RAW v JPEG

[Edd]

Hope this subject hasn't been trawled over to many times but wanted to know what format people usually shot in ???

Last night took about 100 shots of our horses, needless to say deleted quite a few but then started thinking ahead how long before my 500GB hard drive starts to fill.

So do you use RAW often or little.

Ed

[IvanI]

RAW only.

[bob_r]

Ed,

I had the same thoughts some time ago so added an external terabyte drive to my 500GB external drive. With the price of storage dropping all the time, I didn't want to restrict how I shoot because of my storage limitations. To answer your question, I shoot both RAW and JPG, depending on the event. If I'm shooting something where I know I'm going to shoot a lot of shots (trip to the zoo for examplel), I'll normally shoot JPG just to reduce the processing time.

Also, as I go through my pics while processing, I make sure to delete any images that I don't think I'll use. Even ones that I may use, example pics of the kids for my wife's scrapbooking, I'll delete some of these after I print copies. If you shoot a lot and save all your shots, it won't take long to fill up your storage, no matter how much you have. Also, with the larger files created by the newer high MP cameras, it becomes even more imperative to delete as you go, regardless of the format used to capture the images. I also copy old images that I want to keep to disk after about a year. I get very critical of my images at this time and unless I think I'll need the shot for something again, I'll delete it.

Bob R

[Edd]

Thanks to the both of you.

My wife and I agreed last night to switch back to JPEG to reduce processing time, but to be honest it doesn't take that long to convert them anyway.

The other thought I had is no matter how much we try to predict events you never know whats around the corner.

Last night I took one photo that my wife loves, I think it looks pretty good too (will post soon), so I was glad to have it RAW so I can work on it later when I understand Photoshop more.

Ed

[gldiana]

Ed,

the RAW vs. JPEG argument is pretty much the oldest in digital photography and yet it resurfaces every so often.
To sum it up in a short phrase: File size is the least of your problem

JPEG is an image format, RAW is not. RAW is nothing else than a collection of data. The sensor in your camera captures everything it sees and stores it away as RAW, if you decide to use JPEG, the processors throws away everything IT decides is useless including details on shadows and highlights (the +- 2 f/stops gain in RAW is one of the advantages of RAW that you often hear about). There's a lot more than that. RAW is like a negative, you need to process it. JPEG is like the final print. You bring a negative to a photo store and they'll make prints, bring that same negative to 10 different stores and you are likely to see 10 different results because every store uses its own settings. If you use JPEG the processor in your camera will correct light, hue, saturation, etc. based on what it was told when it came out of the manufacturing plant and throw away FOREVER everything else.
RAW processing is non-destructive. If you make modifications today to a RAW file, you can go back 10 years from now and remove those modifications or change them in a non sequential way. JPEG is destructive and sequential: if you change highlights and then saturation and save the image there's no way to go back. before saving you can modify but in reverse order of what you did because a modification changes the actual pixels and therefore previous changes irreparably. Also JPEG is a compressed format with multiple-compression scheme, which means that if you save the image more than once you keep losing quality.
There's a lot more to it but I don't want to get in deeper technical details. Two years ago I stopped shooting in JPEG completely (before I'd shoot RAW+JPEG).
As for Bob's suggestion to delete photos you don't like, as you go, it's a valid suggestion but use some care with it. On my recent trip to Japan I came home and after seeing the photos on my large screen I found out that some of the photos that I didn't originally liked became some of my favorite shots. A camera screen in now way give you the same quality of colors and details of a monitor, before you delete you really want to make sure you don't want that photo. I travel with 12 GB in memory cards (about to grow) plus laptop and external HD for backups. Then again, it all depends how serious you are about your photos.
The way I see it, every photo I don't shoot is a lost chance to make some more money. If you shoot just for fun the game has different rules.

[bob_r]

As for Bob's suggestion to delete photos you don't like, as you go, it's a valid suggestion but use some care with it. On my recent trip to Japan I came home and after seeing the photos on my large screen I found out that some of the photos that I didn't originally liked became some of my favorite shots. A camera screen in now way give you the same quality of colors and details of a monitor, before you delete you really want to make sure you don't want that photo. I travel with 12 GB in memory cards (about to grow) plus laptop and external HD for backups. Then again, it all depends how serious you are about your photos.
The way I see it, every photo I don't shoot is a lost chance to make some more money. If you shoot just for fun the game has different rules.

