# Is RAW really worth it?



## thetrue (Nov 20, 2012)

I'm on my way to shoot a location I've been after for months. Super low light, I'm going to be shooting at iso 100, f/1.8 and 10-14 second shutter. Until now I've only ever shot in jpg, so I'm wondering if its really worth the extra large file size to shoot in RAW? Anyone have a legitimate argument as to why I should use RAW rather than jpg? Chances are I'll use both and look at the difference in LR4 when I get home, but if I can save a significant amount of space and have a similar result, what's actually the point of raw?

I hereby apologize in advance for any and all feuds this may cause, since I'm confident there are proponents for either side.

UPDATE (should have done this weeks ago): I'm shooting primarily RAW and love it.


----------



## jaomul (Nov 20, 2012)

Can't imagine any fueds. There is already a raw jpeg fueds on in the digital discussions form. Raw is worth it if you need a bit of adjustment later such as exposure and wb and noise reducing and sharpening. If you are capable of setting your camera up to get theses parameters as you require you don't need the raw file.


----------



## bratkinson (Nov 20, 2012)

I switched to shooting RAW back in January.  As memory cards are dirt cheap, I shoot RAW + large JPG. That way, I get a choice of what I want to use.  On my 60D, RAW + Large JPG gets about 450 pix per 16gb card.  So space is not an issue, to me.

For shoots that are for my own enjoyment, I find the JPG is quite sufficient.  I'm not looking to do any fancy editing, etc.  I'm more interested in improving my skills, seeing things differently, etc.

But for the stuff that others are going to see, then I use RAW.  I download both to my computer, then use Windows Picture Viewer to make my 'first pass' cuts before absolutely any editing.  I simply delete the JPG and the RAW together.  That knocks off about 25% of the shots as too light/dark/duplicative/oops! and whatever else I don't want to bother with.  Then I import the RAWs into Lightroom and go from there.

Why RAW?  Simply put, there's more image information to work with.  JPGs, by their very nature, takes shortcuts, most notably the loss of color depth (eg, how many differing shades of red are shown, for example).  There's far more to 'work with' using RAW, and therefore, a larger 'range' of what you want to do with each picture.  Once I started working with RAW, I immediately found the need to get my white balance accurate, too.  THAT made a big difference in my finished shots!  Shooting a grey card/Expo disk/Color Checker and setting WB in post based on that greatly simplified my color correcting efforts.

Bottom line...memory cards are cheap, hard drive space is even cheaper.  Having both to work with gives me more choices of how to 'finish it'.  Once I'm done with my processing, I only keep the 'final cut' of JPGs.  I have very little need or liklihood of having to go back and 're-process' my work.


----------



## thetrue (Nov 20, 2012)

Thank you both for simplifying this for me. I got close to my spot only to find road crews with those sun-bright lights all over the place. DAMNIT!

I'm going to experiment with RAW tomorrow and see what I can come up with, although I have no grey card or anything, I'll just play with WB in post to what catches my eye, not necessarily what is correct.

Thanks again!


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 20, 2012)

Raw isn't the end-of-all-means for everyone.  For an occasional shooter just wanting to take 'snapshots', or if you simply don't have the time to edit, JPEGs are just fine.  But if you're serious about getting the maximum out of your images, raw is the way to go.


----------



## AlexanderB (Nov 20, 2012)

Gosh. The only thing I'm sure from the previous thread on the topic is that discussing such things on the forums is not worth it. It is easy to try both and decide later.


----------



## Helen B (Nov 20, 2012)

It's definitely worth trying both, but remember that the exposure that gives the best results for a JPEG will probably not be the one that gives the best results for raw (sic).


----------



## Vautrin (Nov 20, 2012)

Think of it like making a sandwich.

JPEG serves you a delicious sandwich.  But its on a plate and comes from a kitchen at your local cafe

RAW is like being allowed to go back into the kitchen.  Maybe you want some extra pickles so you grab some or double the meat, and take your sandwich apart and put it together again

You might find jpeg delicious....  but raw is more flexible.  And if the kitchen forgets the mustard, its nice to be able to add it


----------



## ghache (Nov 20, 2012)




----------



## manaheim (Nov 20, 2012)

Real men also search the forums before posting a thread asking about RAW for the 87,000th time.

But yes, RAW is worth it.


