# Jpeg vs RAW!



## Raw photographer

Hey there, 

Just thought i would start a fun topic, i think we can get a conversation going, I shoot RAW because i find it easier and way more flexible for editing. I want to know what all of you shoot, Jpeg or Raw. 

It will be interesting to see if there are more people that shoot Jpeg or RAW here.

Anyway just thought it would be fun.


----------



## Ysarex

Seriously? a fun topic?



Joe


----------



## Soocom1

I prefer med. well myself.


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs

So @Raw photographer shoots raw, I wonder if @JPG photographer will weigh in too.


----------



## Ysarex

OK, WTH.

I shoot raw because I can always make a final photo that's better than the JPEGs that come from all the cameras. The processing software in the cameras is simply too limited.

I shoot raw to save time at the computer. It takes more time and more skill to try and fix a JPEG than to just process the raw file.

I shoot raw because I frequently take photos that are impossible to take shooting JPEG and I'm not willing to give up taking those photos.

I understand that my ability to do the above is a luxury that not all photographers have. Some photographers have jobs that require them to shoot JPEG. I know some of those photographers and they do great work.

Joe


----------



## Scott Whaley

I used to shoot in RAW and Jpeg at the same time.  I have found that shooting in Jpeg is just fine for what I do and it allows me to process the photos in LR the way I like them.   I haven't shot in RAW for about 6 months now.


----------



## Jeff G

Jpegs for me, easier to deal with.


----------



## Soocom1

for me, I swing both ways. 


Unless its a specific shot for a very specific reason, I will typ. shoot jpeg, but shoot RAW for the really nice stuff.


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs

Jeff G said:


> Jpegs for me, easier to deal with.



As in, they’re easier to post to social media?


----------



## Raw photographer

Sounds good thanks for the feedback


TreeofLifeStairs said:


> Jeff G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jpegs for me, easier to deal with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As in, they’re easier to post to social media?
Click to expand...

For me anyway I export them to a jpeg anyway after I finish editing.


----------



## jcdeboever

I shoot raw cause someone on here said I was an idiot for shooting jpeg.


----------



## SquarePeg

haha jc!

For most things I shoot 1 card raw and 1 card jpeg.  I am happy with the jpegs 99% of the time and bin the raw files.  It saves me a ton of storage space and a lot of processing time.  I do sometimes need the raw file if I've got deep shadows to deal with or have a white balance issue or maybe shooting underexposed on purpose to keep my ISO down.  Using a mirrorless with EVF makes shooting in jpeg much easier since I very rarely have a bad exposure to fix.  On a recent trip to Ireland, I only had to use the raw files for some shots of the Cliffs of Moher because it was high sun and lots of shadows to deal with.  

For softball and field hockey I shoot straight jpeg.  It's outdoors in usually good light.  I use a high shutter speed and auto ISO so the exposures are almost always fine.  I've found that using jpeg settings only on the XT2 means less buffering when shooting a burst for action photos.


----------



## Jeff G

TreeofLifeStairs said:


> Jeff G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jpegs for me, easier to deal with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As in, they’re easier to post to social media?
Click to expand...


Wouldn't know, don't have any social media accounts unless you count Pinterest.


----------



## Derrel

RAW+ Jpeg for me, most of the time, with RAWS on one card, jpegs on the other.


----------



## snowbear

I’m adventurous:  I just spin the dials, push the buttons, and deal with whatever comes up.


----------



## Soocom1

snowbear said:


> I’m adventurous:  I just spin the dials, push the buttons, and deal with whatever comes up.


You non-conformist you!


----------



## snowbear

Soocom1 said:


> snowbear said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m adventurous:  I just spin the dials, push the buttons, and deal with whatever comes up.
> 
> 
> 
> You non-conformist you!
Click to expand...

Well, if I have one of the F bodies, I guess I can say “raw”


----------



## shadowlands

I shoot both. Raw more often. Paid work, Raw for sure. But I shoot Jpeg often as well, if I know I will not have any white balance issues.


----------



## Flying Panda

Raw & jpeg together.


----------



## RVT1K

Jeff G said:


> Wouldn't know, don't have any social media accounts unless you count Pinterest.



That's one more than me.


