# JPEG vs RAW - for family portraits.



## brittanyrose864 (Jun 22, 2012)

Hello! 

 I am looking for advice from some experienced photographers. I am starting up a photography business to take photos for families. (Families, children, maternity, babies, etc.) I would like to know if it would be better to shoot in RAW format or to just shoot in JPEG with the larger images. I am used to shooting and editing JPEG images (using Gimp) and have not had too much experience editing RAW. Would the quality of the images be that much of a difference? Or would it be worth learning how to shoot/edit RAW considering the time and memory on my memory card? (I'm obviously a newb  


  Brittany


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Jun 22, 2012)

brittanyrose864 said:


> I am starting up a photography business to take photos for families.





brittanyrose864 said:


> (I'm obviously a newb


----------



## brittanyrose864 (Jun 22, 2012)

=) I realize my statements seem to contradict each other, but the reason I am starting a business is because I have had several people ask if I could take their pictures due to them seeing my work. I'm fresh out of highschool and I said "I'm obviously a newb" because I want some advice... I don't know everything...


----------



## kundalini (Jun 22, 2012)

You will have much more latitude with editing RAW files than JPEG.  Two things in particular 1) a much larger lossless image to work with and 2) white balance adjustments.  Both can make a significant difference in the final image.


----------



## Overread (Jun 22, 2012)

brittanyrose864 said:


> =) I realize my statements seem to contradict each other, but the reason I am starting a business is because I have had several people ask if I could take their pictures due to them seeing my work. I'm fresh out of highschool and I said "I'm obviously a newb" because I want some advice... I don't know everything...



Remember there is a big difference between "Oh nice you should charge for your photos" and "I'll gladly pay you for those photos". Also remember there is a big difference between a few friends dropping a bit of money your way and running an actual business. There is also a big difference between the prices you can charge as a friend making a little pocket money and the amount you need to charge to cover your costs of doing business when running an actual business. You also have to remember that you won't be making a business for your friends - it will be for you and chances are they might not be your target market at all. 

I'm not trying to dissuade you from your idea, but have you considered working for an already established pro? Might not be as independent as running your own business, but you get to get the field skills, gain some more experience and also see the structure and running of an actual company (remember taking photos is only a tiny part of Running a company - the rest is bills, balance sheets, income, outgoings, marketing, selling etc..). 

Competition in any area will be harsh, but if you can intern/apprentice/secondshoot/etc... you get the ground skills and you get paid for it (well at least normally, some apprentice schemes will have money going the other way, they will also be the ones more likely to be more active in teaching, the others will be less active in teaching and more in getting you do to work - either way there will be coffee and chances are you'll be making it). 

Also remember that many practices will have a clause in their contract restricting you from just leaving and starting up a competing business within their locality. These normally expire after a set period of time (normally years) and some can be legally questioned - however in general you'll want to work away from where you eventually want to establish yourself.


----------



## brittanyrose864 (Jun 22, 2012)

Overread said:


> brittanyrose864 said:
> 
> 
> > =) I realize my statements seem to contradict each other, but the reason I am starting a business is because I have had several people ask if I could take their pictures due to them seeing my work. I'm fresh out of highschool and I said "I'm obviously a newb" because I want some advice... I don't know everything...
> ...




 Thank you so much! 

 I might want to mention... I am not opening a full time business. This will be just a way to make a little side money considering I am teaching music. I'm starting this up with family and friends and if the business grows, I'll be thrilled! I just would like to be able to shoot to the best of my ability for whoever my clients are.  I'm not exactly opening it up planning on it being a long term (10+ years) business. It's definitely a hobby for me. 

  Thank you for your advice... It's very much appreciated!


----------



## WesternGuy (Jun 22, 2012)

Pay very careful attention to what Overread has said - taking pictures for a few friends who will give you some money for the product is a lot different than running a photography business.  As he said, taking a few pics is one thing, running a company is a whole different thing.  Even if you are taking pics for friends, you should have a contract that states very explicitly what they can and cannot do with the images that you take - it should also say what you intend to do with any of the images, such as - use them on a marketing web page - use them in a marketing brochure, etc.  It should also state what the delivered, end product will look like - are you going to give them jpegs on a CD, or prints, or what?  The other aspect of starting a business is a very good appreciation of the equipment you will need and how much it is going to cost you to get started.  If, as you say, you are going to start a business based on taking pics for families, then you will need some place to do this - a studio - I could go on, but you get the idea - there are so many things to think about, equipment, money - income and expenses, studio, contracts, etc. - all the things that go into the day to day running of a business.  It all comes down to the basics of starting a business - you need a business plan.  If you Google "business plan" on the web, you will get over 100 million hits, obviously an important thing.  A business plan will foirce you to think about what it is that you really want to do, how you are going to do it, who is going to do what and some ideas about what success might look like.

