edu LIBRARY

RAW vs. JPEG: 3 Reasons to Choose RAW

This topic is a discussion, not an argument, and the most important thing I can add is perspective. It shouldn’t be something that incites rivalries of who’s better than who or causes you to “un-friend” someone. Possibly it should just end with allowing everyone to make their own decisions…good or bad.

My perspective, of course, starts with understanding the technical differences of camera RAW and JPEG files. Anyone can Google the subject and find volumes of useful and not so useful information.  Let me say up front, I strongly understand the technical math and aspects of this subject, and I am only going to include some of the basics here, but I have provided some links below for those interested in more details.

Okay, there are many differences. The most important one to me is simple. The increased bit depth of a RAW image translates to greater tonal range and image information that a JPEG will never have.

Some tech talk

A JPEG is an 8bit file = 256 colors (tonal range) per color channel; Red, Blue, Green.

This equals 16.7 million possible colors per pixel. Seems like a lot, and it is.

Most RAW files are 12 or 14 bit files. A 12 bit RAW file can measure 4096 tonal values per color channel, or a total of 68.7 billion colors per pixel. Wow!

When the human eye can only discern about 10 million different colors, it seems to beg the question, “Why do I need that much information in my photos?” I’d like to say “Because I can,” and leave it at that, but then where is the fun in the discussion.

Reason 1: I want and need that much information because I do not present my work in its natural state

The reality is, image conversion, manipulation, correction, sharpening, or any alteration you make affects the pixel. The greater latitude you have with the original image, the smoother the shifts in tones after your changes have been made. I often talk, when I teach, about local contrast in a photo, where tones shift from dark to gray. In principle, I have more control if black transitions to white in 11 shades, not 3.

Choose wisely, the RAW image has no inherent color balance. JPEGs do. For RAW, you decide what it will be. Choose wrong or forget and you have major problems attempting to get reasonable color balance. Just a reminder, when shooting RAW and you set your color balance, it is attaching a set of scripts in the Meta data and changing your camera LCD to give you a more accurate preview. I set mine for consistency in editing. All my photos will have the same color “look.” The balance is set when I convert the RAW.

When setting the color balance for shooting JPEGs, you are making adjustments in the camera to help match its sensitivity to a color environment. For instance, we think of a balanced light as having equal parts Red, Green, Blue. This makes Tungsten light orange in comparison. It has an unequal amount of RGB. Less blue specifically. Setting your camera balance to this shooting JPEG creates a higher sensitivity to the blue spectrum and less sensitivity to the reds and yellows for a balance. It is now part of your photo. Choose wrongly and you won’t have enough color information in your photo to recover every detail. This is where technical volumes can and have been written. It’s best learned by trying it. Have fun and burn a few pixels. Make some mistakes on purpose and see what you get. For those who recall shooting film, it’s just like picking the emulsion to match the light, or using correction filters.

Reason 2: For the Color Quality. Even if you set it correctly you can tune in each color layer more precisely

In the advertising world, color match is critical. Often, individual layers must be adjusted separately. It’s not even a brief thought to the photographer and model on set shooting something new and sexy for their portfolio, but turn that into a Victoria Secret catalog with clients on set. Perfect color is important to the client. You are selling a product and those colors are subtle but chosen with great care. Your job goes past the pretty picture; it has to be a technical masterpiece too.

Reason 3: I’m a commercial photographer

Even in today’s tech improved world, 4 color press and news press still take a bite out of tonal range. I need all that is possible and clients demand it. The excuse of drive space and read/write speed is not their concern. There are solutions and they must be put in place. I won’t shoot a JPEG because I can shoot faster than shooting RAW. If I want to shoot faster, I get a camera that can. And don’t limit your thinking, because I’ll bet you all thought of the fastest Canon or Nikon model. Get a RED and pull frames if you need that much speed. Same with drive space. I’ve had bookshelves full of 500 gig drives. Now it’s a 16-terabyte server.

A couple of thoughts. Ansel Adams brought it home with the Zone System. At its core, the Zone system is about the photographer making educated decisions based on subject, contrast, light quality, film structure, processing and development to print. Each step a separate but critical choice that work together for best results.

I’m doing the same thing by choosing RAW.

I’m a realist; I know there are a lot of industries shooting JPEG. I’m sure press photographers at the Olympic Games enjoy some of the coolest technology available. And getting photos out in “real time” puts a lot of pressure on them. Shooting JPEG is part of that solution, and with it comes a new set of concerns. I enjoy seeing the photos and never think to care if it was a JPEG or RAW.

The final word, because someone is going to ask, yes, I did shoot JPEG once. Well actually a few times to test all this stuff, but once on a job. It was the end of a 3-day shoot in Hawaii for Aqua Lung; I was waist deep on a reef, a long ways from a download, shooting my last card on hand. I flipped it to JPEG to squeeze out another 50 frames or so before the sun set.

I repented afterwards to the great God of Belvedere.

Steve Anderson

I have discovered myself through my own images. If you knew me you would see the reflection. Passionate about art and science, my education at the Brooks Institute mashed these two together in a life changing manner. Every day is a wonder. www.steveandersonphotography.com

More Posts - Website

127 Responses to “RAW vs. JPEG: 3 Reasons to Choose RAW”

  1. February 17, 2017 at 1:37 am, Lynn Cocksedge said:

    I think one of the things not mentioned is security. I am a ‘model’ photographer, and I shoot in RAW and this is my ‘copyright’ for my images. Anyone can steal an image from the internet or other medium. As a JPEG you have no proof that the image is yours. Whereas images are uploaded as JPEG, GIF, or TIF files. As I shoot in RAW I have to convert the images to one of those formats to publish, thus keeping my RAW file as ‘ownership’ of the image. There have been a few cases contested in court, and RAW won every time.

    Reply

  2. February 16, 2017 at 8:38 am, Jerry J. Davis said:

    The comments remind me of people arguing Mac vs. PC. The answer is: It’s whatever works for you. I’ve shot JPG and RAW and went back and forth, and finally just shoot JPG, because modern cameras have amazing technology and I find I can get just as good an image with JPG as I can with raw but without all the hassle. But that works for me, because I shoot primarily for the web — not print. I’m sure I’d be doing things differently if I was shooting for print. So, again, whatever works for you, man! Go make great art!

    Reply

  3. February 15, 2017 at 6:47 pm, David Griffin said:

    The photos are great examples of what can go wrong in RAW.

    I suggest setting your camera to capture an Adobe RGB color profile JPEG image along with a RAW image, so you can use the jpeg as a reference whilst editing your raw image, to keep you on track and adjust for any profile mismatching or monitor calibration or differences between your hardware and others’, at least until you’re more comfortable with the raw control.

    Reply

    • February 15, 2017 at 7:38 pm, Peter Moeller said:

      You mean the odd colors in the sample images in the article?

      Reply

  4. February 15, 2017 at 2:54 pm, Peter Moeller said:

    The heated emotions in your average raw vs jpg discussion show that it is a philosophical question, more than a technical.

    It is important that people understand the advantages and disadvantages of both and pick what they consider best.

    There are good technical info in the discussion, but boy, it is painful to read through all the emotional exchanges. All the bickering and backbiting here doesn’t help anyone.

    Reply

  5. August 11, 2016 at 2:48 pm, Desiree Duggan said:

    Shooting raw does add time to the work flow, but since you can do things to multiple images at once, it also subtracts time while adding options.

    Reply

  6. August 11, 2016 at 2:47 pm, Desiree Duggan said:

    Once I started shooting raw, I NEVER looked back! These is sooo much you can do with it, plus the brush option! I started shooting raw early on in my career, it was like Christmas <3

    Reply

  7. July 29, 2016 at 10:01 am, Mick Mena said:

    I used to think this way until I improved my workflow by upgrading my hardware and software.

    At this point the impact of working with raw image files exclusively is not noticeable, and the flexibility that having not only a library of finished images, but raw file sources is tremendous.

    Reply

  8. July 29, 2016 at 9:50 am, Mick Mena said:

    “RAW vs. JPEG”
    This is still a topic?

    Reply

  9. July 29, 2016 at 5:24 am, Richard Barone said:

    Electronic imagery is relative anyway, based on computer/monitor makes, models, and settings used to view the images. The only true visual images are found in paintings, viewed in natural sunlight.

    Reply

  10. July 28, 2016 at 7:36 pm, Tony Lawrence said:

    I don’t shoot RAW. I used too but I found for how I work and where its used more of a waste of time. Thats not to say what others should do. My work is mostly used on-line by me. I don’t do much post processing. I also use a Eye-Fi card and find JPG faster and easier to deal with. Is RAW better, sure for some. Is it better for MY use, no and that’s all that matters.

    Reply

  11. July 28, 2016 at 3:14 pm, Peter Moeller said:

    It’s important to understand the differences and decide to shoot one, the other or both.

    Too many people try to convince other there is one “better” than the other. There may be one more appropriate for a particular shooting style or situation, but that’s it.

    I personally shoot both in studio conditions, also weddings. I use Jpg for wildlife, sport or action. This works for me. And I do break my own “rules” frequently.

    Reply

  12. July 28, 2016 at 2:26 pm, J. Galt said:

    If we talk about end result quality…there can be only one answer: RAW files can produce better quality than JPEG’s. I understand there are other factors than quality to consider, but if you are concerned with creating the best possible image – RAW is better. If nothing else, consider that EVERY JPEG is created FROM a RAW, since even if you’re camera is set to produce JPEG’s only – it creates RAW’s anyway (it just doesn’t save the RAW’s, but does create the JPEG’s from the RAW’s).