----------



## RVT1K

I've tried using both but have gone back to just .jpeg's for now. 
I only use an old version of Elements and only do minor adjustments, so I really wouldn't get much out of shooting raw.


----------



## Original katomi

I shoot raw and jpg at the same time ok it eats mem but I get the best of both worlds lol


----------



## Ysarex

Original katomi said:


> I shoot raw and jpg at the same time ok it eats mem but I get the best of both worlds lol



Actually, if you shoot raw and JPEG at the same time you can't get the best of both worlds. You can get the best of one or the other. In our modern cameras all the manufacturers hedge the exposure for the camera JPEGs. In other words to get a good JPEG from the camera software you have to expose to under-utilize the sensor by as much as 50% of capacity. You get a serviceable raw file but not "best." "Best" is a superlative. If you expose the sensor to capacity you can get a "best" raw file but your JPEGs will be trashed.

The manufacturer's hedge is probably a good thing for most of us -- an appropriate safety buffer, but it does come at a minor cost.

Joe


----------



## Original katomi

Interesting my camera must be set for raw bias but I think that I will switch to just raw in future as it’s the raw files I use the most


----------



## zulu42

I shoot just raw. I shot raw + jpeg for a while but always just ignored the jpegs anyway.

Sometimes I feel silly dragging the huge raw files around after a day of snapshots or when the bulk goes into the bin anyway. I am running out of storage.

But a good number of my shots require the capabilities of a raw file. Sometimes I expose a shot counting on those raw file capabilities, or often I make a mistake in exposure and it is "raw to the rescue".


----------



## pez

Jpeg, pffft. I don't even shoot Jpeg with my phone :/


----------



## Fred von den Berg

Jpeg.


----------



## JoeW

I used to shoot all RAW.  Now, it depends. 

If I'm shooting stuff for my church (where they just need to document stuff), I usually shoot jpeg--in part because they want a fast turnaround.  For instance, I shoot 120 pictures of the reception for the new associate pastor, they want the edits a day later (not 2 weeks later).

But if I"m shooting a landscape, or anything were color is critical (say...autumn leaves) or high dynamic range (sand dunes at sunset for instance) or an interior (where I might stack images or go in and deal with that hot spot on the metal handle on the 3rd cabinet over the sink of that kitchen I just shot) then I shoot RAW.


----------



## Raw photographer

This has been a very interesting post, I shoot RAW for everything except stuff thats not really for the serious images like posting an add on Kijiji or Craigslist ect... I don't exactly need a RAW file for that lol.


----------



## K9Kirk

I have my camera set to take pics in RAW and Jpeg. I don't like having to convert every picture from raw to Jpeg so that it's accepted on websites. If I take what I feel is a worthy pic I will go with RAW. (if I think to)


----------



## sleist

I used to always shoot RAW with my Nikons and process in Capture NX2, with additional processing in Photoshop.  I've had to move away from that workflow since moving to the D500 though.  My D700 is the only body I have left that can still be processed in Capture.  It's not that Capture is a good program, but it was at least able to accurately reproduce the Nikon colors.

I have 4 cameras with 3 different RAW file formats:  Nikon NEF (x2), Olympus ORF, and Ricoh DNG.  I'm not really satisfied with what ACR does with the Nikon and Olympus files.  DNG is native to Adobe, but they still manage to FU the Ricoh colors too...   As a result, I've been moving more and more toward JPG shooting - I would say I'm about 50/50 at this point, depending on what I'm shooting and the intended final output.

Adobe Color is an improvement, but still misses the mark a bit too much for my taste.


----------



## BasilFawlty

I'm like Soocom1 - Most of the time, if I'm trying to take creative "photographs" I shoot RAW mainly for the added information available in Lightroom editing.  If I'm just shooting "snapshots" that I probably won't do a lot of editing on, like a birthday party or something, then I might shoot .JPG and not worry about post-processing too much.


----------



## PixFixer

Raw photographer said:


> Hey there,
> 
> Just thought i would start a fun topic, i think we can get a conversation going, I shoot RAW because i find it easier and way more flexible for editing. I want to know what all of you shoot, Jpeg or Raw.
> 
> It will be interesting to see if there are more people that shoot Jpeg or RAW here.
> 
> Anyway just thought it would be fun.



