I have a new apprecation for JPG...

[magomago]

Finally back from a trip.

I used to be a purist 'raw' thinker. JPG was a waste, and any photographer who was smart would always save those RAWs.

Around 3000 shots in, I decided to try to preemptively edit some of our photos (although now that Obama is president, I'm not sure if doing anything preemptive is the way to go ), however it took me quite a long time (3 hours?) to get through around 350 photos or so...and many of them was simply the following process: 'quickly look at it, apply some form of auto levels, and quickly change anything manually to what I think looks nice'...it wasn't that bad.

then I decided to switch to JPG to try to shoot...now it is MUCH nicer. Why? No post process required! Those 2000 photos will still need cataloging, but I don't have to go through each photo. Of course, I lose the versatility of RAW, but I found I started to compose better because 'I only really have one shot at it'

Of course for anything important, or any scene I meticulously set up or wait for, I will still shoot raw...but if I'm traveling around the benefit of an 'instant JPG' is just much easier because I don't have to worry about processing it later.

It comes down to giving up more (white balance, extra headroom, much greater latitude in adjustments, not worrying about editing something which is lossy) for greater convenience (its ready to go and saves time)

The only thing more I could ask fr is JPG+RAW for anything that 'I can't say I will edit a RAW, but it just might be worth it'. I don't have a camera (K100D) that could do that, but my next body (K30D or K40D anyone?) would hopefully have that .

 

[996GT2]

K100D doesn't have RAW+JPEG? Wow, even my old Nikon D70 had that.

I almost never shoot in RAW, and when I do it's RAW+JPEG for when a file may need significant post-processing later on. The EOS 40D processes 14 bit RAW files (versus 12 bit in most cameras), so there's a little more leeway for adjustments if the exposure isn't perfect in the original.

Other than that, I mostly shoot JPEG. I haven't been notice a difference in quality, and JPEGs still give quite a bit of leeway for post-processing.

 

[jpeyton]

I'm curious what you guys mean by "ready to go".

Ready for uploading? Ready for printing? Ready for e-mailing?

Programs like Lightroom remove the need to convert/process RAW files; as soon as you copy the files over from your memory card, they are instantly visible in your library just like JPEGs. It's incredibly rare I ever want to upload, print or share ever single photo I've taken on a given day. It's also rare that I'll like an original unedited file without doing some kind of post-processing (white balance, cropping, sharpening, levels, etc.). But even if I do, I can just export an entire days worth of pictures to JPEG with a few clicks.

I think programs like Aperture, Lightroom, etc. have reduced the hassle of shooting RAW and made processing RAW files easy enough that novices can do it.

 

[magomago]

I do have LR (Eek, I would die if I had to do it one by one)...but its still too slow. I run a dual core 4800+ with 2 gigs of ram and a 9700gs (if that matters?). I know it isn't high end per se, but there is a lot of brief moments of 'waiting' time that really adds up. I'm sure its probably the HDD thrashing in combination with the processor generating previews, but it makes a difference.

Like I said - when I'm 'snapshotting' more than photography...RAW becomes a hassle. But if there is ever a point where I see 'hey...this just may look nicer' I can quickly switch to raw and do what I need.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: 996GT2
K100D doesn't have RAW+JPEG? Wow, even my old Nikon D70 had that.

I almost never shoot in RAW, and when I do it's RAW+JPEG for when a file may need significant post-processing later on. The EOS 40D processes 14 bit RAW files (versus 12 bit in most cameras), so there's a little more leeway for adjustments if the exposure isn't perfect in the original.

Other than that, I mostly shoot JPEG. I haven't been notice a difference in quality, and JPEGs still give quite a bit of leeway for post-processing.

Yeah, but the jpeg in D70's RAW+Jpeg mode was a lower-quality one.

I agree totally with jpeyton: the automation of RAW conversion can usually supplant jpeg. Of course, as Pentax user, I need to use jpeg if I want a speedier performance.

One day in January I decided to shoot only jpeg. That experience was a good reminder of why I prefer RAW - better detail, micro-contrast, gradients, etc. That said, the photos were hardly poor, just not as good, and I don't know how much of a difference I could see if I didn't compare shots side-by-side. It's all a matter of perspective.

 

[angry hampster]

My RAW workflow is faster than my JPEG workflow. Finding the proper white balance is much easier in RAW than messing with color balance in JPEG. Curves and levels are much easier to do as well in Adobe Camera Raw. I've never used Lightroom or Aperture. I feel like the versatility of the files, especially when shooting professionally, far outweighs any "time saved" by shooting JPEG only. I can bump exposure 2 stops at ISO 400 in RAW with my 5D without noticeable noise in 5x8 prints. In JPEG (fine detail mode), I can barely get 1 stop before noise starts to get very obtrusive.