    Reply

  13. July 28, 2016 at 1:32 pm, Allen said:

    Q: What photos should you shoot in RAW format?
    A: Only the ones you care about.

    But seriously. Many many years ago I was shooting an event and I was about to shoot a picture on my way out of the venue, it was an athlete sitting in the shade under a tree, complete exhausted from the event and recovering. I thought it might be a cool shot. It was a totally candid shot and there was no opportunity to set it up, I was not close enough to use fill flash, I could not get additional light, or anything like that.. it was truly a snapshot. I was shooting JPG all day and at the last second I switched to RAW and took the shot. When I got home and looked at the shot, naturally the subject was in the dark and totally lost. But since the image was a RAW image, I was able to pull the person out of the shadows and save the image and it turned out to be a great image in the end. If it was a JPG it would have went straight into the bit bin. Every single image I have shot since that day has been in RAW format … I never looked back.

    Reply

  14. October 06, 2015 at 9:57 am, Brad Confer said:

    Ok so I’m a bit late to the party but here we go.

    I’ve read a lot of “professionals do this or that” sort of comments. I am not a professional and this article and another that I read today have convinced me to shoot raw.

    I just went outside and shot a bunch of raw files because I saw a review of my camera, the G6, that showed much better dynamic range in raw. The lab numbers support this as well. 10.2 EV jpeg vs 12 raw. I could not reproduce that in my test shots. What I did notice was color noise. These seemed to be induced by bright colors. FWIW I turn sharpening and noise correction to -3 in some modes and -5 in others. Overall dynamic range is induced by in-camera sharpening, saturation, and contrast, but the effect is minimal when they’re turned down. I’d say un noticeable unless cropped at 200%. Even the color artifacts I noticed had to be blown up to 100% to become visible. However, I’m still switching to raw. Here’s why.

    I just shot about 80 shots (after deleting a hundred or so) for a music video a high-school chorus was shooting. Not a money thing. Just fun. However, I noticed that at least 30% of the shots I wanted to keep were exposed either incorrectly, or I simply changed my mind at home. By the way, In-camera you can’t expose for both black and white faces. This seems to be a lot easier indoors but in the big outdoor group shots this just didn’t work. So I adjust the exposure for the scene and no black face detail. In post, I used a lighting EQ style adjustment to pull up the range for black faces and that worked fabulously. But…the colors get weird. So I’d have to tackle the saturation and luminance sliders to try to get the photos leveled out again. And then I read the article that changed my mind about raw.

    SLR Lounge had an article in which a photographer demonstrated adjusting contrast, blacks, and highlights in post with RAW but also what happens when you attempt to correct an over or under exposed jpeg. He had the exact same problem I was having. If I had shot raw, I would have been able to make those adjustments without so many color artifacts.

    So I’m actually switching to RAW, you could say, not because I’m a professional… but because I suck at photography. With RAW I can over or under expose a bit and still rescue the pic. That’s cool.

    Reply

  15. September 29, 2012 at 7:41 pm, Edward Jones said:

    Tell you the truth, I had to take a really hard look to tell the difference betwen RAW and Jpeg. At least on my monitor. I shoot weddings and youth sports, so shooting RAW is not an option, unless I want to carry a ton of flash cards with me. I’m really not into editing either, yes I might sharpen a little bit here and there. Add a little contrast or vibrance and maybe some saturation, but that is where I leave it. To me, shooting RAW is highly overrated.

    Reply

  16. June 08, 2012 at 4:57 am, Williamsfineimages said:

    Thank you Steve.  Like you I find myself often in situations where RAW is the only way
    I can shoot knowing that I will be moving from place to place, room to room, changing light even outside and RAW has been the best thing for my work flow outside the studio and often when trying new off beat things in the studio.  
    Your point of view was well presented.

    Reply

  17. June 07, 2012 at 1:57 am, sglau said:

    Nicely thought out article.  I think we as photographers need to get past romantic notions and realize that it’s not about what camera, file format, post-processing (or lack of), that matters as much as, “did we give the client an image that will make them come back for me?”

    Reply

  18. June 06, 2012 at 3:54 pm, Stewart said:

    Right on Baby.. Always shoot raw. In all the days i’ve been shooting digital I think I only shot in the Jpeg mode once.. By accident..:)))

    Reply

  19. June 06, 2012 at 12:12 pm, Mabou2 said:

    No offense intended, but there is a big blah blah blah factor to this thread.  

    JPEG is fast and easy but less forgiving and has a few caveats.  RAW is ALSO fast and easy (if you have the right software) and is more forgiving also with a few small caveats.To each his/her own.  JPEG evangelists, don’t be afraid of change.  Check out the batch processing abilities that are out there for RAW.  RAW evangelists, quit bashing the JPEGGERS, makes you sound silly.Can’t we all just get along?I bet some of you would post till you were red in the face in a Nikon vs Canon mash-up eh?  Heh heh heh.We are a passionate group, we are photographers because we love it, and slamming those who don’t share your same beliefs (or workflows) is kinda silly.In closing, if you are positive that your workflow is really truly better than the rest… shhhhh…. consider that an advantage that you have over your peers….My two cents

    Reply

  20. June 06, 2012 at 9:26 am, Miamifashionphoto2 said:

    Now if only you could get yourself away from overly saturated images, and massively over photoshopped images you’d be set. P.S. I love the arguments by people in the corner of jpegs that say…. “well it’s because I get it right when I shoot it”…. yea so do I genius. But put a jpeg file out of camera and a raw file out of camera into CaptureOne for processing and the Raw file kicks it’s ass every time. P.S. I ignore most of what has to be said on an educational stand point when I see images like this that are so massively over photoshopped and look massively unrealistic. 

    Reply

    • June 06, 2012 at 9:27 am, Miamifashionphoto2 said:

      “Reason 2: For the Color Quality. Even if you set it correctly you can tune in each color layer more precisely”. Maybe in this case jpeg would be better for you, so you can’t mess with and destroy the colors this badly.

      Reply

  21. June 01, 2012 at 4:31 am, USAFPhotog said:

     RAW is the way to go

    Reply

  22. May 20, 2012 at 7:55 pm, Ksl707 said:

    Thank you Steve for the article and cooltidecol for your comments as well. I found them both very useful. 

    I used to shoot on film with nikon and minolta camera/lenses and was having a hard time getting good results from a t2i w/ magic lantern using the same lenses. The info you both included has helped me figure out what I was doing wrong.

    It seems that there is no “best every time” but knowing when it might be a good reason to shoot RAW or Jpeg was very helpful. 

    And from reading some of the comments people left I feel that real pros know when to shoot with which file type and the ones who think/wish they were pros swear by only one or the other… and by pro I mean people who get paid AND do great work that inspires other photographers.
     

    Reply

  23. May 12, 2012 at 4:23 pm, Seanscreations said:

    Seriously… given the opportunity to have both… would anyone really prefer jpeg?

    Reply

  24. May 12, 2012 at 5:44 am, Zen said:

    Depends on the camera.

    Which of the 200+ RAW formats is the best? They all store differently, some compress, some are actually JPG inside. You’re stuck with the one on your camera, of course, so are you sure your RAW is actually RAW?

    .DNG, for example, is actually a JPG file.

    To see newer JPG formats:
    In Photoshop:
    File->Save As-> JPEG2000
    This will show you the options for Lossless and 32bits per channel saving in a JPG. Some cameras shoot in JPEG2000, and store it inside a .RAW file, check the SDK for your camera to find out what it’s really doing.

     

    Reply

  25. May 11, 2012 at 1:33 pm, Images By Design said:

    I think to settle the argument, photographers needs to know what they are up against in terms of time and/or quality of work. I have read all posts and do believe that everyone has a valid point. I shoot in both Raw and JPEG. There were and are times when clients comes to me on an urgent cause, some for particular projects and others on creative assignments where I only have a small time window of opportunity to satisfy a customer. They need about 50 frames and with 2 changes and also to catch a plane all within an hour an a half (90 minutes) Payment is not an issue, but remember we get paid to deliver a result. Emailing is not an option for when they arrive to their destination, they themselves have no time to go on a computer to download any image and place them on a CD. They need to leave with the finished product in hand.If I shoot in RAW, I can’t make that happen, in JPEG, I surely can.

    I do practice in my spare time making every first shot counts. I’ve never owned a film processing camera but do understand the value of not wasting shots and making every first shot counts. To conclude, there is no need for anyone to name call another for we are all professionals and see things differently (or for the most part, from a different angle). We may be all at different levels and for the most part love what we do. if we are still getting paid and getting clients, then obviously what we are doing is working at our level. We do however need to teach ourselves and learn how to be better at our craft. I have a teachable spirit and can learn from anyone. Hope we all can do the same. Thank you. 

    Reply

  26. May 10, 2012 at 4:59 pm, Bruce said:

    if  you are shooting JPG   images  with  anything other  than a  simple snap and shoot  camera,  then you  are wasting your money,  because a JPG file is  a highly compressed 8bit file! So there is absolutly  no reason to buy and use a fancy  DSLR,  other than the fact that it might impress your  clients! 🙂

    So keep your clients out of  your studio space,  and  sell  all your fancy equipment,  because you don’t need it!  

    In fact,  you might just as well start using one of  those crappy  smartphone cameras, because  no one will know the difference!

    Reply

  27. May 10, 2012 at 1:01 pm, Chloe Greenhalgh said:

    I personally prefer shooting RAW as well, of course there’s always going to be people who say they prefer shooting JPEG and as they say, each to their own, I’ll never start an argument with anyone about it but merely point out the advantages of shooting RAW over JPEG.