I dislike JPGs because they do limit you in many ways and also have quality problems. They became the 'de-facto' compression scheme because they were first. I do not edit images with them but will convert to them when I must. There is no competition between RAW and JPG. Is there a competition between a horse & buggy and a Ferrari ?


----------



## freixas

RAW

When photographing birds hiding in dark foilage with a telephoto, I still need to use a fast shutter speed or the photos are useless. Even at ISO 6400, some shots are under-exposed. DxO PhotoLab 2's amazing PRIME noise reduction requires the sensor data (before demosaicing) to do its magic and won't run without it. With RAW's 10- to 12-bit channel depth plus PRIME's noise reduction, I can often get serviceable images where the JPGs would only give me trash. RAW is essential for me in these cases.

Even when shooting landscapes, I want to make sure that the final image is as good as it can be. As Ysarix mentioned, if you use the sensor to its maximum capacity, you might get shots that result in poor JPGs.

Still, the answer depends on one's photo goals. There's no point shooting RAW if you will never use or enjoy or care about what it gives you. There is no one answer for everyone.

About the only potential problem to shooting JPGs is if you eventually become more interested in the advantages of RAW; when you throw away the sensor data, you are making a decision not just for your present self but your future self. That one's a tough one. Storing RAWs when you are using them eats up a lot of disk space and makes backups more complicated.


----------



## jack58

I don't bother with RAW much Files too big, takes up too much space on the camera and hard drives in the long run. If you use the right settings for each situation, shoot on/over/under every shot like I do and know how to "use" your camera, keeping lighting, composition etc in mind, no need for RAW. Most of the time, Raw is a waste of time and space for me. However, from time to time when there is a situation where I'll use RAW, and that would be in extreme lighting situations such as late cloudy evening or sunlight/shade situations. Other than that, I don't use RAW.


----------



## Ysarex

jack58 said:


> I don't bother with RAW. Files too big, takes up too much space on the camera and hard drives in the long run. If you use the right settings for giving situation, shoot on/over/under every shot like I do and know how to "use" your camera, keeping lighting, composition etc in mind, no need for RAW. Raw is a waste of time and space for me.



Well I photograph scenes (very high contrast lighting) using raw that, no matter what settings you use in the camera, you can't capture shooting JPEG. In other words, shooting raw I take photos that are impossible for you to take shooting JPEG. I like being able to take those photos.

Joe


----------



## Original katomi

Since being on this thread I now shoot raw only


----------



## photoflyer

JPEG because the last think I want to do is spend more time on my computer.

Yes, I know there is a big trade-off.

It gets worse.  I pull them down to my phone and edit them there.   

Optimal?  Quick and easy.  Yes.


----------



## JonFZ300

To me, there is no disadvantage to shooting raw. It's easy to batch convert if they don't need work. If they do need work, you can get details from a raw file that you cannot get from a jpg. I'm not anti-jpg, they are handy for sharing for sure. 

I just can't see why you'd only want a partial amount of information from your sensor when you can have it all.


----------



## ClickAddict

Only time I shoot JPG is when shooting for  a specific company that covers races / events.  They send you the memory cards, you shoot all day and then the team lead uploads the photos to their server.  Last time I had to upload 90 Gigs of photos.  They were in JPG  AND in limited size (Mid range size settings on ~20MP cameras type of thing).  They have a server that batch processes them using bib number recognition, facial recognition etc... to let the runners then quickly find their photos online.  These are not posed shots (with some exceptions) and are all "catch everyone running by / over the obstacle" etc...)  So JPG makes sense.   Any other work I do is in RAW for the same reasons given by others above.


----------



## RVT1K

JonFZ300 said:


> To me, there is no disadvantage to shooting raw. It's easy to batch convert if they don't need work. If they do need work, you can get details from a raw file that you cannot get from a jpg. I'm not anti-jpg, they are handy for sharing for sure.
> 
> I just can't see why you'd only want a partial amount of information from your sensor when you can have it all.




 Is there enough difference to notice it if you don't have a top-line monitor?


