Shoot JPEG or RAW for events?

[freelancer]

While RAW post-processing is a time consuming process, I shoot exclusively in RAW and it saves me a lot of hassle.

I disagree. It depends on whether you are using a good raw software in your workflow for example C1, RSE/RSP or Bibble. A good raw software will actually help you save time to post process jpeg files. If you need fast 'proofs' most good raw software will have some form of feature that allows you to set WB across a selection of images in one click (camera AWB is great but in mixed lights, it is more wrong than correct), etc and get proofs out very quickly. I have seen a lot of improvements in raw software particularly 'adaptive' technologies incorporated over the last 2 years. Its quite amazing how a plugin for example can do make an image 'pop' more

Storage cards like Sandisk Ultra II are so cheap today .. around 25% of what I used to pay for CF cards less than 2 years ago.

The other point is that with RAW you have the digital negative. When improvements are made to raw software in the future, you can always go back and regenerate a much better image quality. jpeg on the other hand is a one way destructive process where the camera will decide how an image will look. For casual snap shots where you do not expect to post process the image, jpegs are still recommended. Or if you are new to digital image post processing, I would also think jpeg is the easier approach to things

 

[mechplas]

Shoot JPEG (highest resolution setting) all the time...... RAW postprocessing is so time consuming.

Rule of Thumb for DTP - Even if you shoot in the highest resolution JPEG, after postprocessing, save them as TIFF, to prevent further deterioraton in resolution. Do not save the file again as JPEG.

I do the same. Always set highest and jpeg. But I did not really know about the resaving in jpeg deteriortion......:embrass:

Well, at least I got something new n yet to learn...taking RAW and Postprocessing.

 

[Belle&Sebastain]

i do not think Jpegs are any faster than RAW, in fact my RAW management is way faster than Jpegs. i only shoot in RAW now.

 

[DarkForce]

I shoot RAW since the day I started learning photography.

So far shoot jpeg only once as the organizer wanted to tranfer the files to their notebook at the end of the events. Other than that RAW is my only option.

 

[tomshen]

It doesn't mean you shoot in RAW and your photo quality would necessarily be better. I have seen many sub-standard RAW converted photos ;p Also, if your cameras have big footprints (eg 5D, 1Ds2, D2x), that would be so painfully boring to process raw files. I will never shoot a full day event with 12+MP raw unless my computer can be 3 times faster. However, to me raw workflow is so much faster in terms of correcting exposure mistakes and adjusting white balance. Simply love my 1D for the superb image quality and small raw files.

 

[dEthANGeL]

Important events - definitely RAW as it allows more flexibility incase i screw up some shots. It also allows overall more flexibility with post processing.

I'll only shoot jpeg if i'm very sure of what to expect.

So far my mistake is the recent SKC dog show ... really regretted not using RAW. Pictures turned out to bad.

 

[DarkForce]

Important events - definitely RAW as it allows more flexibility incase i screw up some shots. It also allows overall more flexibility with post processing.

I'll only shoot jpeg if i'm very sure of what to expect.

So far my mistake is the recent SKC dog show ... really regretted not using RAW. Pictures turned out to bad.

"I'll only shoot jpeg if i'm very sure of what to expect"

Sorry that I don't agree with it. I still stoot RAW even when I am very sure of what to expect loh.

Just my 0.002 cents

 

[freelancer]

It doesn't mean you shoot in RAW and your photo quality would necessarily be better.

It is because you can pull out a lot more details from the image. Whether you have the right tools (software, computer power) to do the job properly is another question. For example Canon DPP renders very good colors but workflow is so slow.

Technically speaking, JPEG is 8 bits or 256 'color tones' where as RAW is 12 bits or 4096 'color tones'. Meaning a finer spread of the color combinations if you put it in a nutshell.

The main reason RAW photo quality is worse than JPEG is because JPEG images are already pre-processed in-camera whereas RAW expects the photographer to process the image to how he sees it. I do not think that the camera image algorithm can replace the human being behind the camera in making decisions about how an image should look. There are just too many possibilities here. Just to be clear , if you are not moderately experienced with post processing, JPEG is the way to go

 

[tomshen]

It is because you can pull out a lot more details from the image. Whether you have the right tools (software, computer power) to do the job properly is another question. For example Canon DPP renders very good colors but workflow is so slow.

Technically speaking, JPEG is 8 bits or 256 'color tones' where as RAW is 12 bits or 4096 'color tones'. Meaning a finer spread of the color combinations if you put it in a nutshell.

