Shooting Clients Raw or JPEG

[R.Robbins]

opps pleases excuse my type o


I just did my first paid shoot, I shot the whole thing in RAW some 250 shots and now im batch converting them to tifs. The whole thing is time consuming for a small job. Do most people out there shoot there paid work in RAW or JPEG I understand the differeneces between the two , so im just wondering what most people out there are using

 

[Azuth]

I shoot raw and only convert the images I use. If you got 250 usable images then well done. Otherwise, automated batch conversion should be a set & forget thing while you go eat lunch.

 

[ksmattfish]

If I'm shooting digital, I'm shooting raw: client work, personal projects, even snapshots. But I am a big believer in doing what works for you. I like post-processing, if you don't then shooting jpegs makes a lot of sense. If you are accurate with your exposures there really shouldn't be much problem shooting jpegs for clients.

 

[R.Robbins]

I just converted the whole batch to jpegs because I told my client I would give them a copy of all the pics on a disc, because they liked alot fo the out takes when I first showed them a few shots. I kept the raws and will back them up on dvd r/w's alog with the jpegs so there will be a raw to work with if i need it. Thanks for the advice I figured most people shot raw its just a little more work when people want all the shots from a shoot.

 

[Big Mike]

Yes, working with RAW images is more time consuming but it obviously has it's benefits as well. I agree with Azuth, only convert the shots that you want to work with...but as Matt said, do what works for you.

If your client does want all of the images...then it's fairly simple to set up an automatic conversion (and other simple things like Auto-levels etc.)...and then let the batch run while you have lunch etc.

 

[craig]

When I had an older dslr (Nikon D1H) I shot a lot in RAW. The process was slow but effective. Currently I shoot with a D200 and the .jpg's (fine) are near perfect. That has really helped with the post processing end. Personally RAW is handy, but I prefer to do as little post processing as possible.

 

[mentos_007]

this is a good question... Last time I was shooting a girl in the park, the light was so harsh that after 3-4 shots I moved from jpegs to raw to postprocess it. but..on weekend I am going to shoot some... trains...and I'm wondering if I need raw there... I need to ask that I have only 1 gig card where i can store about 100 raws...

 

[Alison]

I used to shoot high quality jpegs but I tried a wedding in RAW and I haven't gone back yet. Yes, it's time consuming but the time spent is well worth it in my opinion.

 

[Soocom1]

RAW eats memory like crazy, but the images are far superior.
Jpegs will continue to degrade each time they are copied. (From one copy to the next).
Raw can be copied to Jpeg, Tiff, etc. Personally, I always convert to TIFF mostly because there is no real loss in detail.
I shot my first wedding in High end Jpeg, and you could tell. The second wedding was a combo of Fine and ex-fine Jpegs. They came out fine, but had a b***h of a time correcting some of the colors. When I started really doing RAW, the colors were much easier to adjust and correct.
I am with the majority, stick with RAW. Sorta like shooting with a Mamiya RZ vs. a Kodak Pocket 110. You can still get good pics, but which one is better in quality by default?