----------



## deeky (Nov 20, 2012)

Here's the way I explain it - Think back to film.  Shooting in jpeg is _basically _like shooting Polaroids.  Most processeing is done in camera for you.  Little work, but quick automatic result.  RAW is like shooting film, then taking it home and processing it in your own darkroom.  It is more work, knowledge, and skill to get a good result, but you have much more control over the end results.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Nov 20, 2012)

thetrue said:


> IChances are I'll use both and look at the difference in LR4 when I get home...





If you're going to shoot both anyway, why bother starting an argument on the forum?


----------



## unpopular (Nov 20, 2012)

The way I see it from a b/w background: the unprocessed raw file is like unprocessed exposed film, the processed TIF file is like the processed negative, the working file (photoline, gimp, photoshop, etc) is like the darkroom print. 

This is meant in the allegorical sense, not entirely technically accurate. But there are similarities when you approach digital photography from a film POV.

The unprocessed raw does not contain an "image", but rather information about an image. A film's latent image is similar to this in that we cannot understand the chemical changes in a film's emulsion in terms of being an "image". We can appreciate it in terms of "chemistry" but it's not an "image". Likewise, we can appreciate a raw file in terms of "binary data", but it's not an image unless it is developed.

The raw file serves to record as much information about the scene as possible. It is unlikely you'll gain a significant improvement aside from perhaps some sharpness and noise handling by "developing" a raw file using the same settings as you had in the camera using the manufacturers' software. IMO, I don't know if there is a real significant advantage to RAW if you don't take an exposure method that maximizes signal to noise either - aside from correcting mistakes or oversights you missed in camera, or if there are features in your raw processor that you don't have in camera.

But I don't think that "fixing mistakes" is a wise way to look at the advantages for raw. Adam's didn't propose the Zone System to "fix blown hilights", rather it is a way to gather the most information about the scene and render it into a useable negative _without _clipping the hilights. Sure, there are always ways to recover dense, plugged up hilights but the results are always going to be inferior - and often in similar or allegories ways to under-exposed shadows in digital: big blotchy grains.

So I see raw in a similar way. An 8-bit jpeg simply does not contain the data necessary to translate my exposure to that "useable negative" without significantly damaging it. Translations have already been applied in such a way that require I *undo* them if I apply this technique.

But what's the point of approaching it this way? Quite often the "middle of the road" 'proper' exposure is simply not suitable enough to retain maximum shadow detail, and what shadow detail exists is pretty noisy by comparison to the rest of the image. Whites may "appear" properly exposed, but only because of gamma correction, and in reality you still have several stops' latitude before clipping. By viewing exposure not as something to "nail" but rather as something more technically objective, to maximize the amount of light, overall quality should theoretically improve as the amount of noise relative to actual signal about the scene increases. So when I approach digital exposure, I am looking to maximizing hilight exposure while maintaining detail, knowing I can compensate for shadows in raw development. I then make more local adjustments in Photoline.


----------



## runnah (Nov 20, 2012)

Vautrin said:


> Think of it like making a sandwich.
> 
> JPEG serves you a delicious sandwich.  But its on a plate and comes from a kitchen at your local cafe
> 
> ...




I know what I am having for lunch.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 20, 2012)

^^ meaty, pickley sandwich with extra mustard?


----------



## KmH (Nov 20, 2012)

A Raw image file is kind of like a film negative. Though developed, it's not finished yet, and needs some additional work.

No Raw image file editing is done by the camera, but some editing is done out side the camera by the Raw converter software used to make all the 1's and 0's in the file into an image.
Since a Raw file is edited outside the camera, edits can be very subtle, done locally or globally within the image, and can be done very precisely.
Raw image data files have a 12-bit depth (4096 colors per color channel), or a 14-bit depth (16,384 colors per color channel)

JPEG (Joint Photographic Experts Group) was designed to be a SOOC (Straight Out Of the Camera) edited, finished, ready-to-print file format. JPEG is limited to an 8-bit depth (256 colors per color channel).
The initial JPEG editing done in the camera was decided on by the JPEG team and the team of camera software engineers who would never see your photo but that designed your camera.
Plus, the minimal editing adjustment controls the camera has only offers limited range and only global image adjustments.
Bit depth, JPEG, TIFF, Why Should I Use Raw? - Photo Editing Tutorials


----------



## unpopular (Nov 20, 2012)

Where did you get that? JPEG predates digital photography by at least a decade. 