To the question of RAW vs jpeg - there are so many places on the web where this has been discussed - a quick search on Google using "raw vs jpeg" as the search criterion got me over 1.2 million hits.  Without going into a lot of explanantion, if you ask I could do that, but you can probably find the answer to your question on the web fairly easy.  You could check this site out, and although it is oriented towards nature photographers, his comments apply to other areas as well - RAW vs. JPEG: Who wins? | PhotoNaturalist .  You will also find that there are very definite reasons to shoot jpeg over raw.  I would suggest that try shooting both raw and jpeg together if your camera will allow it - most DSLRs will give you this option.  If you do some, you can make some of your own tests.  Basically, RAW gives you more freedom with what you can do with an image in post processing than jpeg does.  HTH.  My 0.02¢ FWIW.
______________
WesternGuy

P.S.  You posted a reply to Overread before this was posted, however, I still stick with my advice and give you all the best wishes in your endeavour.


----------



## Designer (Jun 22, 2012)

Hi, brittanyrose864, By the title of your thread I was hoping to read and then apply the answer to my own situation.  I haven't obtained editing software yet, so no experience with any of it.  If you have money enough for memory cards, may I suggest that you go ahead and shoot in RAW+JPEG, and don't delete anything.  If someday you want to go back and revisit some of those files you still can.

Now as for myself, I figure on doing setup shots and practice shots with JPEG, and when I am capturing an image that I think I will want to edit, then I will simply shoot in RAW+JPEG.


----------



## brittanyrose864 (Jun 22, 2012)

WesternGuy said:


> Pay very careful attention to what Overread has said - taking pictures for a few friends who will give you some money for the product is a lot different than running a photography business.  As he said, taking a few pics is one thing, running a company is a whole different thing.  Even if you are taking pics for friends, you should have a contract that states very explicitly what they can and cannot do with the images that you take - it should also say what you intend to do with any of the images, such as - use them on a marketing web page - use them in a marketing brochure, etc.  It should also state what the delivered, end product will look like - are you going to give them jpegs on a CD, or prints, or what?  The other aspect of starting a business is a very good appreciation of the equipment you will need and how much it is going to cost you to get started.  If, as you say, you are going to start a business based on taking pics for families, then you will need some place to do this - a studio - I could go on, but you get the idea - there are so many things to think about, equipment, money - income and expenses, studio, contracts, etc. - all the things that go into the day to day running of a business.  It all comes down to the basics of starting a business - you need a business plan.  If you Google "business plan" on the web, you will get over 100 million hits, obviously an important thing.  A business plan will foirce you to think about what it is that you really want to do, how you are going to do it, who is going to do what and some ideas about what success might look like.
> 
> To the question of RAW vs jpeg - there are so many places on the web where this has been discussed - a quick search on Google using "raw vs jpeg" as the search criterion got me over 1.2 million hits.  Without going into a lot of explanantion, if you ask I could do that, but you can probably find the answer to your question on the web fairly easy.  You could check this site out, and although it is oriented towards nature photographers, his comments apply to other areas as well - RAW vs. JPEG: Who wins? | PhotoNaturalist .  You will also find that there are very definite reasons to shoot jpeg over raw.  I would suggest that try shooting both raw and jpeg together if your camera will allow it - most DSLRs will give you this option.  If you do some, you can make some of your own tests.  Basically, RAW gives you more freedom with what you can do with an image in post processing than jpeg does.  HTH.  My 0.02¢ FWIW.
> ______________
> ...




  Thank you!! I'm definitely taking what you and Overread said and looking into that. (Especially if my "business" does grow in the future.) I have a feeling I'm going to be doing much more research than I have already... :-/ lol This will be a great learning experience for me! Thanks for the resources and taking time to reply.


----------



## brittanyrose864 (Jun 22, 2012)

Designer said:


> Hi, brittanyrose864, By the title of your thread I was hoping to read and then apply the answer to my own situation.  I haven't obtained editing software yet, so no experience with any of it.  If you have money enough for memory cards, may I suggest that you go ahead and shoot in RAW+JPEG, and don't delete anything.  If someday you want to go back and revisit some of those files you still can.
> 
> Now as for myself, I figure on doing setup shots and practice shots with JPEG, and when I am capturing an image that I think I will want to edit, then I will simply shoot in RAW+JPEG.




