selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

It actually does not make any difference.

If you don't blow the highlights to the point that you can't recover them, you can tweak the result in PP with the Exposure slider +/- a full stop and not see any degradation in the image.

The extra effort to get the exposure in the camera to be "precise" will never be visible.

btbg

My editor wants TIFFS and he prefers them created out of RAW files. The object is to get the best photo possible in the time frame needed. There is always time to process a raw file. Double click on the file and it opens in ARC. slide the bottom four sliders slightly to the right, slide the black slider slightly to the left, adjust the brightness since generally newsprint needs to have photos that look slightly overexposed then adjust the sharpening since newsprint bleeds, and RAW files generally have to be sharpened anyway. Total time approximately 15 seconds.

The boss actually doesn't know or care if the file started as a RAW file or a JPEG, he just wants the best photo he can get and knows that our two best photographers always shoot RAW. In my experience the editor doesn't process the file, the photographer does, then the page layout people crop it to fit their design.

In smaller papers, the photographer is often also the writer and the page layout person. If you go to the trouble to look at the better newspaper association contest winners the photography winners are generally people who shoot in RAW. Not saying that RAW is superior to JPEG, just saying that an awful lot of good newspaper photographers shoot RAW. Time is a non issue, since I can get you a photo from a RAW file just as fast as anyone else in the office can get you a file that started as a JPEG, maybe faster.

The issue is what are you using the photo for. How do you generally process files, and what is your philosophy of photography. Journalism has strict standards that prevent doing very much processing, but that doesn't mean that RAW can't be used, other than Reuters. Photojournalists frequently shoot in poor or rapidly changing light. They often have only one shot at the image. All of them recognize that RAW is more forgiving, so it makes sense to shoot RAW whenever you have low light situations and fast moving news events, since not getting a usable photo is unacceptable.

Any time that RAW might cost you in photo processing is more than made up for by the photos that are saved by RAW and in the quality of image that is consistently produced.

Now, if I was a wedding photographer and had all my lights set up and balanced perfectly, then I might very well shoot JPEG. That would make sense, but for photojournalism, not so much. You have it backwards.

btbg

Thanks for backing me up. Appreciate it.

royb_36-cox.net Loc: Phoenix

I haven't read all 10 pages of posts to see if anyone else posted this. I do this and recommended always shooting with the camera set to RAW + JPEG and using a 32 or 64 GB card, especially if the camera uses SD cards or an SD card adapter. The difference between RAW and RAW + JPEG storage requirements is small. That way you always have quick access to the JPEG for general use and are able to view them without PP software on any platform and the RAW is there if you do some PP. Of course in you never intend to perform any PP then only shoot JPEG.

duane klipping Loc: Bristow iowa

Might as well throw this out there too. We Nikon users don't have situations with raw maybe it is Canon that is the problem...seriously why does this come up so often. You do know of the search function? Can you use Google? How about YouTube? I guess if you can't search here you can't search there either.

Too many lazy people want others to give them all the answers and never learn a thing that way. Use that thing between your ears...

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Starting from the raw file may not cost you any time. It might even save you time during the initial exposure.

It provides you with three benefits that may be important:

1. You don't need to be as careful with your initial exposure as you need to be with JPEG only. But you still need to avoid blowing the raw highlights.
2. It gives you access to highlight and shadows information that the camera's JPEG might discard.
3. It provides you with a view of a 16-bit virtual image that has not been damaged by compression.

Whether or not this is important depends on your objective. Otherwise, there is not much you can do working with the raw data that you could not also do with the JPEG straight from the camera. But if you are going to edit the camera's JPEG it's a good idea to convert it to a 16-bit TIFF before doing any color or tonality adjustments.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I still don't see point of using UniWB. The white balance affects only the camera's JPEG. It has no effect on the camera's spot meter.

You base your exposure entirely on your spot meter. You always ignore the greenish JPEG.

Of course you develop from raw. You have to! Your JPEG is useless to you.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I don't recommend this. Shooting raw + jpeg in challenging contrast will not result in a great capture of jpeg, though you may end up with a perfectly reasonable raw file to work with. It kinda defeats the purpose of shooting raw and accessing the raw accessible dynamic range. So the exercise of shooting raw+jpeg is generally speaking a waste of time. You'll have to go through twice as many images when in front of your computer, and you'll have to bracket, making even more images to go through, when all you have to do is find the brightest spot in the scene, meter it with the camera's spot meter, and add additional exposure - enough to brighten the image but not so much that you end up blowing the highlights. On my camera the amount of additional exposure varies from 1 1/3 stop to 2 stops. Checking the histogram and turning on overexposure warning helps. I can usually do this with just one exposure, or possibly two bracketed exposures if the shadows are particularly dark, which I will blend in post processing.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

You had to qualify that, "in challenging contrast." The thing is that contrast is not always challenging.

In most cases, if you get a decent JPEG you can be assured that you can develop the corresponding raw file to make an even better final image.

Think of the JPEG as a rough draft. It gives you a preview of the raw file's potential. You can get a lot of information from a properly exposed JPEG besides what your highlight warnings are telling you.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

The difference between raw and raw+jpg is on the order of 30%, which I agree is pretty small.

Having jpg available discourages you from putting your images into a postprocessing program, true. If that postprocessing program includes digital asset management, then your images are not going to be included in the management database which could present problems down the line when you are searching for something specific. That's one of the primary reasons I shoot raw only, because it ensures that my images will be in the Lightroom catalog.

If you do not use digital asset management, then do not read the preceding paragraph.

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

Thank you for taking time to list these references and for the explanation of your approach to the western landscape. I like the composition as much as the final tones.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I'm not sure what your saying. Are you suggesting that Nikon shooters don't have to shoot raw because their jpegs are better than Canon's!

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

You're quite welcome.
--Bob

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

Troll maybe, but the main value is that RAW lets ME choose the edit and make the image I envisioned when I framed the shot.

tenny52 Loc: San Francisco

Nikon's raw files with .NEF extension can be viewed by most freebie picture viewers such as Faststone, even the MS File Explorer can pre-view the thumbnail.
It make sense to shoot nef+jpg if your Nikon has 2 card slots, and you don't have to download the jpg card, but in case...