My guess is that it was designed for digital transmission of photographs as the old AP Wire system was being replaced by ftp....


----------



## KmH (Nov 20, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Where did you get that? JPEG predates digital photography by at least a decade.
> 
> My guess is that it was designed for digital transmission of photographs as the old AP Wire system was being replaced by ftp....


JPEG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> The name "JPEG" stands for Joint Photographic Experts Group, the name of the committee that created the JPEG standard and also other still picture coding standards. The "Joint" stood for ISO TC97 WG8 and CCITT SGVIII. In 1987 ISO TC 97 became ISO/IEC JTC1 and in 1992 CCITT became ITU-T. Currently on the JTC1 side JPEG is one of two sub-groups of ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee 1, Subcommittee 29, Working Group 1 (ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 1) &#8211; titled as _Coding of still pictures_.[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP] On the ITU-T side ITU-T SG16 is the respective body. The original JPEG group was organized in 1986,[SUP][6][/SUP] issuing the first JPEG standard in 1992, which was approved in September 1992 as *ITU-TRecommendation T.81*[SUP][7][/SUP] and in 1994 as *ISO/IEC 10918-1*.The JPEG standard specifies the codec, which defines how an image is compressed into a stream of bytes and decompressed back into an image, but not the file format used to contain that stream.[SUP][8][/SUP] The Exif and JFIF standards define the commonly used file formats for interchange of JPEG-compressed images.
> JPEG standards are formally named as _Information technology &#8211; Digital compression and coding of continuous-tone still images_. ISO/IEC 10918 consists of the following parts:


----------



## unpopular (Nov 20, 2012)

I don't see anything about "cameras". I doubt that in 1992 a file format suitable for digital photography was their motivation. Though, this is off topic...

----

JPEG is a terrible format by today's standards. I don't know why people stick with it, even most web browsers can display PNG files; there is no reason to even use it, IMO. There are other non-proprietary formats that are significantly better, especially for storage in-camera.


----------



## christop (Nov 20, 2012)

unpopular said:


> I don't see anything about "cameras". I doubt that in 1992 a file format suitable for digital photography was their motivation. Though, this is off topic...
> 
> ----
> 
> JPEG is a terrible format by today's standards. I don't know why people stick with it, even most web browsers can display PNG files; there is no reason to even use it, IMO. There are other non-proprietary formats that are significantly better, especially for storage in-camera.



I don't think he's saying that JPEG was designed specifically for cameras in any way (scanned photos were the norm when it was developed).

But I believe JPEG is still relevant today for photographs. PNG is a lossless format so it cannot compress photographs as well as the lossy JPEG can at quality levels that most people would find acceptable (though "acceptable" quality is highly subjective). I haven't done any comparisons lately, but I would imagine that a photograph would compress to a smaller file size as JPEG at quality 95 or lower than as a PNG most of the time. It's all about a compromise between size and quality (more pictures fit on a memory card, which is what many people care about).

In terms of quality to file size, better photographic compression algorithms do exist (as I'm sure you're well aware), but JPEG is so widely supported by almost all browsers and image viewers/editors that another format would have difficulty gaining acceptance in consumer digital cameras.


----------



## fractionofasecond (Nov 20, 2012)

Yes, RAW is worth it.


----------



## KmH (Nov 20, 2012)

History of the Digital Camera


----------



## greybeard (Nov 20, 2012)

It is worth it for me because of the way I like to work (or um play).  I couldn't care less if ever make a dime with photography, I play around with it to help me keep my sanity.  That means shooting Raw, importing them into Lightroom, Editing them with Photoshop and then exporting them as JPEG's for publication etc.  If I were shooting for profit and time was money I would probably only shoot in JPEG and edit everything with lightroom.  It all comes down to whatever gives you what you are looking for.  My workflow gives me what I want.


----------



## Garbz (Nov 21, 2012)

It's worth it because I didn't spend $3500 on an 8bit camera without the ability to do highlight recovery or change white balance quickly to preset values. 

But I do understand. I see plenty of people driving around town with their handbrake on. (and oh I wish this were just a stupid joke)


----------



## matthewo (Nov 21, 2012)

If Your photos look perfect and dont need editing,  I guess jpg is Fine.