 

[rudder]

Memory cards are cheap. No reason not to shoot raw+jpg.

Lighting conditions can change so fast and it is always a hassle trying to keep the proper white balance sometimes. With RAW I don't worry at all.

 

[foghorn67]

JPEG is easy on the buffer. Love it for action shots.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: angry hampster
My RAW workflow is faster than my JPEG workflow. Finding the proper white balance is much easier in RAW than messing with color balance in JPEG. Curves and levels are much easier to do as well in Adobe Camera Raw. I've never used Lightroom or Aperture. I feel like the versatility of the files, especially when shooting professionally, far outweighs any "time saved" by shooting JPEG only. I can bump exposure 2 stops at ISO 400 in RAW with my 5D without noticeable noise in 5x8 prints. In JPEG (fine detail mode), I can barely get 1 stop before noise starts to get very obtrusive.

I would never advocate going JPG in any professional setting.

Btw...my JPEG workflow is like this: Copy Files to Desktop --> Organize based on where we went --> send to friends. Can't beat that. That said, again, if I'm doing 'snapshots' or casual shooting (travelling, etc), I probably won't use raw. But if i'm in a situation where I think I MAY want to shoot raw (be it I don't have the best conditions and need to PP to pull out what I want, or simply because its a beautiful scene that I may want to keep notice of), I'll do it to be safe (but I can't see myself snapping 60 photos in 5 minutes unless its a photo shoot of some sort)

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: angry hampster
My RAW workflow is faster than my JPEG workflow. Finding the proper white balance is much easier in RAW than messing with color balance in JPEG. Curves and levels are much easier to do as well in Adobe Camera Raw. I've never used Lightroom or Aperture. I feel like the versatility of the files, especially when shooting professionally, far outweighs any "time saved" by shooting JPEG only. I can bump exposure 2 stops at ISO 400 in RAW with my 5D without noticeable noise in 5x8 prints. In JPEG (fine detail mode), I can barely get 1 stop before noise starts to get very obtrusive.

I would never advocate going JPG in any professional setting.

Btw...my JPEG workflow is like this: Copy Files to Desktop --> Organize based on where we went --> send to friends. Can't beat that. That said, again, if I'm doing 'snapshots' or casual shooting (travelling, etc), I probably won't use raw. But if i'm in a situation where I think I MAY want to shoot raw (be it I don't have the best conditions and need to PP to pull out what I want, or simply because its a beautiful scene that I may want to keep notice of), I'll do it to be safe (but I can't see myself snapping 60 photos in 5 minutes unless its a photo shoot of some sort)

Don't be afraid of JPEG. In fact if you were to work for some agencies, they demand it. Sports Illustrated for one, won't except anything else. Lot's of magazines and big local papers, same thing.
People get in a hissy fit for some reason if you don't shoot RAW like they do. And they defend it like it's so damn family tradition or part of liturgy.

 

[angry hampster]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

People get in a hissy fit for some reason if you don't shoot RAW like they do. And they defend it like it's so damn family tradition or part of liturgy.

If you bought a DSLR, you bought it because you want nice looking images. Not doing everything possible to ensure this after spending $5000-10,000 is a bit absurd.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: angry hampster

Originally posted by: foghorn67

People get in a hissy fit for some reason if you don't shoot RAW like they do. And they defend it like it's so damn family tradition or part of liturgy.

If you bought a DSLR, you bought it because you want nice looking images. Not doing everything possible to ensure this after spending $5000-10,000 is a bit absurd.

I know people who bought DSLR's because they wanted a "pro camera", and wanted "performance", and have no clue about RAW. And the camera mfr's cater to that group, offering scene modes and color adjustments.

I paid $363/shipped for my Pentax K100D kit, a little over a year ago...

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Don't be afraid of JPEG. In fact if you were to work for some agencies, they demand it. Sports Illustrated for one, won't except anything else. Lot's of magazines and big local papers, same thing.

You're only submitting in jpg format; you can shoot and process in RAW.

 

[ivan2]

OP there's something wrong with your workflow or LR's processing of pantex RAW. I took about 200 of my little cousin on 40D RAW and it doesn't take 3 hours to white balance them all, reject unwanted and touch up his mosquito bites on the selected few that I like. And that's on a aspire one without external monitor.

Judging by the performance I tend to shoot raw a lot. Then again I am not getting paid for my work so I can't speak for the pros.

 

[troytime]

Originally posted by: angry hampster

Originally posted by: foghorn67

People get in a hissy fit for some reason if you don't shoot RAW like they do. And they defend it like it's so damn family tradition or part of liturgy.

If you bought a DSLR, you bought it because you want nice looking images. Not doing everything possible to ensure this after spending $5000-10,000 is a bit absurd.