 I have an 8gb memory card and I'm going to invest in an 16gb/32gb memory card. I will probably go with the shooting in RAW and JPEG option (which I have actually done somewhat in the past). Thank you so much! 


    For my photo editing I use Gimp. It works well with editing pictures although it may take a while to get used to it and learn all the gadgets. (Youtube is your best friend in that area  It is supposed to be a "knock off" from Photoshop, I guess. I can suggest you using it at least until you can invest in something else. (Although I'm satisfied in it.


----------



## snowbear (Jun 22, 2012)

brittanyrose864 said:


> I might want to mention... I am not opening a full time business. This will be just a way to make a little side money considering I am teaching music. I'm starting this up with family and friends and if the business grows, I'll be thrilled! I just would like to be able to shoot to the best of my ability for whoever my clients are.  I'm not exactly opening it up planning on it being a long term (10+ years) business. It's definitely a hobby for me.
> 
> Thank you for your advice... It's very much appreciated!


Good luck on achieving your goal.  Assuming you are a complete novice at photography, I would suggest learning the craft: exposure, composition, lighting, and image processing (to start.)  I would also suggest getting some critique & criticism from complete strangers and other photographers - here is a good place to start the C&C process.

I can't speak to the business aspect as I am an amateur, and don't intend to turn pro, but you will need to know how to run a business in order top succeed.


----------



## photo_joe (Jun 22, 2012)

Well like was said if you don't need to make a lot of adjustment then you can shoot JPEG, but if you would like to have as much flexibility as possible then RAW is the way to go.  If you have the storage space I say shoot RAW and then convert to JPEG.


----------



## greybeard (Jun 22, 2012)

Raw vs Jpeg.  I think you can do what you need to do using JPEG.  I personally like to use Raw because it gives me more control over my pictures.  I control the WB, sharpness, noise reduction, color balances, etc etc.  However, for family portraits I think most cameras will have a portrait setting (I know my Nikons do) and the JPEGS usually look spot on for skin tones.  Your files will be much smaller than Raw and all in all it should work well for you.


----------



## Trever1t (Jun 22, 2012)

I haven't shot a jpg image in years. Once I understood what a RAW file was and what I could do with it I wonder why anyone would want to shoot jpg for anything other than a quick pic.


----------



## Heitz (Jun 22, 2012)

Gimp?  But the Gimp's asleep.


----------



## photo_joe (Jun 22, 2012)

brittanyrose864 said:


> I will probably go with the shooting in RAW and JPEG option (which I have actually done somewhat in the past). Thank you so much!



Shooting RAW + JPEG will just eat up your memory card that much quicker.  Stick with one or the other and since it's portraits and not a 6 hour event you should have plenty of space on an 8GB card.


----------



## Ernicus (Jun 22, 2012)

You can still get a chit ton of pictures on a 16gb card shooting raw+jpg


----------



## Overread (Jun 22, 2012)

On the RAW vs JPEG part the best advice I can give you is to learn how to work with both to a good degree - and then choose the one that suits you best.

From my viewpoint:

JPEG - these are small files and easy to work with by default. They are print and display ready as soon as they are taken. As such they are favoured greatly by people shooting in situations where they don't have time to edit. Even professionals will use JPEGs -eg sports shooters who need photos for the net and the newspapers almost as soon as they are taken; or people working on photo booths at events; or even just event shooting. In those situations additional editing is just something there is not time for and the photographer needs a quick turn around- the JPEG allows them this. 
Don't think its simple though - getting good usable out of camera JPEGs often requires a bit of trial and error in getting the in-camera editing settings just right - plus you also have to make sure your white balance is well set for the shoots (cameras generally do well on auto, but if anything goes wrong its a lot harder to correct on a JPEG - esp if time is against you). 


RAW - RAW files are bigger than JPEGs by a considerable amount; this can mean that storage can be a bit more of an issue when shooting in volume; furthermore it also means that your burst rate on the camera will reduce. 
In the bonuses though RAW files contain all the light data that the sensor gathered, this means some settings (such as the white balance) are not fixed and are easily adjustable without any worries; in addition you often gain a little on exposure pulling (ie a tiny bit over exposed can be restored sometimes - as opposed to on JPEG where its generally not possible).
RAW files will generally appear softer than JPEGs and a bit more noisey - this is because the cameras built in editing settings are not applied to them by default. Note, however, that most RAW editing packages will apply what is known as capture sharpening by default. This is regular sharpening applied lightly to a RAW photo to present a sharper, clearer photo to work with (and is one of the few times that sharpening before the end of the process is advised to the photographer). 


