# The Ultimate Raw v Jpeg thread



## Tiberius47 (Dec 4, 2011)

The title says it all.  Do you shoot raw files or jpegs?  Why one and not the other?  Or do you shoot both?  If so, why do you decide to shoot one photo in raw and the other as a jpeg?

So please choose an option in the poll, and expand on your choice here in the thread.

And let's not turn this into a RAW/JPEG debate, okay?  It's a file format, not a religion.

Personally, I'm the sort of photographer who likes to get it right in camera as much as I can.  So I don't do heavy editing in Photoshop.  This is one of the reasons I mainly shoot in JPEG.  The other reasons are that I don't like spending a long time editing my photos anyway (and RAW files tend to eat too much of my time), and I hate not being able to see a preview larger than a thumbnail until I open it.  I hate going through ten shots of the same thing, opening each one, just to find the shot that doesn't have camera shake.  I also like the longer burst times when I'm shooting, and the greater number of shots I can get on a card.

That said, if I know I am going to be doing some heavier work with a photo, I will shoot in RAW.  I do this if I'm shooting different exposures to blend together, tricky lighting situations and the like.


----------



## KmH (Dec 4, 2011)

How come you left out TIFF?


----------



## Derrel (Dec 4, 2011)

I usually shoot RAW + JPEG, with the in-camera sharpening turned up pretty high, so that the JPEG images can be used to evaluate sharpness of the original RAW Captures. This is a method used by a lot of people who want to evaluate critical sharpness more-easily, without the need to open images in post and then apply sharpening. If there are a LOT of originals to edit through (think sports events), cranking the sharpness up really high makes it much,much easier to spot a shot that is just slightly OOF. I also sometimes like to shoot in-camera black and white, and I want the B&W JPEGs sharpened, with the right tone curve, and the right filter effect and toning so that the images can be evaluated in the field or studio, as seen in black and white, at the time they are being made. The raw files will of course, have full RGB information in them. Memory cards are so big now, and storage space on discs and hard disks is so,so affordable that I feel absolutely no need to try and economize on space at any time.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 4, 2011)

KmH said:


> How come you left out TIFF?



Because TIFFs aren't Jpeg or raw.


----------



## memento (Dec 4, 2011)

I shoot both. Very seldom do I edit but if I do, I have the RAW file.


----------



## Garbz (Dec 5, 2011)

KmH said:


> How come you left out TIFF?



Who would be mad enough to shoot TIFFs if their camera supported it? The downsides of letting the camera process the image, combined with the downsides of large files, combined with the further downsides that they come in 8bit or 16bit variants which for a 12-14bit sensor means that the files are a uselessly large waste of space.

Is there some major upside I'm missing?


----------



## Rephargotohp (Dec 5, 2011)

First off a little secret, almost all Raw files are based on the Tiff format with a few changes

I shoot Raw only and I get most things right in camera. However, just like a film negative it must be developed. I prefer to do that developing in my lab (Computer) rather than in the camera like a polaroid

They give me the best image quality possible and also have the added benefit of not being Fubar-able (Oops I saved over the original with a web-size)

Both Bridge and Lightroom generate, Thumbnail, Monitor resolution and even 100% previews ( if you have your settings right) so I have no need to shoot a JPEG also to preview my image before opening.

Lightroom allows me to make virtual copies (without generating another file) so that I can have a color version and a Black & White side by side if I desired

I save my finished files as 16bit Tiff's and will make JPEG copies as neccesary for certain print labs, online gallery ordering and of course optimized Jpeg's for my Website


----------



## Buckster (Dec 5, 2011)

Garbz said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > How come you left out TIFF?
> ...


Someone whose camera does JPG or TIFF only, not RAW, and doesn't mind the extra time or space it takes as a tradeoff for having as much data as they can get to work with.



Garbz said:


> The downsides of letting the camera process the image, combined with the downsides of large files, combined with the further downsides that they come in 8bit or 16bit variants which for a 12-14bit sensor means that the files are a uselessly large waste of space.
> 
> Is there some major upside I'm missing?


On a camera that only provides an output of JPG or TIFF, it's the format that's got more information to work with and it hasn't been compressed and data thrown away in the process.


----------



## Tiberius47 (Dec 5, 2011)

KmH said:


> How come you left out TIFF?


 
Are there any cameras today that still save in TIFF format?  I thought that cameras used some kind of RAW file for the uncompressed images.


----------



## Rephargotohp (Dec 5, 2011)

Tiberius47 said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > How come you left out TIFF?
> ...



Nikon, D3x, D3s, D700 and D300s all can. I heard it's what Ashton, uses....lol

Hassleblad does too, but the file size is twice that of the Raw file 16bit N3F file 40MB, 8 bit tiff 95MB!


----------



## Rephargotohp (Dec 5, 2011)

Tiberius47 said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > How come you left out TIFF?
> ...


Raw files are compressed, just losslessly


----------



## Buckster (Dec 5, 2011)

Tiberius47 said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > How come you left out TIFF?
> ...


I noticed that someone mentioned a few days ago that they were still shooting with a Sony F717.  I recalled that it only provides outputs of JPG or TIFF.


----------



## Garbz (Dec 8, 2011)

Rephargotohp said:


> Raw files are compressed, just losslessly



*Some* are 



Buckster said:


> Someone whose camera does JPG or TIFF only, not RAW



Sure but what kind of answer is "I shoot because I have to" in the Ultimate JPG vs TIFF vs RAW thread


----------



## Buckster (Dec 8, 2011)

Garbz said:


> Rephargotohp said:
> 
> 
> > Raw files are compressed, just losslessly
> ...


You asked.  I answered.  :thumbup:


----------



## table1349 (Dec 8, 2011)




----------