    As Jared Polin once said, shooting JPEG is like developing a film and getting the negatives enlarged. The negatives are similar to the RAW files, and the prints the JPEG’s. Shooting JPEG is like keeping the prints and burning the negatives, even though they contain more information and can be used to make larger prints at a later date.

    But even with this in mind there will still be people who insist there’s no point in shooting RAW, just leave them to it I say!

    Still, great article and some great points in the comments 🙂

    Reply

  28. May 10, 2012 at 9:11 am, Ryan Harris75 said:

    I personally love RAW, but depending on the situation, JPEGs are easier. I started on digital, and since the beginning I have always shot JPEG + RAW. It’s ALL about image quality, and the client deserves the best. If you feel that your workflow is slowed, slow it down, and charge accordingly.

    Reply

  29. May 10, 2012 at 8:09 am, Shurakai_Zero said:

    I’d like to chime in to clear up a few misconceptions on the part of the author regarding RAW.

    First off, RAW is not – let me repeat that, NOT – an image file format. RAW is a capture file format. RAW does not record hue or saturation, or luminosity in a given colour space. It does not record RGB values (although it is mapped to the RGB matrix of the sensor in your digital camera – more on that later). Most importantly, RAW does not record anything in binary format.

    Take a second to process that, especially that last sentence.

    Your camera’s sensor does NOT record a bit-mapped image. What it is doing is counting the actual number of photons to strike each individual photosite (each “pixel”, if you will) during a given exposure time. Under any given scenario, there could be many hundreds of BILLIONS of photons being counted for each pixel. To record a number that high using binary encoding would require something on the order of 30 to 36 bits per pixel. That would make an 18-megapixel capture on the order of 1.125 terabytes.

    If even a top-of-the-line Phase One digital back is only using 16-bit encoding, that would – according to the author’s logic – limit it to recording a maximum of 65536 photons for each pixel, and everything beyond that number would make that pixel appear blown out. That would limit you to a very, very small range of real-world lighting situations.

    Instead, your camera uses what are called floating-point integers to record very large numbers using fewer bits. A typical number might look like so: 1.601806640625e+24

    See that bit at the end, the “e+24”? That means that to turn this into a “real” number, you’d need to move that decimal point over twenty four places to the right. I’m no computer science major, but even I know that “1.601806640625e+24” takes up less space on your memory card than “1601806640625000000000000” by the simple virtue of it having fewer digits. I’m willing to bet there’s a lot of clever trickery involved in encoding floating point integers on a binary medium such as a memory card or a hard drive, but that’s a far more technical discussion than I want to get into here.

    So ultimately, what does this mean for you as a photographer? It means that your camera is actually recording not just 256 levels of luminosity, not just 4096 levels, but potentially billions per pixel. What it also means is that there is no arbitrarily set “white point” or “black point” in a RAW file the way there is in output file formats like JPEG or TIFF. But most importantly, it explains why a RAW file needs to be processed to turn it into an image. The RAW processing software counts those ginormous numbers of photons and assigns a value to them (sometimes weighted, other times not) along a particular grey ramp that corresponds to what your display is capable of rendering. In other words, the limiting factor of digital photographs is not what your camera can capture, but what your computer can display.

    Take another second to process that. While you’re doing that, try this little experiment. Go outside on a bright, sunny day and take a picture of your outstretched hand. Transfer that picture to your laptop, and now hold your hand up beside the picture on your laptop screen. Chances are, if the sun is bright enough, you’ll barely be able to see the picture on your laptop at all. Too much glare, right? What’s happened is that your laptop is not able to output light bright enough to overpower the sun, and therefore can’t render a life-like image. If it could put out that much light, the pixels that are supposed to be black would likely be a bright grey. No monitor can produce as much light as we are capable of seeing with our own eyes.

    That is why photographers talk about “tonal range” in a photograph. Most of the tonal range recorded in the RAW file is outside of your computer’s ability to display it accurately, so the RAW processing software has to do its best to compress that range down to what can be displayed. It’s taking its best guess at what those values should look like, since with floating point integers, there’s a certain amount of ambiguity involved as a result of rounding off to what are called “significant digits”. That’s why if you take the same RAW file and process it using six different RAW converter programs, you’ll get six different results. The image that results from a RAW file is an interpretation of the RAW data, mapped into a much narrower colour space than the real world. (By contrast, if you opened a JPEG in six different image programs, it would look exactly the same, because the interpretation has already been done in the camera.)

    There’s another interesting aspect of RAW capture, that relates directly to how your sensor works. Each of the photosites in your camera does not record red, green and blue light. It just records light, period. But each photosite has a colour filter to make it sensitive to just one portion – red, green or blue – of the spectrum. Go to Wikipedia and look up “bayer array” if you want to see what that looks like, but in practise, it means that the RAW processing software has to actually infer what the colour of any given pixel should be by comparing the light recorded at not just the photosite it’s interpreting, but all of the adjacent photosites as well. If you’re capturing a JPEG image, then you’re letting your camera do its own RAW conversion on the fly (since all cameras, even the crappiest little point-and-shoots, record light the same way, by counting photons). Shooting in JPEG is therefore the equivalent of taking all of your film to be processed at the same place, when you could be taking it to one of a dozen different pro shops, each of which would use different chemicals and different processes to bring out different aspects of the negative. In the film days, you could only process your negs once, and you had to know where to take them to get what you needed for a given job. With digital, you can re-process to your heart’s content, even using different software packages to see what you can get out of a given RAW file.

    Now, as for the question of whether you should shoot in RAW or JPEG, I’m going to leave that to each photographer’s preference. If you’re happy with the way your camera renders the image it captures and you rarely ever do any tonal range editing, by all means, stick with JPEG. If you’re working in tough situations where you don’t have control of the lighting and you’d like to see if it’s possible to recover seemingly blown highlights or clipped shadows, or even if you’re just curious to see how different programs will interpret that mountain of photon data, give RAW a try.

    I hope this clears up a few things for you guys. And Steve? You should really educate yourself on the technology before spreading this kind of misinformation. You’re not doing anyone any favours that way.

    Reply

    • May 10, 2012 at 2:08 pm, Booking said:

      hanks for taking the time to provide the very technical aspect of what happens when a RAW converter or camera hardware processes the sensor data.

      Although these RAW vs. JPEG arguments are always based on an oversimplified interpretation of the differences, Steves description is what I would call the laymen’s terms, for people that are only interested in the quality vs. quality aspects of photography.

      Reply

      • May 10, 2012 at 4:58 pm, Info said:

        I am sure you mean, “quality vs. quantity.”  As implied very early in this discussion by the “director” and others, some people are perfectly happy with how quickly they acquire what they consider to be acceptable results.

        Others are perfectionists, that want to have as much control as possible over the data.

        Others (me included) lay somewhere in the middle. We compromise between speed and quality.  We always want quality, but sometimes quality is not as important, when deadlines are short, and printed quality is mediocre.

        Reply

      • June 15, 2012 at 8:16 pm, vertumnus said:

        that was very helpful explanation! thank you for taking the time… i learned a bunch from it…
        V

        Reply

  30. May 09, 2012 at 11:32 pm, Kent Slaughter said:

    @Steve I’d like to hear why you repented. I’m sure it’s not because all of them were unusable and/or the same as photos you already took. I have done the same thing, and I even got a good shot or two that I would have missed. Besides, clients don’t demand “95th percentile” work for every image you give them. Nothing wrong with shooting JPEG to save yourself some time.

    I think the real strength is in the opportunities you get to highlight a particular tone. This is similar to dodge and burn but with much more versatility. We can now divide and manipulate parts of the image.

    Reply

  31. May 09, 2012 at 11:15 pm, Paula said:

    I went RAW years ago and never looked back!

    Paula
    phughesphoto

    Reply

  32. May 09, 2012 at 8:11 pm, Dan said:

    I shoot in both RAW and JPG…my Nikon D200 allows me to shoot both types simultaneously. This gives me the ability to make CDs immediately for models without having to convert, while also allowing me to use the incomparable editing capabilities of RAW on certain images.

    Anyone who doesn’t like using RAW is someone that is lazy or isn’t concerned with quality.

    Reply

    • May 09, 2012 at 8:40 pm, Dan said:

      It’s ok to not be that concerned with quality though…that all depends on your purpose in shooting a particular image… 

      Reply

  33. May 09, 2012 at 6:05 pm, James Michael said:

    I’m curious to the filter program you used…

    Reply

  34. May 09, 2012 at 1:02 pm, John B. Mueller said:

    I used to shoot only JPG until I did a wedding with very tricky lighting.  Back in the day… I’d shoot jpg and edit with Picasa for brightness and then crop.  But then with more weddings, I needed more tonal range and the ability to change the white balance and to salvage some blown-out highlights.  I’ve found with a little more RAM, my LR4 runs perfectly quick through the RAW files and I have much more potential.  I’m all about RAW now, unless the light is natural.

    Reply

  35. May 09, 2012 at 7:17 am, Alan said:

    Some very interesting comments. All my work over these last many years with digital has been to shoot everything in JPEG. Always been very happy with it and so are all the many clients I have worked with and continue to work with. I understand that with RAW you get upteen times the information and can manipulate much easier. When shooting digital the correction range is much tighter and in that sense I would love it if we in the photography industry went back to film. But digital is here to stay since everyone is of a I Want It Now Mentality, smart phones and iPads and such. RAW might have it advantages with having a full spectrum file and range to work with. Need lots of storage space to save those images and the latest and greatest processing tools and extra time working after the shoot to get it the way you want it.

