Do you shoot RAW or RAW + JPEG?

[ApfelKuchen]

Of course it's not the ONLY purpose. Thinking otherwise is foolish. What I mean is that the apple ecosystem is really set up for optimizing photos from the iPhone, with or without RAW support. Yes, Apple includes additional raw support for the creative folks out there, but that's in part to allow third-party developers to Develop plug ins for Photos and give some flexibility to the system. Make no mistake: Apple is concerned about photos from the iPhone and how they look and work on Apple devices.... not photos from your canon camera or Nikon camera or Fuji camera or any other camera.

Well, duh!

Of course Apple cares more about iPhone photos, and about making sure the entire Apple ecosystem supports its hugely successful iPhone franchise. So what? You want Apple to care more about non-iPhone photography than they care about iPhone users? Yet if they cared nothing for non-iPhone photography, there would be no RAW support whatsoever.

RAW is the topic of this discussion, not, "Who does Mom love more?"

 

[elpmas]

Raw. I can always convert the raw to jpeg.

 

[MCAsan]

Two slot camera: Slot 1 is UHS II so I put a fast 128GB card in it. Raw only. The second slot is UHS I so I put a slower 256GB card in it. Raw only. Slot 1 overflows to slot 2. I have zero need to spend camera CPU power and time writing jpg images. When I need a jpg for posting or sending to someone, I generate the jpg from an edited raw file.

 

[WaruiKoohii]

I only shoot RAW. I'm going to develop them into JPEGs after editing anyways, so why waste space and energy with JPEGs from the camera?

 

[JoeRito]

I shoot both because i like to run through the jpegs to determine which raw files I need to convert and then process. Unfortunately i have a couple of cameras that use file formats in raw that need conversion before they can be viewed. Also, my Fuji cameras (XPro1) do an amazing job with SOOC jpeg images. Some need little to no touch up work.

 

[Foogoofish]

I know this maybe a stretch on the topic, but does anyone know how to split and only show JPG in photos on the iPad? I was shooting RAW+JPG so I could take the small JPG to the iPad, but it doesn't differentiate so far as I can see and just shows one of the two options (not sure if RAW or JPG shown - think it choses and can be a mix).

 

[robgendreau]

I know this maybe a stretch on the topic, but does anyone know how to split and only show JPG in photos on the iPad? I was shooting RAW+JPG so I could take the small JPG to the iPad, but it doesn't differentiate so far as I can see and just shows one of the two options (not sure if RAW or JPG shown - think it choses and can be a mix).

Unless it's changed, I believe Photos makes a JPEG from an imported RAW and shows that in Photos. The RAW is there, but not what you work on in Photos per se, as opposed to say Lr or SnapSeed. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204977

 

[fabianvs]

Always raw on my canon. JPEG for iPhone.

 

[Ray2]

R+J. R in case I mess up and need the headroom R provides. Shooting Fuji.

I must say I'm surprised at the major skew towards Raw. Not even Pros are so Raw skewed. Canon, Oly and Sony have decent jpeg's. Unless you metered poorly, why not use them?

 

[MCAsan]

Jpg images have 8bit color channels instead of the 10 or 12bit color channels in a raw image. 8bit color means max 256 shades can be represented for each color channel. 12 bits means up to 4096 shades in each color channel. Which better represents a scene?

 

[simonsi]

I shoot RAW, RAW+jpeg or just jpeg as the situation and end usage demands. For instance at some hockey games, outside under poor floodlights I just know noise is going to be an issue on my D300s so downsizing to jpeg is a pretty good fix vs time invested for the intended usage of the images.

That said, 80% of my shooting is RAW...

 

[Ray2]

Jpg images have 8bit color channels instead of the 10 or 12bit color channels in a raw image. 8bit color means max 256 shades can be represented for each color channel. 12 bits means up to 4096 shades in each color channel. Which better represents a scene?

Who knows? How many demosiacing routines maintain color accuracy? Certainly not C1 or LR, both of which I use. You point is accurate, in theory.

 

[JamesPDX]

I shoot Canon RAW (Full frame camera), with the Adobe Color profile, I use flat picture-style presets whenever I can: CineStyle/MarvelsAdvantage, etc. I use the 16-bit Pro RGB Color space in Lightroom 4.4, and I always add-in the lens-correction data before I start editing. For prints, etc, LR 4.4 dithers color down really well to 8-bit JPEG or TIFF.
[doublepost=1504178169][/doublepost]

R+J. R in case I mess up and need the headroom R provides. Shooting Fuji.