----------



## jim_n_TN

Raw photographer said:


> Hey there,
> 
> Just thought i would start a fun topic, i think we can get a conversation going, I shoot RAW because i find it easier and way more flexible for editing. I want to know what all of you shoot, Jpeg or Raw.
> 
> It will be interesting to see if there are more people that shoot Jpeg or RAW here.
> 
> Anyway just thought it would be fun.


----------



## JonFZ300

RVT1K said:


> Is there enough difference to notice it if you don't have a top-line monitor?



I don't know because I don't have one.  

But like I said, if they don't need edited, batch converting is easy and they will look about the same as a camera JPG.  If they do need work, you have way more to work with in a raw file. 

I guess it comes down to the overall quality of the original shot and whether batch converting is enough of a hassle to prohibit shooting raw. That's something everyone decides for themselves. In good light, JPGs are fine. In challenging light, raw records detail that JPG doesn't.


----------



## jim_n_TN

jim_n_TN said:


> Raw photographer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey there,
> 
> Just thought i would start a fun topic, i think we can get a conversation going, I shoot RAW because i find it easier and way more flexible for editing. I want to know what all of you shoot, Jpeg or Raw.
> 
> It will be interesting to see if there are more people that shoot Jpeg or RAW here.
> 
> Anyway just thought it would be fun.
Click to expand...


Ok, these are tools not a not a religious quest. I understand all the advantages and sometimes shoot raw. The thing I shoot mostly studio portraits , ball teams, dances etc. and print it all on dye sub printers before the customer leaves. I use Darkroom with camera tethered, controlled lighting and jpeg. I work at lightning speed and have great color with no color corrections. When we shot film at these types of volume events you made sure to get and keep everything dead on consistent, the labs would not fix it for you. The same thing can be done in digital. If you get right you don't need Raw! I am a 68 year old who learned how to make a living with photography in the 1970s continued to now. King Film is dead, long live King Digital.   Jim


----------



## jack58

I agree Joe.. I did edit my post after you posted to reflect that.


----------



## freixas

jim_n_TN said:


> Ok, these are tools not a not a religious quest. I understand all the advantages and sometimes shoot raw. The thing I shoot mostly studio portraits , ball teams, dances etc. and print it all on dye sub printers before the customer leaves. I use Darkroom with camera tethered, controlled lighting and jpeg.



Exactly. I covered a conference once. The experienced event photographers I talked to over meals at the staff table would look at me funny when I said I was shooting RAW (well, the lighting was awful and the camera's white balance wouldn't have coped well—if I were doing it full time, I'd probably have worked out some other solution). One guy I talked to told me about covering rock concerts with HD video. Rather than hoping he'd capture a precise moment, he'd capture them all, select stills from the video after the fact and dump the video. This was before 4K videos. The stills went to a web site, so he didn't need high resolution.

Whether or not you need RAW depends on what you want to do with your photos.


----------



## Derrel

Back around 2003 my main Camera was the Fuji S2 Pro, which was a digital single lens reflex built up around the Nikon N80 film camera. It had a very clever system of camera set up. On the back were four simple push buttons, and each button had two variables. It was pretty simple. The user would select raw or JPEG, file size in pixels (small, medium or large), tone curve (Org or original meaning low contrast,Norm, or Hard). Sharpening was off low,medium,or high,Saturation was also a simple choice of Org, Med or Hi.

Using a DSLR that had such a simple image adjustment made it easy to shoot a picture and then press a button and make any needed change, and it was easy to increase or decrease saturation, Or to change saturation, etc. The S2 was perhaps *the best JPG camera* I have ever shot.

Back in those days conversion of raw files was much slower than it is today. Adobe's Camera Raw converter was not yet invented, and batch conversions were not like they are today.   Converting Raws was was a real problem with this camera, since only Fuji software pretty much was able to translate raw files. It would be a little few years before Adobe could offer a raw file conversion for Fuji's .RAF  raw file format, so as a result, the vast majority of my early shooting with his camera was done in JPEG only.

It was with this camera that I learned the importance of selecting the correct tone curve and the right amount of saturation. Whenever you shoot JPEG directly it is super important to make sure that both the tone curve and the image saturation are properly adjusted for the scene at hand.


----------



## JonFZ300

jim_n_TN said:


> I understand all the advantages and sometimes shoot raw.





jim_n_TN said:


> If you get it right you don't need Raw!