RAW allows for much more adjustment in post, while still retaining good quality

Usually RAW will look a little flat and desaturated compaired to how jpg files come out the camera.  Main thing to remember is turn off all features when shooting RAW.  Example: nikons' Active d lighting will affect metered exposure by up to a stop sometimes.  It will under expose then bump shaddows.  If shooting RAW and editing in lightroom this data will be thrown out.  Its only uses for jpg(inbeded in photo) or extra data on RAW read by Nikon software like NX view


----------



## manaheim (Nov 21, 2012)

Garbz said:


> It's worth it because I didn't spend $3500 on an 8bit camera without the ability to do highlight recovery or change white balance quickly to preset values.
> 
> But I do understand. I see plenty of people driving around town with their handbrake on. (and oh I wish this were just a stupid joke)



  Wow... if you get a grumbly comment from Garbz, you've seriously accomplished something.


----------



## Fred Berg (Nov 21, 2012)

Raw is only worth using if you have enough time and patience to dedicate to the editing process. If you are happy with the jpg images that you and your camera can produce together, then this is a very attractive option that make raw seem like a bit of a chore.


----------



## JSER (Nov 21, 2012)

thetrue said:


> I'm on my way to shoot a location I've been after for months. Super low light, I'm going to be shooting at iso 100, f/1.8 and 10-14 second shutter. Until now I've only ever shot in jpg, so I'm wondering if its really worth the extra large file size to shoot in RAW? Anyone have a legitimate argument as to why I should use RAW rather than jpg? Chances are I'll use both and look at the difference in LR4 when I get home, but if I can save a significant amount of space and have a similar result, what's actually the point of raw?
> 
> I hereby apologize in advance for any and all feuds this may cause, since I'm confident there are proponents for either side.



Yes don't ever shoot a paid wedding etc with jpag only


----------



## Mike_E (Nov 21, 2012)

IF you're going to walk into the bank's vault take as big a bag as you can get.

If the image is important grab all of it.


----------



## JC1305US (Dec 14, 2012)

Always shoot raw. The more options you have in lightroom the better. Its like shooting with a safety net, because you don't want to lose a great shot because of some minor technical glitch.


----------



## TCampbell (Dec 14, 2012)

manaheim said:


> Real men also search the forums before posting a thread asking about RAW for the 87,000th time.
> 
> But yes, RAW is worth it.



But if people search the forums, there wont be any new threads.


----------



## KmH (Dec 14, 2012)

JSER said:


> Yes don't ever shoot a paid wedding etc with jpag only


Quite a few of the best wedding photographers in the world shoot weddings in JPEG.


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 14, 2012)

KmH said:
			
		

> Quite a few of the best wedding photographers in the world shoot weddings in JPEG.



You seem to misinterpret his words.

I don't think he's referring to the JPEG format.

He's clearly talking about the less popular JPAG format. It's like the Betamax of the digital format realm.


----------



## spacefuzz (Dec 14, 2012)

Maybe a shameless plug...but it seemed on topic for this. An article I wrote which shows just how much you can recover using RAW. 

Why Shoot with RAW? - pictureline


----------



## STIC (Dec 14, 2012)

...


----------



## panblue (Dec 14, 2012)

Jpeg for obviously great images with immediacy and impact. Raw for BS that needs massaging and beautification.


----------



## panblue (Dec 14, 2012)

lol


----------



## bratkinson (Dec 15, 2012)

For those too young to remember Betamax...it had -and still has- better image quality than VHS could EVER deliver!  It's only because Sony got 'greedy' and charged everyone to license Beta format to build equipment or even make blank tapes that killed Beta.  VHS was their first video tape attempt and they sold/gave away the whole kit and kaboodle making it 'public domain', effectively.  And as of 8-10 years ago, TV studios STILL used 1" Beta format tape machines.  It was only the change to digital broadcasting that put an end to their Beta machines.


