Raw Vs JPEG (Page 3): Welcome to UHH. As you develop your skills in making images it's possible your desire to improve will lead you deeper into post photographic processing. When this...

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

Welcome to UHH. As you develop your skills in making images it's possible your desire to improve will lead you deeper into post photographic processing. When this happens you will want more control over your images. Meanwhile, shoot the way you wish in the format you wish. Eventually, you will understand why you want to shoot in RAW. Have fun and good luck.

kann527 wrote:

I have recently just started getting more into photography. I have been shooting in JPEG and have been very pleased with my pictures. I just started shooting in raw but it has just made things more complicated for me. I would like to eventually shoot family photoes and children. Do you think it would be ok if I just staying with shooting in JPEG?

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

amehta wrote:

I think it's one of the "UHH Top-3 Dogmatic Discussion Topics (TM)". :lol:

Shhhhh!!! Let's not scare newbie off! :wink:

drmuttillo Loc: NorthEast Florida

Ansel Adams only used Real Film not digital. He shot only in Black and White and had the eye and experience to go way beyond any of us today. So he had much more control over what his final Photo's looked like. I still shoot in Real Film and Digital, I still have my Nikon F2A and a real motor drive MB1 and MB2, with very good results. But if you want to get into Photoshop or any other post processing program the go ahead use RAW, or both if not just go with JPEG which I find just as easy to post process.

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

RJM wrote:

It's surprising what processing you can do on a jp... (show quote)

Then again, I haven't seen them. :)

Been shooting raw since 2006 - I see no reason to start my editing workflow with a compressed, eight bit jpg file when I can start off with a lossless compressed 14 bit raw file, then convert to psd or tif for a workflow that offers maximum data retention and superior detail, color accuracy and tonal range. And I will do a 1200 shot wedding from two photographers with different cameras, all shot in raw, and make them look as if they were taken with one camera - and take about 2-3 hours to complete the editing up to proof quality and export to jpg for client viewing.

pecohen Loc: Central Maine

Nic42 wrote:

The problem is you are re-processing an already processed (by the camera) image and you're not being given all the digital information to do it!

Until very recently I've shot only JPEG, but now shoot mostly RAW. In many, even most, cases it seems to make very little difference. If lighting is good, there was not excessive contrast, you exposed properly then that processing the camera did will probably not lose information that will be very noticeable.

On the other hand things do not go perfectly with every shot and often it is that once-in-a-lifetime shot when you had to shoot without carefully checking all the settings where shooting RAW will matter. Maybe you will wish you had set the aperture differently or used a flash or well, done something differently. These are the shots where shooting in RAW may preserve that little extra margin of information that lets you push the pp just a little more to turn out a good image.

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

kann527 wrote:

I have recently just started getting more into photography. I have been shooting in JPEG and have been very pleased with my pictures. I just started shooting in raw but it has just made things more complicated for me. I would like to eventually shoot family photoes and children. Do you think it would be ok if I just staying with shooting in JPEG?

Hi Kann,
The short answer is yes, it would be OK. Don't let anyone bully you into thinking otherwise.

I am a RAW shooter, and found a plugin that works with lightroom that will make your RAW photos come out as if they were processed JPEGS, but you would still get to keep all the information. It is in a discussion I posted a few days ago. If you google lightroom killer tips, that is where I found the camera profile plugin that gives your raw images the starting point, then you can tweek from there.

If you prefer JPEGS, I do know several pros that still shoot JPEGS. It isn't what I choose to do, but we all have our own reasons and preferences.

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

jeryh wrote:

For most people, JPEG is more than adequate- all RAW does is give you more options if you want to be really picky, plus a lot of extra work !

The only way you can make such a statement is if you do not shoot raw. The reason I no longer shoot jpg is that I have not yet seen an out of camera jpg that could not benefit from additional processing, and that the raw workflow is significantly faster for image corrections than trying to do this in jpgs. And you have more "adjustability" with way better results.

RJM Loc: Cardiff, S Wales, UK

Gene51 wrote:

Then again, I haven't seen them. :) br br Been sh... (show quote)

Echoes what I said, if I was doing paid work I'd shoot RAW.

But for most enthusiasts in most situations JPEGs are fine.....and it's surprising what you can do with them. Some superb software out there.

MtnMan Loc: ID

kann527 wrote:

I have recently just started getting more into photography. I have been shooting in JPEG and have been very pleased with my pictures. I just started shooting in raw but it has just made things more complicated for me. I would like to eventually shoot family photoes and children. Do you think it would be ok if I just staying with shooting in JPEG?

Many professional photographers stay with jpegs because their jobs don't allow processing RAW images; e.g. photojournalists. Others because they shoot a limited range of photo types and are able to set up their cameras to do the processing just the way they need it.

In all cases the final product is other than a RAW file.

But if you become an enthusiast and shoot more demanding situations you'll want to learn how to process RAW images. They contain more information.

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

drmuttillo wrote:

Ansel Adams only used Real Film not digital. He sh... (show quote)

If you have read Adam's two benchmark books - The Negative and The Print - you will understand just how much manipulation he did to produce his masterpieces. His contact prints looked like large format snapshots, until he got into the darkroom and did his thing. Once he snapped the shutter, everything was on the table - for negatives - developer recipe, temperature, time, concentration, etc - and for prints the same, along with dodging and burning in. His control came from his knowledge of chemistry, and his ability to record the maximum amount of information in his negatives (equivalent to shooting raw, btw). Then his understanding of contrast and tonal manipulation in the print process, applying local adjustments with dodging and burning. If you have not read his books - you should. It will open your eyes, and maybe your mind about how you do things with digital - it is not all that different. Keep in mind that he exposed to the left (to record shadow detail) and with digital we expose to the right (to record highlight detail) otherwise the same rules apply.

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

MtnMan wrote:

Many professional photographers stay with jpegs because their jobs don't allow processing RAW images; e.g. photojournalists. Others because they shoot a limited range of photo types and are able to set up their cameras to do the processing just the way they need it.

In all cases the final product is other than a RAW file.

But if you become an enthusiast and shoot more demanding situations you'll want to learn how to process RAW images. They contain more information.

Almost all the pros I know - 40-50 or so - all shoot raw exclusively, and use Lightroom to correct their images and Photoshop to finish them. The few that still shoot jpg only are old school photojournalists, and not at all involved with the post processing. Maybe you travel in different circles.

GWR100 Loc: England

Best advice, all you need to know at this stage

Cdouthitt wrote:

shoot RAW + Jpg, if your camera has that capability. Then you can decide later.

h1h1d4mje

If you are satisfied with JPEG, just use it. At some time you may want to post process. If you do you will want to shoot if raw.

K_Duncan Loc: Whiteville, NC

Db7423 wrote:

Indeed. I have thousands of JPEG's from before I started shooting RAW. I would give anything to have those earlier photos in RAW so I could go back to several favorites and re-edit them. No need to rush into RAW processing but once you learn all the extra post processing possibilities RAW gives you you will be happy you have the RAW file shot and saved. Today I shoot only raw. ;)

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

amehta Loc: Boston

h1h1d4mje wrote:

If you are satisfied with JPEG, just use it. At some time you may want to post process. If you do you will want to shoot if raw.

I would change this to "If you do you will wish you had been shooting raw." You can generally never go back and take the exact shot again. But you can go back and post process an old image again.