    I still enjoy adding filters to my camera when shooting and making adjustments there, like shooting film. Have to admit there is a huge amount of talk out there again about RAW V’s JPEG. Seems like we are crossing over into another dimension. Based on comments here about one vs the other. I may do some shooting in RAW just to play with it. However I think for the moment, I still much prefer to shoot JPEG, make my corrections in PS5 or 6 and continue to enjoy my behind the camera experience and posing and composition and continue to evolve there.

    Very good discussion and good to see that everyone has a preferred method of operation.

    Reply

  36. May 09, 2012 at 4:51 am, Tensilverdollars said:

    Raw is your negative. There is no reason to shoot in jpg. Unless you want an inferior image.
    Beautiful work Steve.

    Reply

  37. May 09, 2012 at 2:25 am, j ammanuel said:

    Wow, I guess wanting to downplay the heat in this discussion has elapsed, the proverbial has hit the fan, so to speak. I just don’t get why it gets so heated, i’m passionate about photography, but that’s the point about photography, not arguing about the best way to shoot it’s preference, evidently is circumstantial. I feel overall there are false misconception about various issues to do with photography, and to much enthesis on buying the best quality camera, the best quality lens, the best quality of this and of that, the best quality money can buy, a person new to photography that has just brought a £1500 camera with less than basic knowledge of photography and limited creativity, is not going to produce anything other than the most high quality static boring images, My point is there’s so much facets to photography besides how you should/prefer to shoot, and in what mode you should shoot. As someone that has only been doing photography seriously for 8 months, I do not claim to have vast amounts of knowledge of photography, but it is teaching me when i shoot, and when i’m not shooting I’m constantly thinking about my photography isn’t that what counts, the thought process not the visual entities everyone seems so hung up on!

    Reply

  38. May 08, 2012 at 11:03 pm, Daryl Bean said:

    Personally I shoot in RAW AN JPG. Sometimes I actually get more impressive colour in JPG that I can’t seem to get with RAW, but most of the time I use the RAW files seems they’re much easier to edit and work with. If your photos are under exposed with JPG you’re more or less screwed. I’ve gotten some pretty interesting results from editing all I could out of an almost black RAW. A JPG that’s quite dark is useless.

    But I’m not a professional. All I know about photography is what I read and found out through trial and error. I do it for the art and creativity and people seem to like what I’ve got out of it as a result.

    16gb memory card + laptop = plenty of space.
    When you get home, you put those photos onto an external backup = no more space problems.

    Reply

  39. May 08, 2012 at 8:50 pm, Rick R said:

    I look at RAW and JPG as a two-tier product structure. If I shoot RAW and don’t need to because “I refuse to shoot” JPG, then I am wasting my own time that I can be using more profitably. There are situations that clearly do not require an initial RAW image and it’s important to make that distinction in any project.

    While I’m comfortable shooting in RAW or JPG, I overwhelmingly shoot in RAW. Still, if I can capture the results the client needs in JPG, I wouldn’t be happy spending the extra time to not have simply made an informed decision at the outset, particularly if I had to pass on another assignment…because I didn’t have the time.

    Reply

  40. May 08, 2012 at 7:11 pm, Jack_Long said:

    I enjoyed this discussion on RAW vs. JPEG images. All the professional photographers may get a laugh out of this post since I consider myself only an amateur photographer (never attended Brooks Institute or any of that). However I have worked in the digital imaging processing field (particularly for medical and National imaging) for over 20 years. (If you don’t know what National means please don’t ask.)In my “amateur” opinion, I agree that you must be a knowledgeable, artfully gifted, and a skilled photographer first…but, you must also be a practical photographer, in today’s’ world. Knowing when the technical aspects of JPEG will be the most advantageous to you at certain shoots or shoot times.If I were a professional photographer, I would consider the intended viewer and keep in mind that a JPEG compressed file, with 8 bits deep, and 256 colors, in RGB has 16.7 million possible colors per pixel. Then, since the human eye can only discern about 10 million different colors, the customer that just wants “to remember the moment”, or will only judge the photo on color, contrast, composition, lighting and subject, etc, will be perfectly satisfied with your work in large size JPEG on photographic paper.I can’t agree today, with Ansel Adams Zone System of “making educated decisions based on subject, contrast, light quality, film structure, processing and development to print, with each step a separate but critical choice that work together for best results.” Great philosophy in the days of emulsified film. Today, photographers need to make educated decisions based on subject, contrast, light quality, time restrictions, equipment, budget, post processing, and print to photographic paper, with each step a separate but critical choice that work together for best and practical choice for intended results.”This kind of reminds me of the debate over “stick vs. automatic” shift in cars decades ago.Each has its merits. Be open to all possibilities.

    Reply

  41. May 08, 2012 at 6:51 pm, guest said:

    What I tell my students with out getting into the nitty gritty is basically shoot both Jpeg and raw at the same time. That way you get a Jpeg=Polaroid.  And the Raw=negative. Plain and simple. Jpeg’s are great if you’re going to facebook and thats it. Jpeg’s are polaroids and raws are the new negative.

    Reply

  42. May 08, 2012 at 6:24 pm, erveed said:

    I shot and save the images in both raw and jpeg. This allows me to get a good first read and have the ability to correct the images that need correcting.

    Reply

  43. May 08, 2012 at 5:10 pm, Al George said:

    Great discussion! I agree completely.
    Thank you
    Al George

    Reply

  44. May 08, 2012 at 4:49 pm, gdwhalen said:

    Why shoot RAW.  Because you will never be limited in what you can do with the image.  Once you have shot it in jpg the image is essentially done.  RAW allows many different levels of “future” manipulation so you are never in a position to wish you had.  Instead you have all of the potential of the image for whatever future purpose you may not know about now.  jpg is too limiting.  RAW leaves all options open.

    Reply

  45. May 08, 2012 at 4:29 pm, Mike said:

    You can make a raw image look like a jpeg but you cannot make a jpeg image look like a raw image. jpeg is a subset while raw is a whole set.

    Reply

  46. May 08, 2012 at 3:58 pm, jay said:

    If you need to shoot raw shoot it.  If you know how to shoot, and know what you are doing and dont need to make many adjustments shoot Jpeg.  Theres some Pros that shoot Jpeg.  Of course they are masters of their craft.  So can we if we practice and practice.  Im a Jpeg Shooter.  However I began to shoot Raw again.  Doing everything in a rush I might go over or under by mistake creating a whole lot of work behind the computer.   I do white balance so that puts me ahead as far as color correction goes.  Article stated pro commercial photog needed to go above and beyond.  So he shoots RAW.  Theres no arguement in that.   If you drive normal speeds get a H rated tire.  If you drive fast and take curves at high speeds you will need a V, Z rated tire!!! 

    Reply

    • May 10, 2012 at 12:15 am, Colin Home said:

      If you shoot Raw there is no requirement for white balance. WB IS ONLY USED TO BALANCE THE LITTLE SCREEN ON THE BACK OF YOUR CAMERA. Raw files can be balanced at the point of processing by using the colour temp slider. Try doing that with a jpeg file!

      Reply

  47. May 08, 2012 at 2:52 pm, David said:

    I went back to using jpg when I switched from the Olympus e-300 to the pentax kr.
    The e-300 raw files had loads of headroom in the in the raw fiiles, the pentax has none.

    The image processor fixes blown highlights and excessive shadow and achieves a far less grainy shot than I can manage if lightroom without a great deal of effort.

    Reply

  48. May 08, 2012 at 2:39 pm, Mark Dierker said:

    I shoot a lot of rock band performance stuff. Very occasionally I’ll make a print of one of them. Much of it is shot under horrible lighting conditions in bars and pubs with fans pushing and shoving you. 99% of the end results get reduced to 72 dpi and used on social networking sites or band websites. It has a shelf life of now until the next performance. For this I generally shoot jpeg. For everything else I shoot RAW.

    Reply

    • May 08, 2012 at 2:47 pm, Jonny said:

      I also shoot bands in these conditions. The poor lighting is the very reason I shoot in RAW, and the reason RAW is a good idea. It gives you much more to work with and more of a chance to pull out a shot where the lighting suddenly changed and it’s over or under exposed.

      As a side note, keep in mind that DPI is only taken into consideration in print and has no effect on how it’s displayed on a site. Images are displayed in pixels on computers not inches. DPI only decides how many pixels go into and inch when printed. Changing a DPI in no way changes the number of pixels in an image. Check out the link in the article about this. It’s a good one.

      Reply

  49. May 08, 2012 at 2:04 pm, John W. O'Brien III said:

    hey, people who don’t know what they’re doing, know nothing about digital photography, and/or just don’t care about the quality of their work can shoot JPEG all they want…. the rest of us can stick to RAW….
    no need for arguing or de-friending or any of that drama…. there are always going to be idiots out there hell bent on doing things the wrong way, those of us who know better should just let them live with their ignorance.

    Reply

    • July 28, 2016 at 9:35 pm, G. Michael Murphy said:

      heck, I even shoot raw in my compact digital (Olympus Stylus 1) as well as my Canon 1D mk III. I may not save them all (space hogs) but I like to have the raw to make sure that I didn’t screw up in the moment! When you’re 5,000 miles from home, you can’t say “I wish…”
      I made the mistake once at a baseball game of shooting small jpeg to save space. caught a shot of a St. Louis Cardinal getting hit by a pitch on his forearm. unfortunately the resolution and contrast were too low for a really great print image. Now I ALWAYS make sure I have extra memory cards…

      Reply

  50. May 08, 2012 at 1:22 pm, Info said:

    As you said, the RAW vs. JPEG discussion has been beaten to a pulp, but it keeps coming back for more. The fact that MM asked you to write about it can only mean that this is a gladiatorial fest of entertainment for them.

    JPEG used to be good enough due to the technological limitations of the time.