----------



## slow231 (Dec 15, 2012)

if you're just using raw as insurance for an f-up, you're only realizing part of the game.  bit depth is everything. color control (huge + here), precise tonal manipulation, and being able to reign in information from past both ends of the histogram (which can easily happen on a single same shot)...  this all works to generate substantially better images, even for perfectly exposed, perfectly WB-ed shots. This is especially useful for area specific adjustments.  not all parts of your frame are going to be colored the same, or optimally lit, why limit your adjustment range to rendering that is just averaged for your entire frame?

camera's are so good now, auto exposure, auto wb, etc is usually spot on.  and the times when they're not are usually pretty easy to recognize beforehand (and compensate for).  Yet still plenty of people prefer to shoot raw.  it's not just an insurance thing.

another note.  i shoot purely raw, and don't see a reason to save a jpg with it (aside from adding file clutter).  i have to go through my images anyways, anything i want to keep but not edit i can just toss into a batch conversion with some default settings.  takes me no more work than any other file drag + drop (at least for me, my computer has to do more work though!).


----------



## greybeard (Dec 15, 2012)

KmH said:


> JSER said:
> 
> 
> > Yes don't ever shoot a paid wedding etc with jpag only
> ...



I have a few friends who are long time pro's and they all shoot in JPEG.  To them, time is money and the extra time needed to edit and process RAW isn't necessary for them.  These guys shot film for 30 yrs with Mamiya 6x7 monsters and had to take whatever the lab gave them.  They know what they are doing and how to get what their client wants and JPEG gives it to them.  If I were a pro (which I am not) I would shoot both and work mainly with the JPEGS as long as they didn't need a lot of editing, keeping the RAW's in case something really needs a lot of editing.    (jmho)


----------



## unpopular (Dec 15, 2012)

panblue said:


> Jpeg for obviously great images with immediacy and impact. Raw for BS that needs massaging and beautification.



I like plastic, inferior, low resolution processors too!! They really make my digital photographs have that digital look to them! Oh, and the way my camera handles noise! Just love me some smeary, gooey ick!


----------



## unpopular (Dec 15, 2012)

greybeard said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > JSER said:
> ...



Don't your friends know about batch processing? There are good reasons to shoot JPEG, laziness isn't one of them.


----------



## STIC (Dec 15, 2012)

...


----------



## RacePhoto (Dec 15, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> thetrue said:
> 
> 
> > IChances are I'll use both and look at the difference in LR4 when I get home...
> ...



Like shooting Polariods compared to processing in a darkroom. Hardly more than a shallow snobish evaluation.

Here's the real answer. *It Depends...*

I can make a whole long list of reasons why some situations you would want to shoot JPG and some where you would want to shoot RAW. It Depends!

I agree with Chris:  

 and also... 



_"Can we all get along?"_


----------



## bunny99123 (Dec 15, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:
			
		

> If you're going to shoot both anyway, why bother starting an argument on the forum?
> 
> <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=26264"/>



That's funny!


----------



## Patrick_L (Dec 15, 2012)

It really depends on your personal circumstances. Since I'm a wedding photographer,  I do all my portraits in RAW , but candids in jpeg, since they are not as critical, and I underexpose a third of a stop so as to not to blow out highlights when shooting jpeg ( raw has more DR ).  If you are shooting for contests, art, or professional, RAW is advised. If you are not, and you don't mind the extra download time and disk space usage,  why not?   If you are just doing snaps of friends at parties, I wouldn't see the point.  Your call.


----------



## JohnTrav (Dec 15, 2012)

Raw is def worth it IMO when it comes to editing. There is more you can do with the raw file. 

I just shoot raw+jpeg. It's the best way I think. Only down side is how much more space it takes up on your cards


----------



## Awiserbud (Dec 15, 2012)

Once you start shooting in RAW, you automatically become a professional photographer, it's true, some bloke who wears an "i shoot raw" t-shirt told me.


----------



## STIC (Dec 15, 2012)

...


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 15, 2012)

Kphipps said:


> For professional sessions, I would recommend shooting in RAW because you can control the image. Plus, the resolution is a lot higher for printing. If you try to blow up a regular jpeg, it may look pixelated. When I do every day casual shots for the web, fb, or blogs, I just use the regular jpeg setting because RAW takes up a lot of space.
> 
> Professional = RAW
> Casual/Every day use = jpeg
> ...



No, the resolution for printing is identical between a camera's raw file and that same camera's JPEG file. If the JPEG compression is heavy then artifacts and banding can show in printing, but that's an adjustable setting.

