jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Why I shoot everything in RAW format and why you should too!
Posted: 28 May 2019 08:23 AM PDT


It is not uncommon for people to write to me asking if I shoot RAW or JPEG, and my answer is always the same. I ALWAYS shoot in RAW.

Why would I do that? Because, no matter what I am photographing, I want to get the best image possible. The RAW file is uncompressed and holds more data than a JPEG image. This allows me to manipulate the photo much better in my retouching process. To be a little more specific, there is more information in the white balance. highlights & shadows of the photo, and I have a better chance of creating a polished finished image with a RAW file.

While it is true that shooting in JPEG format is faster, both in the camera (writing to the card and clearing the buffer) and in post (opening the file in a photo editing program), I would prefer to have quality over speed.

When I first started shooting RAW, I did so at times when I thought the photos were most important to me or the client. It wasn't long before I realized that every photo I took was important in it's own way.

You may be thinking, "OK, maybe I should shoot in both formats". I know a lot of people who choose to shoot RAW and JPEG to their memory cards. I am NOT a big fan of this for numerous reasons:

1. Shooting RAW plus JPEG slows your camera down! Yes, as it turns out, your camera has to process every image twice if you choose this mode. This means that most cameras will take twice as long to write the images to a memory card, and therefore take much longer to clear your buffer. Even on fast cameras like my Canon 1D X Mark II and Canon 5D Mark IV, this is very noticeable. I always advocate shooting to two memory cards (to make sure you come away with your images) but I shoot the same RAW images to both card slots.

2. If I really need JPEG images, it only takes seconds (or maybe minutes if I have thousands of photos) to convert my RAW files to a JPEG format using a program like Photo Mechanic. This can also be done in Lightroom and other software applications.

There are a couple of disadvantages of shooting RAW:

1. RAW files are larger in size than their JPEG equivalents, but memory cards and hard drives have grown in capacity and dropped in price to a point where this should not be a big deal.

2. It does take an extra step, and therefore more time, when processing a RAW file. As the retoucher, we need to add the sharpening, saturation, contrast and more. But again, I prefer to take a little more time with each image and have a better quality product at the end.

3. These larger files will take longer to write to your memory cards, and therefore fill your buffer faster. But even with that said, I still shoot every Olympic Games in RAW format. Why? I am at the Olympics!!!! I am capturing history and want the best image I can get.

It all really boils down to this: I treat every photo shoot as a once in a lifetime opportunity, and for that reason, I think that every photo should be captured with the best possible format.

What do you do? Leave a comment and let me know your thoughts on the subject.



__________________________________________________________________________
Subscribe to the Jeff Cable Photography Blog by clicking HERE!
__________________________________________________________________________
If you are interested in purchasing ANY equipment, please click here to go to B&H Photo, as I get a referral from them if you enter this way. It does not change the cost to you in any way, but it helps me keep this blog up and running.
__________________________________________________________________________
Check out my upcoming photo tours to amazing places around the world. I have photo tours to Africa, Costa Rica, Europe, Asia, India and more. And Canon will loan you any gear you want for FREE for any of my tours.
__________________________________________________________________________

You will have to look up Jeff Cable if you want to Subscribe. He's got a great blog and knows his stuff.

(Download)

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I basically feel that both are fine. Personally, I shoot RAW exclusively. I've come to the conclusion that people who shoot jpg are taking pictures. Those who shoot RAW are making photographs.

Taking pictures is fine. People have been doing that since Kodak made it easy to "take the pictures and let Kodak do the work".

Making photographs isn't for everyone. The photographers who want the best control of their final "print" will do their own processing. Is one better than the other? Depends on whether one is happy taking pictures or happy making phototgraphs.
--Bob

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

At the dawn of the digital age there may have been a considerable advantage to shooting raw but technology has advanced and the "advantage" has dwindled to be minute - or less. For me, what I do, my work, the costs far outweigh any advantage. The smaller your sensor the larger the advantage can be realized - and vice/versa.
.

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

Whoa! I looked for Photo Mechanic in the App store for my iPad or my MacBook Pro without success.
Is it for Windows only?

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

https://store.camerabits.com/products/photo-mechanic-6

Both

bleirer

Any program that can open a raw file can likely export it or 'save as' to jpeg. The free software download for your camera, for example.

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

Reminds me of Polaroid vs darkroom processed black and white. And that extends right down to the image quality.

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

Thank you.

Bill_de Loc: US

Well said Bob. I fall into the category of happy picture taker. As such I do try to take half way decent pictures without getting too involved in the process. The most fun for me is pressing the shutter button.

---

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

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

Just out of curiosity, have you ever made a direct comparison with your own images? The advantages are more related to color and tonal range than sensor size. In a studio setting where you have complete control over light and contrast, or images that contain average contrast and tonality, you are 100% correct - almost imperceptible differences between out of the camera jpeg and jpeg from raw, manually adjusted. In other situations it can range from modest differences between the two, to pressing the delete button on an unsalvageable jpeg from the camera and a really excellent result.

I started in photogrpahy in 1967, used a darkroom at school and had one set up at home and later in my studio. I am totally comfortable with manipulating an image to bring out the best in it, so process raw files is a very natural thing for me.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

"so process raw files is a very natural thing for me"

I agree with this completely

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I PP ALL my JPEGS. I am comfortable with it - but I really do not LIKE doing it ....I have other things in my life .....
.

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

Good answer if I had asked that question. The question I asked was if you had ever opened up a raw image in a raw converter and processed it, and compared it to an image that you shot as a jpeg.

BTW, I really don't have the time to waste postprocessing jpegs - too much work for too little benefit - and I am rarely thrilled with the results. Only time I PP raster images is when they are 16 bit tiff or psd. I used to do a lot of fashion-level retouching on some of his portrait shots - I could spend 90 mins on a head shot. I also do image restorations, where sometimes all I have is a scanned copy of a print, in jpeg. I just do what needs to be done. Larry, I doubt you have THAT level of experience - your images just don't reflect it. However, I could be wrong. At the end of day, I have 13 yrs of experience shooting and processing raw files, and without a doubt - putting aside the quality considerations for a moment and just addressing the time factor - it is MUCH MUCH MUCH faster for me to process raw->psd->jpeg than when I have just a jpeg to work with. Everyone's mileage is different, but that has been my experience.

But if you could answer the question and maybe even post the results - or a description of the results - it would be helpful in understanding your bias against raw.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Gene, though I've been around cameras since birth, mom worked for a Kodak retail store at the time, I didn't start darkroom work until 1966. Every photo I took required processing time, that includes developing, dry, file, and print. So, to me with either film or digital today, there is processing involved. It's the only way to make a photograph.
--Bob