mega-pixel counts allow for huge amounts of detail in your shot. If you are reducing the shot down to 640X480 to post on Facebook, all that detail is gone anyway.
I stopped shooting JPEGs about 6 months ago because I was never using them and I didn't like the idea of letting the camera process for me. That's my choice. Don't think for a second that it's the only right or wrong way. It's what works for me. I touch EVERY photo that shows up anywhere. Control Freak Thomas needs the RAW.
You may very well LOVE the shots your camera takes as a JPEG and all you want to do is simple editing or apply a filter or two. JPEG works great. And, it's fast. I did a 6 hour shoot on Saturday and it's taken me about 12 hours to edit the RAW images. People may not have that kind of time. I choose to make the time because I want the images to look like a Thomas image, not a Canon image.
I hope this helped answer your questions!
"The second a photographer fires the shutter on a camera, the resulting image—a high quality JPEG, not an uncompressed RAW file—is transported by ethernet to Getty's central editing office in about 1.5 seconds. There, a team of three editors processes the photo. The first selects the best image and crops it for composition; the second editor color corrects; and the third adds metadata. The whole editing process is done in 30-40 seconds. Once the last editor is done, the image is blasted to the world. It takes about 90 seconds for the images to travel over redundant 100 Mbit/s dedicated lines to Getty's data servers in the the United States."
From this article: http://gizmodo.com/the-inside-story-of-how-olympic-photographers-capture-s-1521746623
In Getty's world, speed is essential - if they can get the shot out faster than anyone else, they make the money on it. Another perspective to consider!
@thomastoth I decided that my year two would be a RAW year because I did not know what others were talking about and I was too focused on "one a day" and learning manual settings. But this year, I'm doing RAW + jpg. I use jpg only when I'm doing big events (soccer) where I'm taking too many to bother processing, and because I have mastered manual, I do come out with shots that need minimal processing.
HOWEVER, RAW is important with processing and I have found that my processing time is cut in HALF now when I have some things I do want to change that I could not really accomplish in Jpg. I also make sure I DUMP whatever I don't work with. No need to clog my computer with valuable space, so now I have the photos I love, the space I need, and my processing skills have improved like my manual skills did in the first year on 365.
I still attempt to get the best shot possible before processing. I'm faster, better, and happier with RAW, but I'm glad I waited to make the shift. I'm going to add this video to my profile so others will understand why I made it one of my goals this year.
JPG is still awesome--it's really about how much you put in beforehand on a shot (in manual in particular) that makes the time/space commitment worth it.
I just have such a HARD time clicking that Remove from Disk button. Is there a support group for this type of phobia? I need it.
lets keep in mind that on any particular scene, sometimes we'd take like 3-5 images of that one thing... do we really NEED to keep 5 almost idential images? nope, pick the best one, turf the other 4. I guarantee that in a few years time when you look back on it, you wont miss those others that you threw away