Joe


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 15, 2012)

Kphipps said:


> For professional sessions, I would recommend shooting in RAW because you can control the image. Plus, the resolution is a lot higher for printing. If you try to blow up a regular jpeg, it may look pixelated. When I do every day casual shots for the web, fb, or blogs, I just use the regular jpeg setting because RAW takes up a lot of space.
> 
> Professional = RAW
> Casual/Every day use = jpeg
> ...




Who can make prints from a raw file?


----------



## coastalconn (Dec 17, 2012)

I wish I had shot raw from the beginning.  I made the switch in late spring I think, I still wish I could go back and fix some of the jpegs..  As far as storage space, that is silly, a 1 TB external hard drive is under $100 bucks now.  Here's a post I started awhile ago...  http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photography-beginners-forum/302724-why-you-should-shoot-raw.html  Like others said if you are just taking snapshots or have no interest in improving your images Jpeg is fine for many applications...


----------



## STIC (Dec 17, 2012)

...


----------



## Helen B (Dec 17, 2012)

Josep22h said:


> If you are capable of setting your camera up to get theses parameters as you require you don't need the raw file.



You forgot to add "... and you do not require the best image quality, least noise, greatest colour gamut and greatest dynamic range your camera is capable of."


----------



## snowbear (Dec 17, 2012)

. . . but Ken Rockwell doesn't shoot raw, so JPEG *must* be the way to go.


----------



## Helen B (Dec 17, 2012)

I didn't know Ken Rockwell took pictures. I thought he was just a comedian.


----------



## dewey (Dec 17, 2012)

No love for the sports guys eh?  Of course shoot RAW for weddings, portraits, landscape, etc... but I always shoot JPG for sports.  It speeds everything up including a quick edit and send in the parking lot after the game.

Hello cake?  Yeah meet eating it too.

O'Doyle rules!


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 17, 2012)

dewey said:


> No love for the sports guys eh?  Of course shoot RAW for weddings, portraits, landscape, etc... but I always shoot JPG for sports.  It speeds everything up including a quick edit and send in the parking lot after the game.
> 
> Hello cake?  Yeah meet eating it too.
> 
> O'Doyle rules!



Is shooting jpeg common practice for sports photography? I dont shoot any sports, and the last time i shot jpeg was to check the shutter count.  Aparantly, with Opanda iexif,  you only get shutter count when you shoot in jpeg, and not when you convert from raw.


----------



## dewey (Dec 17, 2012)

I'm sure some RAW sports guys will come out of the woodwork and eat me... but yes I would say it's common.  If we're talking basketball, or maybe soccer at night the lighting conditions typically don't change.  They suck for the duration of the event, but they suck in a predictable mannor.

I've shot RAW at games to compare, but when I go back and look at the newspaper, or magazine or even online there is no difference.  The files are bigger, and editing at halftime to transmit or after the game the file size is a stinger.  Talking with others in the field I've never met a serious sports photog who shoots RAW, although I'm sure there are many.

Maybe I just need a cute photo editor intern to work for me and handle the editing.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 17, 2012)

I cooked some chicken last night. I started with raw chicken. The chicken turned out great!!!! So, yeah, raw is the best way to start. And, with plenty of butter.


----------



## Judobreaker (Dec 17, 2012)

So if I butter my computer, will that help when processing raws?
And what part should I butter...?


----------



## runnah (Dec 17, 2012)

yes.

/thread


----------



## Steve5D (Dec 17, 2012)

Vautrin said:


> Think of it like making a sandwich.
> 
> JPEG serves you a delicious sandwich.  But its on a plate and comes from a kitchen at your local cafe
> 
> ...



Hehehehehehe... Man, that was awesome.

Personally, I rarely shoot RAW. I did it for the first time only about a year ago. For me, the benefits of it are found when I'm shooting concerts, where lighting may be an issue. 99 times out of 100, though, I shoot large JPEG. It certainly gets the job done...


----------



## DannyLewis (Dec 17, 2012)

the processor: for slick processing



Judobreaker said:


> So if I butter my computer, will that help when processing raws?
> And what part should I butter...?


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Dec 17, 2012)

Vautrin said:


> Think of it like making a sandwich.
> 
> JPEG serves you a delicious sandwich.  But its on a plate and comes from a kitchen at your local cafe
> 
> ...