In the end RAW photos require that you work upon them - this work need not be highly  complex and software options out there (such as Lightroom which is built for this) can make the process very fast and simple. In addition RAW gives you an increased ability to edit and manipulate the photo - either to correct mistakes/problems or to adjust things closer to your artistic vision. You can do a lot with JPEGs, but the more you do the more they will suffer and degrade compared to a RAW. 

Note also that the whole RAW processing stage is lossless - that means RAW processing software never actually makes any change to the RAW file at all - like a negative from a film camera - the RAW itself is never touched, but a separate file is made with the details of the adjustments made (and is then loaded up by default by that software each time that RAW file is opened). Of course if you export the RAW to editing software (eg Photoshop CS or Elements) then you will be saving as a normal file format (TIFF or PSD for lossless - or JPEG for a smaller, if lossy, file). 


In the end most photographers like to work in RAW once they learn it - because even if they are using programs (like lightroom) and only applying very simple and quick changes - they still have that buffer and option to go further if they want. JPEG tends to be treated a bit more like taking your disposable film camera to the chemists - you get a good result most of the time and its pretty darned fast to work with - but on the flipside you've got to deal with limited default results and if you want to go more creative or corrective you've a lot more work to make it look good with the limited data you have.


----------



## brittanyrose864 (Jun 23, 2012)

Overread said:


> On the RAW vs JPEG part the best advice I can give you is to learn how to work with both to a good degree - and then choose the one that suits you best.
> 
> From my viewpoint:
> 
> ...



  Thank you so much!! Exactly what I was looking for  Thanks for taking the time to respond... I'll start experimenting with RAW editing really soon. Thanks to everyone who helped! I really appreciate it.


----------



## KmH (Jun 23, 2012)

Raw compared to JPEG is all about - Bit Depth

When paying customers are involved, a bit more information has to be absorbed in order to provide a consistant final product - Tutorials on Color Management & Printing

To add a couple of notes:
JPEGs contain all of the luminosity information the image sensor captured. To reduce the bit-depth of the capture file to the 8-bits of a JPEG, only color information is discarded (about 80% of it), though the image pixels are also grouped into MCUs (Minimum Coded Units).

Because of the way human perception works, none of the luminosity data can be discarded, but most of the color information can be.  However, the missing color information severely limits the post process editing headroom a JPEG has.


----------



## Marcelle (Jun 23, 2012)

do you consider shooting on location ? outside or studio ?


----------



## Designer (Jun 23, 2012)

brittanyrose864 said:


> For my photo editing I use Gimp. It works well with editing pictures although it may take a while to get used to it and learn all the gadgets. (Youtube is your best friend in that area  It is supposed to be a "knock off" from Photoshop, I guess. I can suggest you using it at least until you can invest in something else. (Although I'm satisfied in it.


Thanks for your suggestion.  Still doing some investigating about software, but I'm also not sure what I need in my computer.  I hear some image editors need particularly fast processors to avoid long delays.


----------



## brittanyrose864 (Jun 23, 2012)

Marcelle said:


> do you consider shooting on location ? outside or studio ?



 Outdoors and on location. Don't have the props for studio


----------



## Marcelle (Jun 23, 2012)

if working on location, just a small advice, get yourself a macbeth or a neutral grey card, take a pic with it at the start of your shooting, it will save you plenty of time later when post processing the pics to have a neutral color reference to calibrate your pics


----------



## brittanyrose864 (Jun 23, 2012)

Marcelle said:


> if working on location, just a small advice, get yourself a macbeth or a neutral grey card, take a pic with it at the start of your shooting, it will save you plenty of time later when post processing the pics to have a neutral color reference to calibrate your pics




 Wow! Thanks. Researching that now. I'm thinking that will save me from a lot of "guess work". =)


----------



## WilliamDSLR (Jun 25, 2012)

I would use RAW images due to the fact you can edit them far more freely with far better quality.  I guess it depends on what you want and the clients needs, but being able to edit pictures is crucial for touching up, lighting etc.  Depending on what equipment you use (particularly memory cards), you may need a bigger memory card.  RAW images take up a lot more memory than JPEG.


----------