I must say I'm surprised at the major skew towards Raw. Not even Pros are so Raw skewed. Canon, Oly and Sony have decent jpeg's. Unless you metered poorly, why not use them?

The same reason I record 24/44.1 or 24/48 or 24/96 KHz BWF in Avid Pro Tools instead of mp3 in Audacity: Quality, dynamic range, and non-destructive editing and saving.

 

[dwig]

Unless it's changed, I believe Photos makes a JPEG from an imported RAW and shows that in Photos. The RAW is there, but not what you work on in Photos per se, as opposed to say Lr or SnapSeed. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204977

Close, but not exactly correct.

Neither RAW nor JPEG can be displayed on any computer or display device, period. ALL apps that profess to do so convert them to an uncompressed display format specific to the device's display system.

There is no data loss when decompressing and converting a JPEG for display. The data loss associated with JPEG occurs only when the file is generated, but that data loss will be reflected in the display image.

RAW files are a different beast. The display app has two choices. One choice is to process the RAW data using the apps default parameters, sometimes extracting some of the camera setting data stored in the RAW file's metadata. The other choice is to merely extract the JPEG preview that the camera generated and stored in the RAW file's ancillary data, if it can find such data. Either way, the actual data display is NOT EVER a JPEG. If the display image was generated in the app from the RAW data it will not have any of the JPEG compression artifacts and resolution will be limited by the apps RAW data processing and any preview preferences that it may have. If the display image was generated from the embedded preview then the resolution will generally be quite limited, due to the small size of most such previews, and will exhibit JPEG compression artifacts.
[doublepost=1504193666][/doublepost]

...
I must say I'm surprised at the major skew towards Raw. Not even Pros are so Raw skewed. ...

Not surprising at all. Real pros are primarily concerned with profit and time is money in their world. Efficient workflow is prime. Image quality tends to be biased toward getting images that are technically "good enough" with the major concerns elsewhere (e.g. pose, lighting, composition, ...).

Those more interested in the craft and/or art side of photography will put a much higher bias on getting the ultimate technical quality.

Tyros (look it up if you don't know the definitiion of "tyro") will be biased toward the method that is easiest and requires the least technical skill.

A professional wedding photographer will often shoot thousands of images per week and need to produce "finished" images of at least several hundred each week. For them, a good JPEG may well be "good enough" for most of their shooting. They don't have near enough time to spend on each image as I do. I work for an art photographer (landscape, wildlife, ... http://www.alanmaltz.com ) doing all of his image processing. On average, I produce 1-2 finished images per week. For me, RAW is the only sensible choice, though the photographer shoots RAW+JPEG so that he has JPEGs to use when choosing which images he wants me to "develop".

 

[Dc2006ster]

I shoot RAW.

RAW files contain an embedded jpeg which can be extracted from that file. There are apps for this. I have not tried it but File Juicer is one such Mac application. This would give you access to the JPEG without using additional space on the card.

 

[robgendreau]

Close, but not exactly correct.

Neither RAW nor JPEG can be displayed on any computer or display device, period. ALL apps that profess to do so convert them to an uncompressed display format specific to the device's display system.

There is no data loss when decompressing and converting a JPEG for display. The data loss associated with JPEG occurs only when the file is generated, but that data loss will be reflected in the display image.

RAW files are a different beast. The display app has two choices. One choice is to process the RAW data using the apps default parameters, sometimes extracting some of the camera setting data stored in the RAW file's metadata. The other choice is to merely extract the JPEG preview that the camera generated and stored in the RAW file's ancillary data, if it can find such data. Either way, the actual data display is NOT EVER a JPEG. If the display image was generated in the app from the RAW data it will not have any of the JPEG compression artifacts and resolution will be limited by the apps RAW data processing and any preview preferences that it may have. If the display image was generated from the embedded preview then the resolution will generally be quite limited, due to the small size of most such previews, and will exhibit JPEG compression artifacts.
[doublepost=1504193666][/doublepost]

Not surprising at all. Real pros are primarily concerned with profit and time is money in their world. Efficient workflow is prime. Image quality tends to be biased toward getting images that are technically "good enough" with the major concerns elsewhere (e.g. pose, lighting, composition, ...).

Those more interested in the craft and/or art side of photography will put a much higher bias on getting the ultimate technical quality.

Tyros (look it up if you don't know the definitiion of "tyro") will be biased toward the method that is easiest and requires the least technical skill.