The main reason RAW photo quality is worse than JPEG is because JPEG images are already pre-processed in-camera whereas RAW expects the photographer to process the image to how he sees it. I do not think that the camera image algorithm can replace the human being behind the camera in making decisions about how an image should look. There are just too many possibilities here. Just to be clear , if you are not moderately experienced with post processing, JPEG is the way to go

Correct! I had struggled more than half a year before I learnt something about raw processing. The worst part was I didn't calibrated my monitor so I wasted a lot of time.

 

[Andy Ang]

Wanted to switch to RAW, so get a new computer. Still CANNOT MAKE IT LEH!

(Sorry loor, opening a 5 sec. raw file is still too slow for me).

 

[freelancer]

Wanted to switch to RAW, so get a new computer. Still CANNOT MAKE IT LEH!

(Sorry loor, opening a 5 sec. raw file is still too slow for me).

What raw converter are you using? What is your system specs. 5 secs is way too long per image

 

[Andy Ang]

3Ghz, 2G RAM. No cache file.

Opening using the Nikon NEF Plug in.

(Maybe, now start using CS Plug in, although not the 'generic' only 'licensed', but guessed will do ba)

Sorry I a bit ruffled by lag, cos even my thumbnails of hundreds of JPG have 2 sec lag, I also quite disturbed already.

 

[freelancer]

3Ghz, 2G RAM. No cache file.

Something is seriously wrong with your system performance. Sounds like your raw software is developing a full resolution copy of the image when you open it up. Most raw software I had used would generate a preview copy during the edit process and then batch create a full resolution copy when all the edits are done.

Give RSE (free software) a try www.pixmantec.com

I am using the paid version (RSP) which has a few more features over RSE. Performance is certainly much faster

 

[Andy Ang]

Ya thanks, switched to PS plug in, a little faster, think need to up my RAM somemore then can totally switch over! Hahaha.

 

[freelancer]

2GB RAM is enough. On Window XP I dont think additional RAM will make that much of a difference. I think its 3GB max or something like that is actually usable (unless you are on the 64 bit OS).

As far as I know Photoshop benefits from fast hard drives like SATA.

In addition, have you enabled 'large tiles' for your photoshop CS2?

 

[OlyFlyer]

RAW all the time. I tried to switch between JPEG and RAW for different takings, but I am just too damn stupid to remember to switch all the time. So, pics that supposed to be RAW turn out to be JPEG and vica versa. I also tried to take both at the same time (yes, with my Oly E-500 you can do that) but it just takes too much extra work, because some pics need post processing anyway, so I have to process RAW and than throw away the original JPEG and save the processed one. Too much extra work. Besides, my camera and 2GB Sundisk Extrem III are fast enough for taking in RAW. Also, Oly RAW is not that large.

An other point is that according to me, there is only one real original in digital picture, and that is RAW, which is a direct image from the CCD. Everything else is like a Polaroid picture. I don't have to care about white balance, that is very easily fixed later. A digital lab for RAW is like a vet lab for film, except that it is much easier to handle and correct mistakes and you don't even have to get wet. It is real fun and gives good results quite easy.

 

[PortraitsInDigital]

Somehow, I prefer shotting in RAW. Helps me recover from my screwups. Also, an important factor to consider is you buffer size and how fast you camera writes the raw file to the chip. Raw files require less processing than jpg files but more time for writing due to the size of the raw file. You will not want to risk taking shots in RAW for a wedding proper with small buffer.

When I take shots with a Nikon D100, the buffer can only handle 4-5 shots, than its a 30s to 1min wait while it writes the file. At this point of time, it would be to late to change to jpg. With my D200, I have a buffer for about 21 shots, and I am more willing to take pictures in RAW.

 

[OlyFlyer]

...Nikon D100, the buffer can only handle 4-5 shots, than its a 30s to 1min wait while it writes the file...

Wow...30s-1min That is a long time. It takes only about one sec to write for my Olympus E-500 and I think that is an awful long time. Well, it has the worlds fastest processor and the Sundisk Extreme III CF. With JPEG there would be no limit with this CF, it would write without any waiting time. Unfortunatly, there is only a buffer for 4-5 pics, so I envy you for the D200's 21 pic buffer. How long does that take to write? And, what CF are you using? I notice a huge difference when I use Sandisk Ultra II CF. That feels extremly slow, it is actually half of the Extreme III. And if your D100 figures are what other people have, I really understand why people don't take pics in RAW.

 

[blive]

Here's what KRW says on this raw vs jpeg issue

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

KRW don't use raw, he uses Jpeg Normal compression L!

 

[freelancer]

Here's what KRW says on this raw vs jpeg issue

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

KRW don't use raw, he uses Jpeg Normal compression L!

Can you please do a search on the web (good well respected forums) and see how good a laugh people seems to get with this guy's point of view.