    There are people that will stick with it for the same reasons why some people still use CS2:
    It’s a workflow issue, and the quality provided by JPEG has been “good enough” for a while.

    If you compare the arguments against shooting in RAW, you will easily see that financial limitations, or fear of dealing with something new is the leading reason why some people refuse to adopt it fully.

    “Good enough” or “my clients don’t know the difference’ is just a cop out 😉

    Reply

  51. May 08, 2012 at 1:15 pm, Decoff said:

    This is like kicking the dead horse again. Anyone that questions the comparison, simply doesn’t understand or doesn’t have a very high standard. I could easily overcome any objection on the subject, but then I would be wasting my time. READ and EDUCATE !!! Love the reasons described below and love those that don’t get it and shoot jpg, for the mere reason is I will never have to compete with them. 

    Reply

  52. May 08, 2012 at 1:09 pm, Peterbrucephotography said:

    At the end of the day use FILM
    Peter Bruce Phioto

    Reply

    • May 08, 2012 at 2:19 pm, Jonny said:

      Yes! Because this is totally what this discussion is about and this is totally financially feasible for the majority of photographers, especially the amateurs that benefit most from these discussions. 

      Totally better for them to shoot on film and take it to walmart to get developed where they have no control over the processing and will get no understanding about one of the most important processes of photography.

      Sure, shooting in RAW costs you nothing beyond the cost of the camera and software and gives you a greater understanding about the entire processes involved in processing pictures because of the nondestructive nature of it and the ability to go back and see what you get if you do something different thus expanding your understanding of both mediums, again with no additional cost,  but screw that!

      Good call! 😀

      By the way… I am in no way saying one is better than the other for an end result, that is up tot the photographer who is taking the picture to decide.  I only want to point out the absurdity of this comment, and the fact that it’s in a discussion about specifics of shooting on digital media. 

      It’s inevitable to get some over opinionated photographer that thinks they know best for every photographer, and it pisses me off every time.

      I think Ken Rockwell put it best:

      “Debating which is better is as silly as debating girls vs. boys or apples vs. oranges or oils vs. Prismacolor. It all depends on what you want done. Ignore people who insist that one is better than the other without stating their end purpose. It all depends on what you are trying to accomplish.”

      Reply

      • May 08, 2012 at 8:30 pm, Tyler Anderson said:

        I guess Ill be that over opinionated one… I only read your first two paragraphs because they were the stupidest. In a way, yes, film has everything to do with this subject. Bit depth, color quality, and commercial use. If you know how to shoot film (and you know what the hell you’re doing), it beats digital in every one of these aspects plus teaches you how to think critically about composition and lighting (a good thing for amateurs), which is what people should really be discussing, not the most basic freaking information every photog should know. 

        “Totally better for them to shoot on film and take it to walmart to get developed where they have no control over the processing and will get no understanding about one of the most important processes of photography.”

        HAHAHAHAHAHA You’re kidding me right? There is so many things wrong with this sentence I don’t even know where to begin. Firstly, google darkrooms, you don’t have to go to walmart (Hint: Its like photoshop in real life!) Secondly, shooting film can be very affordable. Do you even know how much an slr is? Or how much a roll of film is? They are way cheaper than a dslr and a memory card thats for sure! And don’t just say the amount of shots you can take! Heres the main reason many people who grew up on DSLR arn’t as good as their film brethren counter part: preparation. DSLR is too easy to just click away and hope you get something. Its too easy to add effects in photoshop (your supposed most important area of photography) Too easy to be satisfied by what pops up on the LCD and not to stop, think, and ask yourself how you can shoot it better. (Not how to use the camera better; how to dress, light, block, and compose you’re scene and your subject better) The whole reason a film shooter picks up a camera is to capture emotion and a story. If you image doesn’t contain one of those two things most people wont care. If you shoot film, you are forced to think ahead and think twice about what you’re shooting and what you want the final image to say. You have to know what your image is trying to say before you ever shoot it. You can’t easily add effects in post so your image has to stand on its own. Amateurs should always shoot film when starting out in my opinion. Its gives you another perspective on the art of photography. You cant just use the right side of your brain and expect to be the best at something. Reasoning, perspective, and planning are what gets you to the top of your game. And yes, these rules apply to every photographer (and everyone) no matter what you want to accomplish.

        Don’t get me wrong, the article had good points and new insight onto the subject but c’mon guys? Raw vs JPEG? Film vs Digital is at least a worthy discussion to have. By the way, you should listen to your peers. Especially the ones you don’t know. Because we will never tell you what you want to hear, but we will always tell you what you need to hear.

        PS Emulsion is emotion 🙂

        Reply

        • May 08, 2012 at 10:35 pm, MadMacStew said:

          Typical Luddite comment, akin to those who claim that vinyl has more detail than CDs. Prefer the look and necessary discipline of film if that gets you the results you want, but to claim that flm matches digital in resolution, colour quality, or dynamic range shows a basic ignorance of the reality of the situation. Might have been true ten years ago, but not in 2012. The Nikon D800 for instance, has significantly better resolution than 5×4 film, and film has *at best* 9 stops of DR, whereas modern sensors manage 11-12 stops with no difficulty. If you like the look of film, that’s absolutely an artistic choice, but in technical terms, film is dead in the water – which is why virtually all high-end studio pros shoot digital.

          Reply

        • May 10, 2012 at 4:53 pm, Info said:

          I was able to detect the tone of sarcasm in Jonny’s post.
          I guess you weren’t.

          Reply

  53. May 08, 2012 at 12:38 pm, Lexx7471 said:

    Just to add something that I didn’t see, though I didn’t read every single comment. JPG can be edited in Camera RAW in PS and the info saved to metadatd as well…so if image destruction seems a problem well…not so much. I prefer RAW but I also prefer the image to be more flexible. I do quite a bit of photo retouching and manipulation so…it helps me quite a bit to have the tonal depth. RAW is superior in quality, in the actual shooting process, I can see the down side but to me, the image quality is everything…not how it got in the camera. I’ll never argue the points about space or time difference, it is what it is at that point.

    Reply

  54. May 08, 2012 at 12:31 pm, Steve Densmore said:

    That first image is seriously flawed. Why does the girl look like she’s glowing?  Reminds me of everyone overdoing the shadow/highlight tool in PS, trying to get that HDR look.

    Reply

    • May 08, 2012 at 12:46 pm, Tim Davis said:

       She appears to glow because the setting sun is directly behind her. It’s an effective technique that can only be done at a certain time of the day with cloud cover such as in the image.

      Reply

  55. May 08, 2012 at 12:14 pm, Carlos said:

    Another advantage for shooting RAW is having the purest form possible archived for future developments, eg… Some of my earlier digital photography 10 yrs ago can now be reproduced in HDR, because I archived my files in raw – the raw converters are much better now.

    Reply

    • May 09, 2012 at 7:06 am, Colin Home said:

      Excellent point, worth highlighting!

      Reply

  56. May 08, 2012 at 12:01 pm, Ron said:

    Enjoyed your article, thanks.
    I was like many and some of my friends shot only .jpg and for me I wasn’t sure after reading many articles and some were for one while others justified the other.  For me, I had a shoot and was shooting both, as a backup.  There was the best photo I ever shot and somehow with the change in lighting and the everything going on as the model moving around I checked my screen every several photos.  There was the perfect photo but she got to close to one of the light sources and the photo would have been not usable but raw saved it as I could lower the exposure as well as other fine details and since then I am a believer in RAW.  Yes .jpg is faster, yes .jpg is smaller, but in the end, just as a good computer technician has a backup system for their data I use RAW as a backup system for my mistakes.  Just my 2 cents.

    Reply

  57. May 08, 2012 at 11:40 am, Stevieduncanphotoshoot said:

    Moral of the story make sure you have enough storage capacity on a shoot or accept second best JPEG

    To never miss a shot you need three things (i) two cameras on the basis one can fail two will fail at sometime, however it is unlikely to be the same time (2) batteries – you know how fast they drain so why carry one – I carry six and change them at 66% of charge – the other advantage you can lose functions as batteries discharge and (iii) you got it enough memory to sink a battleship. The list can go on e.g. lenses and so on – however if you talk to photographers who have had a shoot ruined by equipment it is camera, battery or card – not the weather……..

    Reply

  58. May 08, 2012 at 11:40 am, Robert said:

    I usually shoot RAW + JPEG. Since shooting speed isn’t a big factor for me, and memory cards are big enough & cheap enough, space on the card isn’t an issue either.
    The reason I shoot both is that some images don’t need much or any editing, so I can just use the JPEG. But when I need to do a lot of work on an image, RAW is much better.
    What I also like about having a JPEG file is that it’s easier to go through the images quickly in Preview (Mac) without having to use Photoshop, Lightroom or Canon’s software. I can also easily email an image to a client that they can open without having to have special software.

    Reply

  59. May 08, 2012 at 11:38 am, Edge said:

    Nicely presented and a good read.  IMHO I consider jpeg like a spare tire on a car…  it’s there for absolute emergency. 

    Reply

  60. May 08, 2012 at 11:32 am, Charles H Powell said:

    I have found that it does give me a lot more room to play with the images. Ware as most of my work is not worked in photo shop i do some times use it but when i do it helps to have the lager bit to work it gives me some times more then what i was thinking of seeing and that is a good thing. O and the big things i can if need be prove that that the Original or that is my photo if need be for Copyright.       

    Reply

  61. May 08, 2012 at 11:04 am, Photo said:

    More memory cards and Adobe Lightroom. Problem solved, now raw is just as easy as jpeg!!! JPEG is for amateurs, and for photographers that don’t understand a thing about digital photography. I can see by most comments made that most of you didn’t understand the video even slightly, and don’t know a thing about photography!!!