Ah, this old chestnut...


----------



## CherylL

I shoot raw mostly.  I've shot jpg for timelapse by accident a few times.  I enjoy editing photos.


----------



## Mister_Photoguy

I think the best answer is actually made in a simple question... Do you trust a very small processor in your camera to blindly process the colours in your captures without any input from you or would you rather a larger computer or tablet allow you to process your captures as you intended them to look?


----------



## ClickAddict

Mister_Photoguy said:


> I think the best answer is actually made in a simple question... Do you trust a very small processor in your camera to blindly process the colours in your captures without any input from you or would you rather a larger computer or tablet allow you to process your captures as you intended them to look?



That is essentially the same question restated.  Because your question does not narrow it down to one option.  It also has the same vague (non) answer:  Depends.

Depends on Purpose  / use of photos.  / particulars of the shoot (Time to edit / web only / etc..)

Like I said in my previous post, when I shoot sports events, there can be 5 photographers shooting 5000-10000 shots a day.  (Yes, I've hit the 7000  a few times, and some obstacles / events require more based on participation).  so that's easily a potential 40000-50000 photos for one event.  Do you think they have time to manually edit each one?  (And have posted on the website within 2-3 days)  Definitely no.  So the answer in this case is, Yeah, I'll trust the small (and extremely capable) processor in my camera to do the job.

Shooting anything else that I have plans / time to edit.  RAW.


----------



## petrochemist

Ysarex said:


> OK, WTH.
> 
> I shoot raw because I can always make a final photo that's better than the JPEGs that come from all the cameras. The processing software in the cameras is simply too limited.
> 
> I shoot raw to save time at the computer. It takes more time and more skill to try and fix a JPEG than to just process the raw file.
> 
> I shoot raw because I frequently take photos that are impossible to take shooting JPEG and I'm not willing to give up taking those photos.
> 
> I understand that my ability to do the above is a luxury that not all photographers have. Some photographers have jobs that require them to shoot JPEG. I know some of those photographers and they do great work.
> 
> Joe


I shoot JPEG most of the time because it's only under unusual conditions that I might have to 'fix a shot'. 
99% of the time any one of my cameras can be set up to give great shots SOOC.


----------



## jaomul

I shoot raw because although I can kinda find my way around a camera I don't want to adjust the wb every time the light changes a bit and I find that with modern cameras and modern software I can often get a usable shot in harsh lighting and high contrast lighting.

These shots would be binned in jpeg mode. I know this is often true because I always shoot jpeg along with raw as a backup in case something happens. These jpegs are mostly deleted once I get the raws on the computer.

I believe the opposite to most, many say pros should shoot raw, I think those with less camera skills probably would benefit the most from raw


----------



## Ysarex

petrochemist said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, WTH.
> 
> I shoot raw because I can always make a final photo that's better than the JPEGs that come from all the cameras. The processing software in the cameras is simply too limited.
> 
> I shoot raw to save time at the computer. It takes more time and more skill to try and fix a JPEG than to just process the raw file.
> 
> I shoot raw because I frequently take photos that are impossible to take shooting JPEG and I'm not willing to give up taking those photos.
> 
> I understand that my ability to do the above is a luxury that not all photographers have. Some photographers have jobs that require them to shoot JPEG. I know some of those photographers and they do great work.
> 
> Joe
> 
> 
> 
> I shoot JPEG most of the time because it's only under unusual conditions that I might have to 'fix a shot'.
> 99% of the time any one of my cameras can be set up to give great shots SOOC.
Click to expand...


That's because you settle: JPEG can't do it.

Joe


----------



## johngpt

Raw photographer said:


> Hey there,
> 
> Just thought i would start a fun topic, i think we can get a conversation going, I shoot RAW because i find it easier and way more flexible for editing. I want to know what all of you shoot, Jpeg or Raw.
> 
> It will be interesting to see if there are more people that shoot Jpeg or RAW here.
> 
> Anyway just thought it would be fun.


About as much fun as shouting FIRE in a crowded theater.


----------



## Derrel

I have found one of the keys to getting a really good JPEG is to let the tone curve Stay on automatic, and to allow the camera to set the processing,or to set  it manually,based in the scene's dynamic range. This was super-easy to do on the Fuji S2.

