Comments on: RAW or JPEG – Which Do You Shoot In?

By: jdventer

jdventer — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 05:00:28 +0000

I shoot RAW except when using my F200EXR which does not shoot RAW. Even when I am forced to use JPEG I processing the JPEG with Adobe Camera RAW and save the file as a DNG or Photoshop file to preserve as much information as possible. I shoot RAW retain and use as much usable image data as I can.

By: Charlie

Charlie — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:45:06 +0000

JPEG mostly because most of my shots are of the kids and family at parties and so on. I dont need the hassle of having to adjust each one of them after the fact. JPEG is good enough for them!

If I am shooting for competition or am in a very tricky situation then I use RAW so I can make the best of my shots.

By: Taz

Taz — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 02:28:59 +0000

@Irish – get the latest plugins for camera RAW for Photoshop Elements and it will support many of the newer cameras. I have a Nikon D90 for example and it is supported.

I was amazed at how many shots I was able to save while shooting in Raw+JPEG. I can see some of the cool postprocessing it does in camera for the JPG but there were a lot of shots I was able to save due to the better dynamic range of RAW that I couldn’t seem to do with the JPG.

Without a doubt the best part of RAW for me is white balance though.

By: irish

irish — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:39:16 +0000

I was shooting in both RAW and JPEG but was not successful in uploading the RAW files into Photoshop-Elements so I went back to just JPEG.

By: Silva

Silva — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 23:43:30 +0000

I shoot only RAW because I like 16bit quality and the freedom of editing in RAW now it’s available, it’s always been a challenge to gain the most quality compared to the old film reproduction and this is the closest it gets!

By: Tabitha (From Single to Married)

Tabitha (From Single to Married) — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:55:48 +0000

I shoot in JPEG Fine which is still a large file even though it’s not RAW. I’m currently taking a photography class, however, and I may start trying RAW soon to see if I can tell a difference.

By: KBeat

KBeat — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:40:44 +0000

This thread has become rather amusing. We’ve gone from “RAW is the only way to shoot” to “you’re a moron if you shoot RAW” to “real pros only use JPEG” back to “Professionals only use RAW.” No wonder new photographers are so confused about the format. For what it’s worth, here are my 2 cents;

RAW: There are some real advantages to using RAW, in particular with exposure, white balance, and highlight recovery. You have greater flexibility in changing white balance and exposure with RAW. That’s not to say you can’t do both with JPEG, but it doesn’t give you the same degree of flexibility. When it comes to highlight recovery, RAW is far superior to JPEG. You can make the claim that if you know what you’re doing when you take the photograph it’s not necessary, but I know what I’m doing and I’ve been very grateful to have that ability when working in Aperture on more than one occasion.

Working with RAW is completely lossless, unlike JPEG. You could save all your original JPEGs and only work with copies, thereby having an original to go back to, but it’s unnecessary with RAW and programs like Aperture and Lightroom. Yes those programs will work with JPEGs and TIFFs, but you lose a lot of functionality when working with those formats. Save the conspiracy theories. Apple has nothing to gain by your using RAW over JPEG. If the exact same data was available in the JPEG as in the RAW file, you’d have the same level of functionality with the editors, and you don’t.

JPEG: The most obvious benefit is file size, and this is not a minor benefit when one event can produce thousands of shots. There are times when it’s simply not practical to shoot RAW. Sports events are obvious, but there are plenty of others.

The other, mostly overlooked advantage, is to take advantage of modern camera technology. Canon, for example, has added a lot of useful features in the new Digic IV processor. Peripheral Illumination correction, advanced noise reduction algorithms at higher ISOs, picture styles, highlight tone priority, lighting optimizer, etc. With RAW, you lose all of those features as none of them are applied to the RAW file. You could use DPP to apply them in post, but it’s a rather anemic piece of software compared to Aperture, Lightroom, or even Photoshop which most of us use. Yes, most of this can be done, and done better, with a good RAW editor like Aperture, but it’s undeniably more work.

RAW is a fie format. JPEG is a file format. They are not ideologies. Each has advantages and most Pros I know, including myself, utilize both.

By: Stuart

Stuart — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 17:51:01 +0000

RAW is the only real answer. Back when I used film (yea that thing with holes and comes in a metal case) post production of a photo from the negative was essential. Why would someone assume that you wouldn’t need to do that just because the photo medium changed. The thing I like about my DLSR over my 35mm is only knowing instantly if I got the picture I was looking to get. I know that I will do some tweaking in post so I truly equate RAW to having the negative. Anyone that complains about the processing time of a RAW image should not worry about buying their full-frame DSLR, but purchase a computer with a better processor.

By: Andre

Andre — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 15:04:04 +0000

Hi J. Eaton

Does Lightroom suport NEF , I always wanted to try it out and where do I get Lightroom?

regards
Andre

By: J. Eaton

J. Eaton — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 05:11:20 +0000

I shoot almost exclusively in RAW (NEF) and process with Adobe Photoshop LIghtroom. I do most of my processing in LIghtroom, occasionally tweaking in Photoshop; export ot JPEG for Flickr etc. I’ve found that this workflow gives me a more and more organized set up and I always have full control on the editing. I do try very hard not to need to change things in LIghtroom: get it right in the camera is still the ideal.