Really? Because shooting in JPG produces images so high in quality that they blow away the images taken with their previous point and shoot (or worse, cell phone camera)?

There's nothing absurd about it. I shoot mostly jpg, unless its a really great shot or i KNOW i'm going to be printing in a larger format. (in which case, i'll shoot raw+jpg)

A lot of my photos get printed, a lot get uploaded. Most of the time i only need to adjust levels and sharpen. RAW is great, but its not always worth the extra steps + time for me.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: angry hampster

Originally posted by: foghorn67

People get in a hissy fit for some reason if you don't shoot RAW like they do. And they defend it like it's so damn family tradition or part of liturgy.

If you bought a DSLR, you bought it because you want nice looking images. Not doing everything possible to ensure this after spending $5000-10,000 is a bit absurd.

I know people who bought DSLR's because they wanted a "pro camera", and wanted "performance", and have no clue about RAW. And the camera mfr's cater to that group, offering scene modes and color adjustments.

I paid $363/shipped for my Pentax K100D kit, a little over a year ago...

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Don't be afraid of JPEG. In fact if you were to work for some agencies, they demand it. Sports Illustrated for one, won't except anything else. Lot's of magazines and big local papers, same thing.

You're only submitting in jpg format; you can shoot and process in RAW.

Pretty hard to do if you submit cards immediately after the event or sometimes during.

It's like knocking people for shooting slide film instead of color negative. Since slide has a latitude of .3 to .5 stops and negative has -2 and +3 or 4.

You guys act like you can't edit jpegs in LR. Like it's locked down to un-editable. White balance is adjustable, along with a strong under/over exposure latitudes. It sharpens the same, and yadah, yadah, yaddah. In fact it's almost seamless comparing to RAW. You export in TIF anyway.

If you guys are relying on RAW's extremely forgiving under/over latitude, I think it's time to re-evaulate your metering skills.

I have shot about 30 weddings JPEG only. I have experimented with some RAW out of one camera. I know, JPEG only. I can here your panties bunching up now.
There wasn't one time where RAW would have rescued a shot, nor where there a time I wish I was shooting RAW.
So pretty much, most of my wedding work is JPEG.

 

[Deadtrees]

With some brands (which I won't mention as that might hijack this thread into a brands flame war), I make sure that I have RAW simply because JPEG engine on those cameras are terrible.
With some brands, I don't bother with RAW because they already produce excellent JPEG images.

For me, RAW isn't primary but rather a secondary(back-up) solution. If I'm low on memory card, I'd only shoot in JPEG but since large memory cards are so cheap, everything is shot in RAW+JPEG.

 

[twistedlogic]

Originally posted by: magomago
I lose the versatility of RAW, but I found I started to compose better because 'I only really have one shot at it'

What does your composition have to do with metering or WB?

Sry, I had to take a stab,

Originally posted by: angry hampster
My RAW workflow is faster than my JPEG workflow. Finding the proper white balance is much easier in RAW than messing with color balance in JPEG. Curves and levels are much easier to do as well in Adobe Camera Raw.

I agree with AH.

I shoot RAW for mainly one reason only, White Balance. True you can "adjust" the WB of a jpeg, but it may take longer and/or the results are not as good as RAW.

The way I see it, I'll give up the storage space/time shooting RAW just to save that one shot that might be ruined. You can always go from RAW to JPEG, but you can't go back once you've shot JPEG.

 

[soydios]

Question: why don't they encode the Kelvin temperature and tint for White Balance in JPEG EXIF data? I would change to shooting JPEG Fine for snapshots if they did instead of RAW all the time.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
With some brands (which I won't mention as that might hijack this thread into a brands flame war), I make sure that I have RAW simply because JPEG engine on those cameras are terrible.
With some brands, I don't bother with RAW because they already produce excellent JPEG images.

For me, RAW isn't primary but rather a secondary(back-up) solution. If I'm low on memory card, I'd only shoot in JPEG but since large memory cards are so cheap, everything is shot in RAW+JPEG.

If I was shooting a K10D, for sure I wouldn't use JPEG. RAW is much more sharper...luckily I'm not


twistedlogic -- lol. Tis okay I can take it. But I guess I meant more on the exposure....i wouldn't worry too much as long as I didn't clip anything. If anything, I always shot as right as possible and then moved down the exposure later. Switching to JPEG, i don't shoot as far right as possible...I try to line up the exposure where I want it...so because of that I'm a better judge of what scene I need to get what I want.

...of course none of it is really connected to shooting JPG only Maybe I just started getting better...I would be sad if I took 5000 shots and saw no perceptable difference in the before and after as far as composition went (unless I'm literally just shooting without thinking)