    Reply

    • July 28, 2016 at 3:03 pm, Akgüç Çelik said:

      So, if I don’t know about RAW, then my photography with film is all wrong….?

      Reply

  62. May 08, 2012 at 10:51 am, cooltidecol said:

    I’ve read all of the comments with some interest and thought I’d add my piece for you all to disagree with. As Steve says it’s a moot point really. I agree with all of his points but having read all of the comments I realised that some people’s concerns are with the RAW workflow, or process, as opposed to image quality.

    When thinking about RAW vs JPG Think back to the old processing days.

    Let’s say you shot 36 images on a roll of transaparency film (Because you wanted quality)
    You process the film and it is a stop over exposed. There’s nothing you can do to bring back the highlights. They are gone! This is like shooting a JPG. No highlights. gone, finito. If you try to change the file, in any way you destroy original pixels

    If you shot RAW the file has exposure latitude. Around 1.5 to 2 Stops in fact.
    You over exposed and blew the highlights, no worries, simply pull the highlights down in your RAW development software (Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Photoshop, Lightroom etc etc). If this were the only reason to use RAW you would be foolish to choose otherwise.

    Bear in mind that once you make the changes to the RAW file, those changes are stored in an external Meta File. You have not changed the original RAW file. So, if the client says “I like it with blown highlights” you can go back and change the file again, and again and again without making a single change to a single pixel.

    This is the key to understanding the RAW file format. The development software uses “Non destructive” techniques. It’s like having the roll of film unprocessed. Looking at the latent images and deciding to process it lighter, darker, more or less contrast, colour balance etc etc etc

    Think of it as always having the unprocessing roll of film. You can always go back and change the development time (Push or pull) and change the exposure. In addition to this RAW development in Photoshop allows for a staggering amount of “Non destructive processing” to process the RAW file.

    Sport and reportage aside RAW quality is not in question. If you need more HDD space or a bigger CF Card. that’s a process issue. Since going digital I have had to go back to slowing down a little and consider the shots a little more. Better pictures less editing. Try limiting your self to 36 exposures. It sure makes you consider each exposure and when you shoot them in RAW to post processing world is your lobster (I don’t like oysters!)

    I hope this helps

    Colin

    Reply

    • May 08, 2012 at 4:26 pm, Photo said:

      Great points made Colin. You’re a photographer with the best
      attitude!

       

      Most photographers in the digital photography world shoot
      more and produce bad quality. Digital photographers need to go back to the beginning
      and learn to get it right first time. There is nothing wrong with slowing down.

       

      Your point about overexposing and bringing the detail back
      is absolutely the best thing about shooting raw, and a point most photographers
      just don’t understand. Most of the dynamic range is in the highlights, with a
      little less in the midtones, and less still in the shadows. To maximize dynamic
      range you cannot underexpose. My histogram is programmed to come on after every
      shot. I know I can clip the highlights slightly and bring it back later in
      lightroom. I see far too many shots taken by professionals that are slightly
      underexposed and lacking in detail because of this. I would understand people
      complaining about raw in the early days of digital photography. My computer was
      too slow to handle it back then

      Reply

      • May 09, 2012 at 2:04 pm, Ruud van Gaal said:

        I thought digital dynamics were in theshadows, whereas analog could deal better with deep highlights?

        Reply

        • May 09, 2012 at 3:27 pm, Photo said:

          You have much higher dynamic range in the midtones and highlights. A digital sensor is poor with dynamic range in the shadow detail. Zoom in close in the shadow area and see how much noise there is.

          Reply

          • July 28, 2016 at 9:15 pm, G. Michael Murphy said:

            the noise on underexposure is as bad as the grain on underexposed print film. in the “old days” we typically considered -2 to +4 stops was the practical limit on most print film, and even then in the extremes it was pretty tough to dig out details.

      • February 17, 2017 at 1:43 am, Lynn Cocksedge said:

        “Most photographers in the digital photography world shoot
        more and produce bad quality. Digital photographers need to go back to the beginning and learn to get it right first time.” – Well said. People have lost the art of taking a good photo and getting it right in camera, as they all are Photoshop experts and manipulate their images.
        I grew up in the ‘film’ era, when film was expensive, so getting it right in camera was a priority. Colour film had its own challenges and mostly was done by professional labs. I have carried over my skills from ‘film’ into digital and still try to ensure that most of the work is done in camera, as my photoshop skills leave a lot to be desired.

        Reply

        • March 21, 2017 at 3:42 pm, Kala said:

          I’m also an advocate of limiting your shots to the number you used to shoot on film. Put more thought into the framing, composition, lighting, angle, height, and all of the technical aspects.

          For this reason, I also advocate shooting manually. So you’re focused on all the technical details.

          However, I’m also a huge fan of bracketing for obvious reasons. Particularly for exposure & white balance. You can have your cake and eat it too

          Reply

    • May 08, 2012 at 5:21 pm, Jamescreightonphotographer.com said:

      Good information about the advantages of RAW.   All true, but not always the best path in my view.  I shoot published glamour and editorial and I almost always shoot jpeg.   I shoot very fast to get fresh expressions.  I shoot thousands of images a day.  The workflow slowdown of RAW is severe from shooting to processing.    THE KEY IS TO SHOOT JPEG WITH THE SAME ATTENTION TO EXPOSURE AND COLOR BALANCE  AS IF YOU ARE SHOOTING VELVIA. (Maybe you remember transparency film, where highlights blow out if your exposure is 1/3 of stop off and fine tuning color balance with a color meter and a box of color filter gels was a constant.)   Get the highlights just right in the camera.   Use the multi channel histogram display.  Get the color balance just right in the camera.  I shoot everything on manual, nothing on auto (well family pics).   Most of the photographers on Model Mayhem are shooting models for web, for portfolio, or for magazine publication.   Many are learning their craft.  Shooting jpeg teaches you (sometimes painfully) to get your technique right in the camera, at the time of the shoot.  Instead of spending your time later in Lightroom correcting your exposure and color balance, spend your effort in getting a well exposed, color balanced image at the time of the shoot.   Obviously, Pro’s shooting high end advertising where time and money are no object might want to use RAW, but for many of us jpeg—accurately exposed—works great.   In the end, whether you shoot film, RAW, jpeg, or tintype….it’s the image that counts.   Shoot a great model with great lighting, with great expression and posing, great background, creative concept—and you’ve got something.   But we are all photographers and photographers love to disagree on technique.

      Reply

      • May 09, 2012 at 7:27 am, Colin Home said:

        Hi James

        As you say “In the end, whether you shoot film, RAW, jpeg, or tintype….it’s the image that counts.”

        I recommend to people that are just learning to go buy and Olympus OM1 and a few rolls of Velvia/Provia and take a few exposures. By the end of the roll they’ll have a grasp of Critical Focus, Exposure and Composition. If they take their time and consider things they may find the depth of field preview button and open up a whole new world of creativity. This is not intended to be patronising… Every now and then I take out the old beast, blow off the dust and run some film through it. It’s a great teacher. When I get back to the Digi afterwards I’m always more considered.

        After shooting with film one realises the priviledge of having the choice of JPG and RAW and the pletheroa of choice that digi gives us… Of course we’ll argue to toss. JPG or RAW? as you say ” it’s the image that counts.”

        Of course in the context of most MM members the “make up” and “styling” are equally important but that’s for another day

        Reply

  63. May 08, 2012 at 10:50 am, Mswales said:

    How about an art director’s perspective? That’s my day job, and we have compared 16 x 20 prints made from an 18 megapixel camera — the adjusted / converted RAW print side by side with a print direct from the JPEG. Honestly, we couldn’t see any difference. And since virtually everything we as an agency do is going to either be on someone’s web site (at 72 lpi on a predictably horrible monitor) or printed no larger than 8-1/2 x 11, there is simply no need, at the general production level, for RAW (sorry, Steve). On the other hand, if there would be a chance need for very large exhibition prints, or massive color and image manipulation necessary before printing (high end fashion or cosmetics)… maybe. But with cameras in the 18 – 21 megapixel range and higher (think digital 2-1/4 or Canon Mark II full frame sensor) then there is so much information in each image to bring into doubt the necessity for RAW at all. Yes it was important a few years ago, but today not really, at least in the trenches of a real production environment.

    Reply

    • May 08, 2012 at 1:11 pm, Decoff said:

       From an Art Directors perspective Mswales, why are you getting involved in the Photographers workflow ? Raw is better, plain and simple for more reasons than I can to be redundant with. I work with AD’s all the time. Why would an AD ask for a Photographer to shoot a certain format. At the end of the day, edit and retouch if necessary, you get what you need anyways.

      Reply

      • May 08, 2012 at 1:38 pm, Mswales said:

         I’m the person who’s hires photographers, that’s why I’m getting involved — and if you’ve got a problem with that, I doubt I’d hire you. RAW, except in a very few cases that I’ve detailed above, doesn’t make sense AT THE PRODUCTION LEVEL and it slows down the shoot and post. Back when photographers were shooting 8MP RAW was important. Last week we shot a catalog of hundreds of images with models and a 5D Mark II. When the photog, from NYC, you’d know his name, ASKED if we were going to print anything larger than 16 x 20 I said, “no, why?” His answer: then there’s no need to shoot RAW and the workflow went faster and the post was much easier and the results great. Be all the perfectionist you want, just don’t slow me down or bury me with gigs of RAW that take forever to upload and download. It’s just not necessary in a production environment.

        Reply

        • May 08, 2012 at 2:39 pm, Booking said:

          This conversation will go on and on, because we’ve moved beyond simple art direction to a client dictating the technical aspects of a shoot.