Single best analogy I've seen on this subject. Bravo. I'm stealing it.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Dec 17, 2012)

OP, it's pretty simple. If I'm shooting casual stuff for myself or the website, I'm almost always going to shoot JPG, unless the situation calls for the ability to "fix" something in post, usually bad lighting or more than one main light source in different color temps which makes getting a good WB darn near impossible.

If I'm shooting for a client, I ALWAYS shoot RAW. The flexibility RAW provides in post can be the difference between delivering a shot and binning it. Especially with these next gen sensors... I've seen the D800 pull out 4 stops of shadows. 4 freaking stops. Good luck rescuing that picture if it were shot in JPG.


----------



## spacefuzz (Dec 17, 2012)

Derrel said:


> I cooked some chicken last night. I started with raw chicken. The chicken turned out great!!!! So, yeah, raw is the best way to start. And, with plenty of butter.



I had sushi last night. Started raw and left it that way....it twas delicious!


----------



## unpopular (Dec 17, 2012)

^^ hipster.


----------



## John27 (Dec 17, 2012)

I'm just used to shooting RAW I guess.  In my research before buying a DSLR I made the decision to use RAW, especially being a newbie.  When the camera came out of the box I set it to RAW.  AFAIK, that setting has never changed as long as I've had it.  Storage is super cheap these days, the big file sizes don't bother me.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 17, 2012)

A long time ago, I posted a challenge.  I took a shot with JPEG with the wrong white balance.

Last I saw.... only ONE member was able to reasonably correct the error.  And that took a long time to do, if memory serves.

I'll see if I can dig that thread up.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 17, 2012)

480sparky said:


> A long time ago, I posted a challenge.  I took a shot with JPEG with the wrong white balance.
> 
> Last I saw.... only ONE member was able to reasonably correct the error.  And that took a long time to do, if memory serves.
> 
> I'll see if I can dig that thread up.



Found it!

Any more takers?


----------



## dianaeftaiha (Dec 22, 2012)

RAW is much better than jpeg and not just cause its larger. its like having a second chance to change your settings for a better result. you can alter your exposure, white balance, and do a lot of cool stuff with your camera raw editing software. also the quality is much better, especially if you might like to enlarge your photos and print them out. RAW is definitely worth the extra space. jpg is plain crappy


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 22, 2012)

dianaeftaiha said:


> ........ jpg is plain crappy



If JPEGs are so 'crappy', why is it so universally accepted by print labs?
JPEG in and of itself isn't 'crappy'.  JPEGs just don't have the _editing latitude_ that raw does (JPEG is an acronym, raw isn't).


----------



## STIC (Dec 22, 2012)

...


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 22, 2012)

STIC said:


> Same reason blurry, boring family holiday pictures are so universally accepted at print labs...
> 
> Most people with a camera are not photographers...
> ........



Nipping on the egg nog a bit too soon?


----------



## STIC (Dec 22, 2012)

...


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 22, 2012)

STIC said:


> No, just stating a fact...
> 
> JPEG isn't the best format...just the easiest...



So what format do you send off to get a print made?


----------



## STIC (Dec 22, 2012)

...


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 22, 2012)

STIC said:


> I see what you did there...you tried to make it about printing when that was never the point...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why on earth would you send a JPEG to the printer if it's so crappy then?

And as for printing not being 'the point', what, exactly, IS 'the point' of photography?


----------



## thetrue (Dec 22, 2012)

I see RAW as just a much more editable version of an image, therefore for my purposes, RAW is superior.


----------



## STIC (Dec 22, 2012)

...


----------



## panblue (Dec 22, 2012)

1) Raw is a studio album, JPEG is a live album. It's more unique and gutsy playing live and encompasses the moment.

2) People that revere Raw for its versatility seem to be the same people that poopoo Lytro for its similar versatility - snobs!

3) JPEG team may never see my photos but neither did Velvia team either ;-)


----------



## John27 (Dec 22, 2012)

panblue said:


> 1) Raw is a studio album, JPEG is a live album. It's more unique and gutsy playing live and encompasses the moment.
> 
> 2) People that revere Raw for its versatility seem to be the same people that poopoo Lytro for its similar versatility - snobs!
> 
> 3) JPEG team may never see my photos but neither did Velvia team either ;-)




JPEG is more like recording a studio album in one take.  When I go see my favorite bands live a few mistakes, someone off key or even a forgotten lyric is really ok, because I am watching them work.  The audience of your photographs only sees the end result, not the process of creation.  Therefore, like a studio album, take the time to wow them with perfection.