If the camera offers automatic dynamic range optimization, then use it. If you "set it and forget it" and make the shot with the wrong* tone curve* it will not be too long before you encounter a scene which has  a dynamic range that is a bad match for the *tone curve* you have left the camera set at.

Shooting good in-camera JPEGS is more work than shooting raw...you have less exposure latitude, and *tone curve and saturation and exposure become critical *as does *white balance*. Nikon has "picture styles", and Canon has its tuning parameters. JPEGs are far better than they used to be; my opinion is that Nikon's Matrix metering and *Dynamic Range Optimization (D-Lighting*), are actually helpful, as is Auto on Tone curve...remember, it is no longer 2001, or 2007, or 2010...we now have very sophisticated in-camera processing available but many "serious" users will not allow automation to do the work...they still act as if it is 2005, and do not trust  "automation"at all...and I feel this is a big part of the dislike/disdain toward shooting anything but Raw.


----------



## johngpt

Derrel said:


> I have found one of the keys to getting a really good JPEG is to let the tone curve Stay on automatic, and to allow the camera to set the processing,or to set  it manually,based in the scene's dynamic range. This was super-easy to do on the Fuji S2.
> 
> If the camera offers automatic dynamic range optimization, then use it. If you "set it and forget it" and make the shot with the wrong* tone curve* it will not be too long before you encounter a scene which has  a dynamic range that is a bad match for the *tone curve* you have left the camera set at.
> 
> Shooting good in-camera JPEGS is more work than shooting raw...you have less exposure latitude, and *tone curve and saturation and exposure become critical *as does *white balance*. Nikon has "picture styles", and Canon has its tuning parameters. JPEGs are far better than they used to be; my opinion is that Nikon's Matrix metering and *Dynamic Range Optimization (D-Lighting*), are actually helpful, as is Auto on Tone curve...remember, it is no longer 2001, or 2007, or 2010...we now have very sophisticated in-camera processing available but many "serious" users will not allow automation to do the work...they still act as if it is 2005, and do not trust  "automation"at all...and I feel this is a big part of the dislike/disdain toward shooting anything but Raw.


Cogent comment Derrel, unlike mine.


----------



## Rseider

I shoot L Raw and L JPEG at the same time. I mostly like the JPEG to just quickly look through the images more easily on my computer. Then the raw to edit because I find there's a lot more precise options.


----------



## Derrel

Large RAW + medium size, fine-compresion (1:4) JPEG for me.


----------



## JonFZ300

I don't see the point in doubling up. I shoot only RAW and if I just want to view preview JPGs, I use FastStone viewer, or I use bridge and just go by the thumbnails, which I believe are also preview JPGs. FastStone is very easy and will show you JPG previews of your RAW files with the quickness. Bridge is a little more cumbersome but still better than shooting every shot in two different formats. Just my 2 cents...


----------



## omegaman

Raw photographer said:


> Hey there,
> 
> Just thought i would start a fun topic, i think we can get a conversation going, I shoot RAW because i find it easier and way more flexible for editing. I want to know what all of you shoot, Jpeg or Raw.
> 
> It will be interesting to see if there are more people that shoot Jpeg or RAW here.
> 
> Anyway just thought it would be fun.


I shoot in JPEG. I paint, mostly with acrylics, and watercolour. However, whether I am going to use the photograph as it is, or as a reference, I do careful editing with Adobe Elements 11 for Windows 8.1. When I know, and have attained plenty of skill with editing a picture from RAW, then I may try to shoot, and work from a RAW image captured from my Canon Rebel XS camera, lens.

I also shoot with a Tamron AF 75-300mm LD TELE-MACRO lens. I also sometimes attach a Canon 50mm FD f/1.4 film lens, with a UV filter attached. Therefore, Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens connects with a ZYKKOR  Canon FD Lens to EF Body Mount Adapter for the digital mount on the camera.


----------



## photoflyer

On the new camera I shoot both sending raw to one card and jpeg to the other.    How much time I can devote to post processing then determines which type I use.   Sometimes I will underexpose something with very bright highlights and then use the raw file to bring out detail in the shadows.


----------