I wasn't suggesting that you delete images in the field. I meant during processing and I do shoot for fun so probably have a different workflow than someone doing it professionally.

Bob R

[Edd]

Thanks guys for the advice, and thank you for the detailed response gldiana. I have read about the RAW file being effectively a negative of the Photo and had an idea about the compression and losing quaility with JPEGs.

But would I be correct in saying in that order to print my photos they need to be in JPEG format first ????

I do tend to delete unwanted images and last night I do admit we did this off the camera display but only images that looked totally wrong. After passing them into Photoshop more were deleted due to excessive blurring. I'll wait until they are downloaded in future.

Ed

[gldiana]

It depends. If you do your own printing there is software that allows you to print directly from RAW, if you're sending to a lab they need to have a JPEG (Most pro labs will take TIFF as well). TIFF is a much higher quality format than JPEG.

[Edd]

Okay thats really interesting.

The plan is in future to do all my own printing and I must say my printer for now leaves something to be desired.

I currently use just a little Espon C66 inkjet that came free with the computer, but will be looking for a more photo quality printer probabley next year.

Can you calibrate your printer or monitor so that the colours appear the same on both ???

I printed a couple of photos last night and the image is much darker on the printed image compared to that viewed on the monitor.

[gldiana]

Can you calibrate your printer or monitor so that the colours appear the same on both ???

Yes, sure. Look at the Spyder Pro calibration device or the Hueys.

[Bonish Photo]

Luca summed it all up in his earlier statement about the RAW VS. Jpeg argument.

I agree with Bob that if you're shooting something that is not going to be detrimental to the images down the road, cousin Jim's sons birthday and there are 4 relatives shooting the scene, then I'd switch over to Jpeg to save processing time.

Anything else, shoot RAW.

I try to only shoot RAW just for the simple fact that you have so many more options with the Camera RAW settings in Photochop.

Night and Day compared to adjusting a Jpeg

[fotocrafter]

Recomended workflow:
Capture in RAW only even if you only think you need jpgs. You may get lucky and get a money shot! Remember you have few options with an 8-bit compressed file. -- you will output processed images below.
Copy and convert to .DNG (no .xmp sidecars to keep track of) Backup to DVD or an external HDD
Post process in Lightroom/Photoshop/whatever? Lightroom is non-destructive. Photoshop is; learn to use layers!
Resize using the 'Sharpening' choice for both up or downsizing. Trust me it works!
Do any sharpening of the image as the last step.
Output in jpg (SRGB) for "drugstore" printing. For the good stuff, ask the photolab what they need. i.e. jpg or tiff format; SRGB or Adobe98 color space and resolution. (normally 300dpi). For home prints use jpg 280-360dpi, adobe98. Don't let your printer manage the color space or you will 'double-manage' your color space and it will drive you insane!

Hope this helps,
Rich

[Tusker]

My D 80 can be set to do both at the same time-- it can help.

[Terry B.]

As a recent converter to RAW from fine JPEG...let me say this is a no brainer. Truly, I see more details and options for editing from the RAW pic, and the print output (saving as JPEG last step) is much better. I'm fairly new to the digital game and am still getting my feet wet with techniques and editing but I know what I see and my newest 20 x 30 print from a RAW sourced file really blew me awy. I had printed few 8 x 12's from RAW earlier and had already seen the advantage from shooting in this format. The prints have increased detail that almost looks like a painting, at times. There is a realism that a JPEG sourced file just doesn't capture. I liken it to comparing a great 35mm print with a medium format print.
As far as storage, the RAW file isn't that large. The TIFF file that I edit in is huge , however. I have an external hardrive that holds 500 gb and don't see a problem of running out of room for photos. RAW rules, go with it!

[peter nap]

Ed. my take on it FWIW....

Summer, spring and fall, I get nearly 1000 jpegs a week from the game cameras. I take pictures of everywhere I go and much of what I see (In RAW and JPEG). I delete very little.

In other words, I have a lot of photos. We are making history and my grandkids might like to see them all. I convert the JPEGS I like to TIFFs so I can work on them. I convert the RAW that I am currently working on to TIFFs,

Storage is so cheap now I see no reason to compromise. I have 2- 1.5 terabyte externals and if I need to, I'll buy another one.

Now keeping track of that many pictures is another thing and takes some discipline when loading them. The old...I'll do a description later....excuse doesn't work