A professional wedding photographer will often shoot thousands of images per week and need to produce "finished" images of at least several hundred each week. For them, a good JPEG may well be "good enough" for most of their shooting. They don't have near enough time to spend on each image as I do. I work for an art photographer (landscape, wildlife, ... http://www.alanmaltz.com ) doing all of his image processing. On average, I produce 1-2 finished images per week. For me, RAW is the only sensible choice, though the photographer shoots RAW+JPEG so that he has JPEGs to use when choosing which images he wants me to "develop".

Thanks for the JPEG/RAW info. But the response was to a question about iOS Photos specifically, and the point is that Apple claims you see the embedded JPEG when you import from CCK: "When you work with RAW images on an iPad, the iPad shows the embedded JPEG thumbnail of the image created by the camera, not the actual RAW file." (The Apple KB is linked above.)

And I agree about your analysis of JPEG vs RAW in the real world. Another context where professionals use JPEG is documentation. For example, in some forensics any post processing is kind of not on, so using an OOC JPEG is preferred. Of course the camera itself has some settings and so on, but it's easier to deal with than having to justify Photoshopping the image, for obvious reasons.

But for most post processing (absent simple crops, etc), I'd still wonder why anyone would shoot JPEG, just for the reasons you state. It's like doing your own darkroom work. And it isn't just a matter of proper exposure and son on at the time of the shot, since you might make a crappy looking OOC shot when using ETTR for example. The camera's computer usually isn't sophisticated enough to know you want to say have more shadow detail, and produces an awful looking JPEG, while the one you produce after PP from the same RAW data can be awesome. Kinda analogous to techniques like pushing/pulling film.

 

[Nick Milner]

I shoot raw only, even on my Fuji X-Pro2 which is generally accepted to produce great looking JPGs. You can add the same film simulations to your raws in Lightroom if that's what you want but I use Alien Skin Exposure for my "mastering" process. Most of my work is done on the Ricoh GR II though, again in raw.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Close, but not exactly correct.

Neither RAW nor JPEG can be displayed on any computer or display device, period. ALL apps that profess to do so convert them to an uncompressed display format specific to the device's display system.

There is no data loss when decompressing and converting a JPEG for display. The data loss associated with JPEG occurs only when the file is generated, but that data loss will be reflected in the display image.

RAW files are a different beast. The display app has two choices. One choice is to process the RAW data using the apps default parameters, sometimes extracting some of the camera setting data stored in the RAW file's metadata. The other choice is to merely extract the JPEG preview that the camera generated and stored in the RAW file's ancillary data, if it can find such data. Either way, the actual data display is NOT EVER a JPEG. If the display image was generated in the app from the RAW data it will not have any of the JPEG compression artifacts and resolution will be limited by the apps RAW data processing and any preview preferences that it may have. If the display image was generated from the embedded preview then the resolution will generally be quite limited, due to the small size of most such previews, and will exhibit JPEG compression artifacts.
[doublepost=1504193666][/doublepost]

Not surprising at all. Real pros are primarily concerned with profit and time is money in their world. Efficient workflow is prime. Image quality tends to be biased toward getting images that are technically "good enough" with the major concerns elsewhere (e.g. pose, lighting, composition, ...).

Those more interested in the craft and/or art side of photography will put a much higher bias on getting the ultimate technical quality.

Tyros (look it up if you don't know the definitiion of "tyro") will be biased toward the method that is easiest and requires the least technical skill.

A professional wedding photographer will often shoot thousands of images per week and need to produce "finished" images of at least several hundred each week. For them, a good JPEG may well be "good enough" for most of their shooting. They don't have near enough time to spend on each image as I do. I work for an art photographer (landscape, wildlife, ... http://www.alanmaltz.com ) doing all of his image processing. On average, I produce 1-2 finished images per week. For me, RAW is the only sensible choice, though the photographer shoots RAW+JPEG so that he has JPEGs to use when choosing which images he wants me to "develop".

Very well presented comment.

 

[JamesPDX]

Close, but not exactly correct.
...cut...
A professional wedding photographer will often shoot thousands of images per week and need to produce "finished" images of at least several hundred each week. For them, a good JPEG may well be "good enough" for most of their shooting. They don't have near enough time to spend on each image as I do. I work for an art photographer (landscape, wildlife, ... http://www.alanmaltz.com ) doing all of his image processing. On average, I produce 1-2 finished images per week. For me, RAW is the only sensible choice, though the photographer shoots RAW+JPEG so that he has JPEGs to use when choosing which images he wants me to "develop".