----------



## dbvirago (Dec 28, 2012)

Don't want to reopen this wound but have a question. Been shooting RAW for years, but I've been thinking about RAW+JPEG, so for shots that I've nailed in camera, I don't have to process. If that logic works, my real question is this. How would that differ from opening the RAW files in Canon's DPP software, which supposedly adds the same processing that the in-camera processor does. In other words, open all my images in DPP, flag the ones that I think need no processing, and save to JPEG, then process the rest using my normal workflow.


----------



## pgriz (Dec 28, 2012)

Well, DPP and the Canon firmware appear to do different things.  If you shoot both (RAW+jpg) and then try to duplicate the JPG working from RAW, you'll see you don't get the same result.  Close, but not the same.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 28, 2012)

What I like about this whole discussion is that the title is "is raw really worth it".

What's the expense? I can fit about 120 12.4mp raw files per 4gb of storage. Thats like four rolls of film in about 1/10 the physical space. Flash memory is at most, like $4.50/gb, or about $0.14/image.

There's time in processing, but if you batch process this is maybe 2 minutes per image, including data transfer which you have to do anyway. So yeah, it takes a little more time to process SOOC, but typically RAW processed images have better resolution, sharpness and flexibility - in case you, say, you forget to switch from daylight to incandescent - you'll have majorly screwed up the entire Wedding Reception. And if they had tungsten corrected florescent lighting, who friggin' known what the color settings should actually be - do you really trust your camera's goofy color meter to get it right?


----------



## christop (Dec 28, 2012)

unpopular said:


> What's the expense? I can fit about 120 12.4mp raw files per 4gb of storage. Thats like four rolls of film in about 1/10 the physical space. Flash memory is at most, like $4.50/gb, or about $0.14/image.



Plus the flash memory is reusable, unlike film, and most likely you'll be saving the images to a larger spinning rust disc which is far less expensive per GB than flash memory.


----------



## slow231 (Dec 28, 2012)

unpopular said:


> What I like about this whole discussion is that the title is "is raw really worth it".
> 
> What's the expense? I can fit about 120 12.4mp raw files per 4gb of storage. Thats like four rolls of film in about 1/10 the physical space. Flash memory is at most, like $4.50/gb, or about $0.14/image.
> 
> There's time in processing, but if you batch process this is maybe 2 minutes per image, including data transfer which you have to do anyway. So yeah, it takes a little more time to process SOOC, but typically RAW processed images have better resolution, sharpness and flexibility - in case you, say, you forget to switch from daylight to incandescent - you'll have majorly screwed up the entire Wedding Reception. And if they had tungsten corrected florescent lighting, who friggin' known what the color settings should actually be - do you really trust your camera's goofy color meter to get it right?



jesus christ! 2 minutes of just processing?!  your camera can do it in a fraction of a second.  every time you shoot jpg it processes raw -> jpg, everytime you preview a raw file on your lcd screen it processes the raw file.  on your computer it should take a couple of seconds at most, with the majority of the time coming from transfer.  just setup a batch process with some standard settings (similar to SOOC settings you'd be getting from your camera if it were saving jpgs), and drag and drop all the raw images that you don't want to edit. if you're using your own computer, there's no reason to shoot jpg.

I take that back, i do shoot jpg for time lapse videos where i might need 10k+ images stored on the cards.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 28, 2012)

From my experience, and I don't know if this is typical or not, the raw processor on my PC takes longer than JPEG. The camera is pretty much optimized to do one thing: take pictures and process the data.

Of course, the results have higher IQ and I always make 16-bit TIF; I'm not a professional and so I have the luxury of fiddling around in post, maybe soem time could be trimmed by outputting an 8-bit file? 

I think by the time you're done selecting the ones you want, making any set-specific adjustments, load the files and batch process, 1-2 minutes per image seems reasonable, no? I'm not sure how much you'd really be saving of that by shooting Jpeg. Maybe 30 seconds/image, most of which is time processing which can be done over lunch.


----------



## Type1 (Dec 28, 2012)

Since it's a location you've been after for months I'd suggest the RAW and you may aswell do +JPEG. RAW will allow for a lot more edit ability if for instance your photo is underexposed or set to the wrong white balance.


----------