          Reply

        • May 08, 2012 at 3:18 pm, Jonny said:

          Well it sounds like you are assuming a “production environment” is one thing and produces the same results. EVERY shoot is a  “production environment” and every single one is different. Even if it’s for print, every print shoot  “production environment” is different. Some may not even work with digital at all.
          In a digital print “production environment”, if you want to focus more on speed over the best possible quality, it may be faster to shoot jpeg if your post person doesn’t know much about working with raw. In my experience, I can process and produce a finished image much faster when shooting in RAW, but I have worked with RAW for a very long time.

          Technically, and in every way, shooting in raw will give you a better image to work with. You can read the technical reasons why above, but this fact is not arguable.

          If a photographer told you jpeg will give you a better image, they lied, but that’s clearly not what that photographer told you. They essentially told you that jpeg is easier for them and YOU wouldn’t know the difference.

          Your last couple of sentences completely invalidates any point you had in here as well. If you are wanting speed over quality, I would never hire you as an art director. That’s an awful way to work.

          One last note. You don’t upload and send raw files. You process the raw files and save them out to be printed. You can even save them out as jpeg to be printed and send that with amazing results! 😀

          You want the raw files for the post processing, not as a format to be directly printed from. You can use jpeg as a format to be printed from (although not ideal), but not for post processing.

          You may have a fair opinion on the end result, but your understanding of the process behind it is clearly lacking.

          Reply

          • June 06, 2012 at 12:43 pm, Dennis said:

            “They essentially told you that jpeg is easier for them and YOU wouldn’t know the difference.”…  But in that situation those two things were all that mattered.

            In my ‘day job’ I’m often in situations where my perfectionist technical staff want to do things “the right way”, when doing just enough to make the customer happy and doing easily, quickly, and/or inexpensively is adequate.  I tell them the customer doesn’t know the difference, and they always want to raise their noses and say, “Well I will know the difference”.  Since I’m the boss, I can say, “So?  I have a business to run.  Just do it my way.”

            I don’t think the customer cares half as much as the photographer about MOST details in photos.

            Backstage I’ll bet great musicians are mad that they missed some note in their performance, even though the crowd is giving them a standing ovation.

            Good enough is just that…  Good enough.  And there’s nothing wrong with that.

        • May 08, 2012 at 4:09 pm, Fred Gerhart said:

           First off please remain professional. Its photographer not photog!

          You are correct on the speed vs quality for the work you do but you are also very wrong for a great many other types of work.

          Each photographer must decide what format to shoot based upon the job requirements. For instance let’s pretend a photographer does not get a chance to edit the image but must turn over the card at the end of the shoot to the art director whose photoshop wizzard lacks the skills to process raw files. That photographer had best shoot jpeg and be spot on with color balance and exposure if they want repeat work.

          Reply

        • May 08, 2012 at 5:09 pm, Sb1943 said:

          Your photographer was just lazy and had a client who didn’t care about quality.  You can always, quickly convert a RAW file to a jpeg.  If you are going to crop an image that 16×20 print could be a section of a 30×40, you want everything you can get.

          Reply

        • May 08, 2012 at 5:12 pm, Rage said:

          Yes. You are the one who hires photographers.

          By this statement, you admit that you don’t know enough about this field to do yourself. If you did, you wouldn’t hire a photographer. You would do it yourself.

          You assume because a photographer told you something and it produced good work, it’s true for every case. You’re also assuming that was the best course of action when you have no idea what they would have looked like if they were shooting RAW. 

          Please stop discussing this like you know what you’re talking about, when by your own statements and actions as an art director, you clearly do not.

          Reply

          • June 06, 2012 at 12:45 pm, Dennis said:

            Wow…  Do you talk to your customers like that?

        • June 06, 2012 at 12:27 pm, Dennis said:

          I’m in no way at you guys’ level, but I’m shooting a D700 and it sounds to me like JPEG is gong to be great for a lot of things things (web, 8×10 print), and I can use RAW when it’s a situation where:

          1.  Environment changes quickly (like weddings).
          2.  Where the environment will require significant retouching.
          2.  When I know I will want to do significant retouching for whatever reason.
          3.  When I know I will have the time to do the retouching.
          4.  When I plan on doing a very large print and plan to go from RAW to TIFF.

          Right?

          Reply

          • February 15, 2017 at 7:33 pm, Peter Moeller said:

            “I’m in no way at you guys’ level, but I’m shooting a D700 and it sounds to me like JPEG is gong to be great for a lot of things things (web, 8×10 print), and I can use RAW when it’s a situation where:

            1. Environment changes quickly (like weddings).
            2. Where the environment will require significant retouching.
            2. When I know I will want to do significant retouching for whatever reason.
            3. When I know I will have the time to do the retouching.
            4. When I plan on doing a very large print and plan to go from RAW to TIFF.

            Right?”

            Exactly.

            When light is uncontrolled and can change quickly (like weddings) the extra latitude is good to have.

            When you do extensive editing, the uncompressed raw is better for that.

            I even doubt that “printing large” is a requirement for RAW, in most cases. Large prints are not large so you can stand in front of them with a magnifying glass. They are large so you can look at them from a distance.

      • February 15, 2017 at 7:25 pm, Peter Moeller said:

        This is an older discussion, I’m aware of it. A few months ago, I did a number of assignments for an advertising agency. They wanted JPG’s, the same day of the shoot. I guess I could have rushed back to my studio, processed and submitted the jpg files. However, because the pay wasn’t that great, I was quite happy they did the processing, rather than me. I just uploaded the images and too it from there.

        The shoots were done with studio lighting, so it was straight forward to get the exposure and white balance. Simply no need to recover highlights or adjust colour.

        I later reviewed the images they put up on the website. They about 5 or 6, displaying them in a image gallery, about the size of a postcard on a PC screen. I didn’t notice any changes to the images.

        I can understand the AD is keen to get high quality jpg’s rather than raw file. If the jpg is good, raw is no advantage, it is an obstacle.

        For another job or environment, it may be different.

        However, the customer is king. As the photographer I provide a service as required by my client. I have no problem with that.

        Reply

    • May 08, 2012 at 1:34 pm, Booking said:

      There is more to an image than megapixels. That is the argument that Steve and other advocates of RAW shooting keep presenting, but people keep comparing resolution (megapixels) as if that anything to do with it.

      I would like to se the same comparison made between two 16×20 prints, after the images have been manipulated.

      Pay close attention to the gradient shifts in areas of darkness or shadows.
      You won’t like it.

      Reply

      • May 08, 2012 at 1:47 pm, Mswales said:

        Sure. You’re right.
        1. if you need an exhibition grade print larger than 11 x 14
        2. if you’re going to do significant manipulation and need an exhibition grade print larger than 11 x 14

        My point is: there is so much information in the jpeg from a full sensor camera (like the 5D) or the Hassey (with its 50MP sensor) and a great lens that shooting RAW for production photography is just not necessary.

        Reply

        • May 08, 2012 at 2:07 pm, Booking said:

          My point is not so much the size of the image, but the initial quality of the content.
          The potential for improvement is just much more available in an image that contains a very large variation of tones for the same color, than something that no longer has them.

          There used to be a time when you took a picture of a sailor kissing a girl during a parade, and everyone loved it, because few people got it.

          Nowadays, too many people are going around taking photos that look alike in mosr respects.

          RAW tonal range increases your chances of turning the blown out sky, or the dark wall that ruins an image into something more.

          You never know what will become of a photo that you randomnly took during a lazy Sunday.

          I want to photograph the soldier kissing the girl in the parade, but so does everyone else.
          If my photo looks like everyone else’s photo during that parade then fine, but if my photo has tgat ceryain je ne sais pas that pulls it apart from the crowd, then why not treat every photo in the same way?

          Reply

        • May 08, 2012 at 2:10 pm, John W. O'Brien III said:

           and your point is invalid and incorrect…

          Reply

        • May 08, 2012 at 2:49 pm, Booking said:

          I am just going to say this because eventually someone brings MF and FF into the conversation.
          If you are using a Has, you will not shoot JPEG.
          Sorry, but it isn’t an option.

          As a photographer you can take it to your studio, convert the images, and hand a disc to the art department, but chances are those images (JPEGs, fffs, 3frs, tiffs, or whatever) will have the range of tones much higher than JPEG.
          Unless, of course, the outfit is a small studio with slow older hardware.

          Reply

        • May 08, 2012 at 5:05 pm, Sb1943 said:

          Shooting jpegs with a 50MP sensor is insane.  Why bother with that large fine size if you’re not going to use it, get yourself a high quality point and shoot, you’ll save a lot of money and be just as happy with the results.

          Reply

        • May 08, 2012 at 10:41 pm, MadMacStew said:

          I use a 5D mkII with ‘L’ glassware, and I *always* shoot RAW plus jpeg. My fave analogy is that the jpeg is a Polaroid which lets you have a quick look at the shot, but RAW is the negative. Why would you not keep the negative? BTW, been shooting for more than 40 years, always used Kodachrome 25 or Pan F in the old days, and my scans from those archived slides and negs show that there’s simply no comparison in DR or resulotion to what you get from a modern (post 2010) digital camera.