I suppose it depends on your workflow. I used to use Bridge/DNG/Photoshop more, but now I make cuts right before import into Lightroom 4.4 –IMO the best version of that software. Some tools could be more precise, but it's mostly fine. I shoot much, much less on the 5D MkII than when I used a Oly E510. IDK, maybe blasting through 86K shutter-counts on that Olympus made it a training camera for me, and now I'm more choosy or efficient about how I shoot. I don't enjoy editing, so I'd rather get it right in the camera, but still have options for export/distribution. I also never import without embedding all the right metadata, and my file sequences are continuous, they never reset to 001.CR. On import, I always rename CR files to the YYYYMMDD_000.CR format, because you never know who will have to comb through your masterworks when you're gone, so at least the filename will have the shoot date. Also, I never reformat a card until the import is complete, the software is quit, and a backup has been made. YMMV.

 

[MCAsan]

A wedding photographer is a special use case, as is a photo journalist. Very different use cases than folks who shoot landscapes and wildlife, or soccer clubs....etc.

 

[AlexH]

RAW + JPEG. For a long time I didn't have a use for JPEGs. They were largely uninspiring. When I started playing with Fujifilm cameras, starting with the X-Pro1, I found something I never thought possible: JPEGs I liked. And not liked just a little, but truly appreciated. The color my Fujis were producing was fantastic. And it has only gotten better.

But I'm not primarily a color photographer. I like it for family photos and landscape, but I prefer most things shot in black and white. Then came the X-Pro2 and X-T2 and the introduction of Fujifilm's digital interpretation of ACROS. I fell in love. Most details shots, street shots, or portraits I take are shot in ACROS, and I really love the results, especially when I play with the JPEG recipe (shadows, highlights, and DR200/400).

Olympus JPEGs are close, but not quite as good as Fujifilm's, IMO. I've seen my editing time drastically reduced, which is a huge plus for me. I'm not a pro. I'd rather get results in camera when possible, and not even see Affinity Photo or Lightroom. I enjoy composing photographs, not tinkering in LR for hours.

Fujifilm is the first company to produce JPEGs I've truly enjoyed shooting. When I go out with RAW + JPEG, ACROS film simulation set, I have a little bit of that film feeling. The JPEG is final, like my film photos (mostly). But I do take advantage of making a RAW too because sometimes there's a shot I really need or want, but it needs saving or work.

Examples of shots I've taken with the ACROS simulation, and only minor crops/straightens (if any):

DSCF2237 by Alex, on Flickr

DSCF2091-2 by Alex, on Flickr

DSCF2044 by Alex, on Flickr

What gives? by Alex, on Flickr

 

[JamesPDX]

A wedding photographer is a special use case, as is a photo journalist. Very different use cases than folks who shoot landscapes and wildlife, or soccer clubs....etc.

Not really. Wildlife is much more difficult because it's quite hard to get a bear or running coyote to cooperate with commands such as, "Okay, stop and pose, turn this way, okay, now let's get the mother of the bride in here..." Especially when you're using a 600mm prime. That's where burst-mode is your friend.

Composure, timing (which is really anticipation of a shot).

 

[maflynn]

RAW only, I have no need for JPGs being written to the SD card, its a waste of space (and I assume time, since the images has to be converted/written as JPG).

 

[MCAsan]

Not really. Wildlife is much more difficult because it's quite hard to get a bear or running coyote to cooperate with commands such as, "Okay, stop and pose, turn this way, okay, now let's get the mother of the bride in here..." Especially when you're using a 600mm prime. That's where burst-mode is your friend.

Composure, timing (which is really anticipation of a shot).

I had rather face a brown bear than an angry wedding coordinator, bride...or bride's mother.


Seriously, I was think more of the post processing that at the shoot. No deadline culling and editing thousands of shots from AK, Kenya,...etc.

 

[JamesPDX]

Very true. I think the wedding photographer community should come together to hammer-out an industry standard on deposits, content ownership, and a strict limit and deadline on proofs and delivery acceptance. Pro wedding photographers are treated like crap (mostly pay-wise) because now that everyone and their dog has a phone with a little camera inside, they think they're George Hurrell, Annie Leibovitz, David Gilke, Ted Mishima, and Ansel Adams rolled into a phone. –So nobody wants to pay for a professional with a demonstrable body of work. I know a couple of great photographers who've simply quit shooting weddings for now because so few want to pay a fair price for excellent photos.

I do hope that one day soon this will change because anybody can take a photo, but not everyone can take a great photo, and that talent-in-service should be one that pays well.