Do you shoot RAW or RAW + JPEG?

[pixelatedscraps]

There is no such thing as one form of professional photography being easier than the other. That's just picking whichever side one is personally better at or something written by someone else that one has thought to be 'true'.

Ultimately, it comes down to so many variables that the notion of the word 'quality' goes right out of the window, along with Canon vs. Nikon, prime vs. zoom, natural and staged. It's ALL subjective to the viewer. It ALL comes down to composure, timing, composition, light and emotion.

Fashion is just as challenging as landscapes are just as hard as architecture as just as difficult as food or a portrait.

Everyone has their own level of what is 'good', 'tasteful', 'exquisite' or otherwise. In my experience, 98% of the photography you see is absolute garbage and either shot, produced or marketed by amateurs.

But then again, that's just my subjective opinion. Right?

 

[JamesPDX]

I think the most burning quality/resolution question is this: When is somebody going to engineer a 8x10 glass plate camera that can do Burst mode? I wonder what that would sound like?

 

[kallisti]

Right now my camera has two card slots so I shoot both RAW and JPEG. I am currently only using the JPEG and have the RAW ready as I plan to learn Lightroom over Christmas break. Once I figure out Lightroom I should have a number of pictures to practice with.

This actually isn't a bad idea. One use of both raw and jpg files is when learning photo editing. Assuming you like the jpg image, you can see what you need to do in your editing software to get that look from the raw file.

It can also be quite illuminating to see the limits of jpg and why having a raw file to work with can be critical. Take some pics of a high dynamic range scene letting the camera choose the exposure. Then overexpose some shots and underexpose some shots. Sunsets with some clouds in the sky are a good subject for this. Then see what you can do with both the raw and jpg images in post. This exercise can also show you the limits of the raw files. If the exposure is far enough off, even a raw file can't salvage the image in post.

 

[Anonymous Freak]

RAW+JPEG most of the time. For quick sharing (camera's WiFi to mobile phone for immediate posting) it will only transfer JPEG, so that's good. And keeping the RAW to me only matters if it's a "high quality" photo in the first place. When taking family vacation photos, I'll have it save both, but odds are 90% of the photos I'll delete the RAW as the from-camera JPEG is good enough for most photos. But for the few gems, I'll keep the RAW and tweak it. Just don't have time to go through each photo and manually tweak.
[doublepost=1505197654][/doublepost]

I think the most burning quality/resolution question is this: When is somebody going to engineer a 8x10 glass plate camera that can do Burst mode? I wonder what that would sound like?

 

[TonyC28]

Question about RAW and processing later (I'm new to this sort of thing):
If a picture is taken in RAW format is all of the necessary "information" there and available to later process the picture to look better using something like Lightroom? So if I take a picture but get lighting or exposure wrong can it be "repaired" later? Obviously there are limits, but is that the benefit of RAW shooting?

 

[kallisti]

Question about RAW and processing later (I'm new to this sort of thing):
If a picture is taken in RAW format is all of the necessary "information" there and available to later process the picture to look better using something like Lightroom? So if I take a picture but get lighting or exposure wrong can it be "repaired" later? Obviously there are limits, but is that the benefit of RAW shooting?

Basically, yes. The raw file contains all of the information that the camera sensor captured. It is analogous to a film negative. Jpeg is a compressed version of what the sensor captured. Based on mathematical algorithms, some information is "thrown away" in an effort to create a smaller file. Digital images are often printed or shared based on jpegs. They can tolerate some editing, but never as much as a raw file. For scenes where you get the exposure and white balance right at the time of capture, a jpeg may be fine. For scenes where you don't get the exposure right or that have a large dynamic range where there isn't a perfect exposure to capture both highlights and shadows, a raw file can be more useful. Raw files always require editing however and often more editing than a jpeg file.

One argument against shooting raw was that the files are significantly larger than jpegs. With more advanced storage options, this usually isn't a problem in 2017. One other major argument is that raw is more time consuming to edit/process. For some applications, this matters. For others it doesn't. Depends on your own workflow, volume, time, and inclination.

[Edit]
You are most likely going to end up converting your files to jpeg for output even if you shoot in raw. When you shoot jpeg, the camera is doing some of the editing internally (which is why there are so many options to choose in your camera if you set your output to jpeg). If you shoot raw, none of those options matter as the raw file will contain what the sensor captured and it is up to you to do the editing later in post (Lightroom or other software). If you set the camera jpeg settings up correctly for what you are shooting, the resulting file may be fine and not require much, if any, further work in post. If you don't set them up correctly for what you are currently shooting, then it may be tough to correct later. Raw gives you latitude to either correct exposure mistakes that happened at capture or to change your mind later on how you want to edit the image. The downside is that this can require time and effort after the fact. It's a tradeoff.

Personally, I have had enough images "ruined" by shooting jpeg over the years that I only shoot raw now. It doesn't take me that much time to do quick edits in LR on one raw image and then paste the global changes into the other images shot at the same time and under the same light--compared to having all images in a series ruined because of an exposure error, white balance error, or bad camera jpeg settings that don't work with what I'm currently shooting.

 

[secretk]

I always shoot RAW. Shooting RAW + JPEG takes too much time and it also restricts some of my camera capabilities (it's an old Sony NEX 3N). For the sake of testing I have taken few RAW + JPEG images but to be honest the processed image from RAW always looked better than the JPEG so I just decided to take only RAW.

 

[tcphoto1]

I shoot Commercial projects and see no reason to shoot anything but RAW files. Whether it’s work or personal, I want the best image quality possible and it can be copied then converted to JPEG if needed.

 

[cbautis2]

Raw on my CF UDMA 7 card + jpeg on my SD card

 

[QuantumLo0p]

Holy thread necromancy but what the heck...

I shoot both because I sometimes post shots to one of the many brain draining social platforms and having jpgs at the ready is handy for me. Realistically I won't use 98% of them but having two 64GB cards negates any desire to care at all about it, mainly because there is the brand new, fandangled function called "delete".

 

[jdechko]

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.

How about taking portraits of preschoolers.

They could cooperate if they wanted to, but most of the time they don't want to.

My wife does a lot of family/ children portraits, and bless her for her patience.

 

[Razeus]

RAW only. I use to shoot Raw + JPEG but I always process RAW and the JPEG is just there taking up space.

 

[kallisti]

I always shoot RAW. Shooting RAW + JPEG takes too much time and it also restricts some of my camera capabilities (it's an old Sony NEX 3N). For the sake of testing I have taken few RAW + JPEG images but to be honest the processed image from RAW always looked better than the JPEG so I just decided to take only RAW.

Interesting thread to necro (in the sense that the original thread asked an interesting question), though I am genuinely curious as to why you felt the need to reply to it. I could understand if you were asking a new question or wondering if opinions had changed over the past year. But that wasn't what I got from your post. So why the necro?

 

[Daniel Brown37]

Only RAW+JPEG! Only!

 

[MCAsan]

Only raw. I can always create a jpg from a processed raw image if I need one.