          Reply

    • May 08, 2012 at 2:08 pm, John W. O'Brien III said:

       that’s because art directors are morons who don’t know anything about photography… they like to just point and grunt….

      no offense….

      one would think you would want the most control over the image, and who is a better judge of how the image should look? the photographer or whoever converts the RAW file? or some engineer at Canon or Nikon who decided how their camera is going to process the data and spit out a JPG?

      yeh…. i don’t trust engineers when it comes to how my images are going to look…. i was an engineer for several years…

      Reply

  64. May 08, 2012 at 10:46 am, Jesus said:

    Why was this written? Model mayhem you know its better to create interesting content rather than repetitive discussions about somewhat trivial matters. If you are still having this debate of raw vs jpeg going on in your head still.. Stop. . Your not a professional, work at becoming a better photographer, and once you know what you are doing there is no debate.
      I am disappointed in model mayhem for posting random repetitive content about an overly talked about subject on the internet, even the writer admits hes kicking a dead horse.. It’s nice you want to go for some keyword ranking, but trust me, relevant NEW content will go much further.

    Reply

    • May 08, 2012 at 12:45 pm, Adam Sternberg said:

       If you want new content, go write it yourself and submit it. I’ll be looking forward to the unique, new perspectives you add to this area.

      Reply

  65. May 08, 2012 at 10:11 am, Speedybee69 said:

    My Photographer always shoots in RAW…….

    I’m usually in the RAW as well   LOL

    Reply

  66. May 08, 2012 at 10:09 am, Alex M Wolff said:

    Thanks for the thoughts. There is a much simpler rationale.

    There is more information for your computer to work with in a raw file than in jpg.  For example, raws from my d300 are 19 meg, jpegs from same camera are 5 meg.  The camera decides to eliminate 75 % of the  data without your input to get from its capture to the jpg. Since the camera doesnt know your intent, you should not trust it to make your decisions. Layer in Steves comments, and the abilty to capture a higher dynamic range in the raw file vs the jpg, and you hae a pretty strong argument.  The fewer variables in an image you can control, the stronger the argument for RAW.

    imho

    Reply

  67. May 08, 2012 at 10:07 am, Cowtech said:

    I see the pros and cons of both and as mentioned you can find tons of literature on the subject.  I feel if you are tunring out a quality product that your customers are willing to buy, the end customer really does not care if you used JPEG or Raw, 8 bit or 16 bit, they are only cencerned with the end product and it doesn’t really matter to them how you got to that point.  Most of my customers say they want a certain photo, a certain size and shape–if I deliver, they pay me. 

    Reply

    • May 08, 2012 at 6:03 pm, Superstars60 said:

      I like your response.Jpeg or Raw.I was told if you have time to edit use the Raw format.If not use jpeg.I love shooting.But I also work a fulltime job.Not as a photographer.But the families and friends I do work for are happy with the end results.I would love to shoot in raw.Photoshop is so much fun.I am just learning with lightroom3.1. Great discussion though.

      Reply

  68. May 08, 2012 at 10:04 am, Wongfeihong616 said:

    I shoot both at the same time and immediately separate the jpegs  onto an external hard drive as an emergency back up of the files just in case something happens while i`m working on editing the pics ,so a little fault tolerance in the form of smaller files that i can store more of in a smaller space, anything else is definitely kicking a dead horse for anyone with any real knowledge, but i have my boots on so here goes. It is simple, Raw files contain all the recorded information and Jpegs do not, if you are someone that knows how to do more advanced photo editing then we use RAW and if you do not know how to more advanced photo editing then you use jpeg because you lack the knowledge to anything more with them and thereby would just be wasting storage space and your time for no reason.
    With this said i will agree with Adam on his statement in general but seldom need a frame rate that is higher than i get shooting in both raw and jpeg at same time , i shoot golf swings for analysis and still get in 7 frames on a swing, plenty to look at the swing and i still have the raw file if i want to go in and do some more advanced editing.    

    Reply

  69. May 08, 2012 at 9:59 am, Leo Friel said:

    Some good reasons for shooting raw and it’s unarguable that raw gives the best quality, but for some it’s a case of safety first. For me it comes down to workflow; I don’t want to store or edit 1500 raw files from a wedding and I’m confident in my ability to get my settings right so jpeg really works for me. For a studio shoot? Yeh I  might shot raw and jpeg at the same time. Leo 

    Reply

  70. May 08, 2012 at 9:57 am, Ttactica34 said:

    RAW Is a puwerfull mode and tool to work with… Why not use it?

    Reply

  71. May 08, 2012 at 9:51 am, Sarah said:

    I want lern about this ….

    Reply

  72. May 08, 2012 at 9:42 am, Jason Kessenich said:

    The top example is decent, but the halo around the individual is atrocious… as well as the skin tone on the arms, and left thigh.  

    Reply

  73. May 08, 2012 at 9:30 am, Adam Sternberg said:

    There are times when shooting in .jpg mode is just better. Because the images are smaller you can get a much higher frame rate of shooting than in RAW if your camera buffer or speed of your storage card gets backed up. This comes in really handy when shooting sporting events. Also, there are some times when shooting RAW is just unnecessary. For example, if I’m shooting a corporate dinner party or other simple event, shooting in big RAW files just is unwarranted as I’d need to convert them over to .jpg for the client. But for any important event like a wedding, where retouching of images is crucial or any commercial shoot or even headshots, RAW is absolutely the way to go and it’s the mode I shoot in 95% of the time

    Reply

    • May 09, 2012 at 5:23 am, Jonbbarry said:

      I shoot RAW plus Jpeg. I rarely ever use the raw. I recently shot a wedding with 400 attendees, 12 brides maids, 12 groomsmen, and the shooting was over three separate days, the rehearsal, the rehearsal supper (175), the wedding to include following the bride and groom for the whole day with two photographers. Then Sunday was a brunch at the hotel where the reception and party was held, with the brunch having 200 attendees. 

      Together, me and my assistant shot 2300 total images. 95% of my images are always usable and batchable. I only processed the jpegs. I was able to totally process all images, print ready, in less than  24 hours, to include uploading the images for the bride and the groom..all print quality.  The color matched throughout, and all images totally pop and are of a quality that would easily allow for all images to be printed at a size of 20X30 at a very high quality. I would have used the RAW image to go to a larger size..say 40X60. 

      As to Quality…as good as it gets and zero sacrifice. I batch process all images. I shot that wedding three weeks ago, already printed 900 of the images…and got raves. If I had processed the RAW..I would still be working on the files. 

      It is my opinion that unless you are going to hand your work over to an art director of an agency where they do their own processing, to use raw for anything other than trying to recover from bad files, it is a bad loss of time and gets you nowhere. As to the arguments about putting more cards as a reason not to use raw..that is insane. Cards are incredibly cheap. 

      I have also been a content provider and batch processing has been a big help to me. I average over 1500 shots a day, and have to process all these files and ship them within a couple of days. I know of no method using raw to accomplish this. It is a luxury and great to have the RAW file..but as to using it exclusively…I personally would rather have more time available for selling work than spending the days and time processing and editing the RAW. I see photographers who shoot a thousand files and give their model only two or three shots. I think it is much better to learn how to take better photos and stop using all your time fixing photos and using RAW to save yourself.

      yes..there are times to use the RAW…

      Reply

      • July 28, 2016 at 9:25 pm, G. Michael Murphy said:

        I shot a lot of figure skating events in venues with questionable lighting. some of the rinks had mercury vapor lights of varying age. The lights ranged from excessively blue green to magenta. Raw was my savior. I shot Raw+small jpeg. One event was 24 hours of shooting over 3 days, nearly 29,000 images. I scanned through the jpegs to choose what to save, deleted all the unsatisfactory shots and still had well over 18,000 images to work with. my computer spent days crunching the image processing from raw to correct color balance and contrast, 1000 at a time. the resulting images were far better than the camera jpegs were.

        Reply

  74. May 08, 2012 at 9:17 am, Joe Diamond said:

     Everybody who has few photography and photoshop knowledge would know that jpg is the lowest quality version but choosing the first photo wasnt so much inspired considering the photo has some errors behind the girl

    Reply

  75. May 08, 2012 at 8:01 am, NorthernSights said:

    I prefer working with raw. It is simply easier to do initial adjustments to exposure and temp before I start working on an image. Jpegs are fine and many of them don’t need any work but why not have the choice. Usually when I shoot I shoot in both raw and jpeg. I can then quickly pan through the jpegs looking for keepers. It is also handy to download jpegs and give to clients or models so they can get a quick look and tell me which ones they want worked over. As the man said, we go for the extra information of the raw images because we can.
    In the end though it is just personal preference. Not right and wrong.

    Reply

    • May 08, 2012 at 9:55 am, Info said:

      Just someting to remember. JPG files are a lossy format. It uses is a data encoding method that compresses data by discarding (losing) some of it.
      Artifacts (or artefact) are a noticeable
      distortion of media images caused by the
      application of lossy data compression. Every time you open and save a lossy format you degrade the image a little more. Resulting in more artifacts.

      Reply

      • May 08, 2012 at 10:23 am, Colin Home said:

        Bang on. Plain and simple.

        Reply

      • May 09, 2012 at 5:26 pm, NorthernSights said:

        Good point. Although I have jpegs from 10 years ago I haven’t seen any degredation it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. One thing with having the raw is you can always go back to ground zero and work the image in as many different ways as you want. I guess it is kind of like having a print vs a negative in film. You may want to make another print…

        Reply

    • June 15, 2012 at 11:16 pm, meshuryan said:

      Northern, couldn’t agree with you more. I shoot both RAW and
      JPG for 2 reasons. If I choose to work with RAW, I can quickly scroll through
      JPGs for keepers. If I choose to work the JPGs it is nice to know that I have a
      RAW backup.

      Argument about what is better RAW Vs. JPG it’s an
      intellectual masturbation for bored people. There is an advantage to both
      depends on the need for the situation. And If you need that JPG edited and
      afraid of degradation, make an original copy and do “save as” and keep the
      original untouched.

      Reply

Leave a Reply