View Full Version : Your "Shooting Quality"?
Maleko
07-18-2009, 08:04 PM
Just curious to see what people shoot in.
Either just RAW, or RAW+JPEG?
Do you think it is safe to just shoot in RAW, and not JPEG? I personally have never heard of a case where either the RAW or JPEG files get corrupt, and then the other file format has saved them. Unless you have?
(I have not put into account SRAW1 & SRAW2)
Daniel Browning
07-18-2009, 09:40 PM
Either just RAW, or RAW+JPEG?
Just RAW. Post processing software such as Lightroom make it so fast and easy that I recommend it to everyone that is comfortable with a computer.
Do you think it is safe to just shoot in RAW, and not JPEG?
Yes.
I personally have never heard of a case where either the RAW or JPEG files get corrupt, and then the other file format has saved them.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
Neither have I. The optimal situation is two simulataneous cards in the camera (such as CF and SD), then another backup when they are transferred to permanent storage.
TheRoff
07-18-2009, 09:43 PM
I voted for the RAW+JPEG. But, you really need a category of "depends." If the light is strange and I want a super fine critical photo that I can crop pretty significantly, and I may want a large print, and.........then I will shoot only RAW. I really can't see the purpose of shooting both when conversion is easy. If I am taking a lot of shots, say of a kids soccer game, that will only go onto the web, then its high quality JEPGs all the way.
Larry
Ditto everything Daniel says.
RAW only.
clemmb
07-18-2009, 11:53 PM
I shoot only JPEG. I strive to get it right every time so I spend minimal time in processing. I just shot over 600 pics at a wedding and I do not have time to touch every one of them.
Mark
Jarhead5811
07-19-2009, 12:20 AM
I shootJPEG only most of the time. I'm not very big on post processing. If I'm shooting something important Iuse RAW+JPEG and delete the RAWs once the images turn out to be correctly exposed. I'd shoot RAW+JPEG 100% of the timeif I had the space on mymemory cards.
wickerprints
07-19-2009, 12:57 AM
RAW if I care about what I'm doing, JPEG if it's for someone else/I'm not being paid/picture dumps.
What I mean by picture dumps is when I know I'm going to be shooting a zillion photos and I don't care or have the time to pick out and edit every single one. In other words, it's straight from the camera, no edits, here's the CD/DVD now go away.
RAW is all about taking ownership and pride in one's work. It means you care enough to pick the winners, look them over carefully, make adjustments, and when it's all done, you have a finished product that you are proud of and care enough to demonstrate provenance should it ever be questioned. It's only on the rare occasion that I'm doing something where I don't really care about the final result, but some examples would be if I am specifically doing a technical exercise, or if an acquaintance is asking me to shoot an event or something for free and I don't want to spend hours post-processing. I bring them hundreds of photos on a disk or thumb drive and they are just *giddy* with happiness because they got SO MANY shots for NOTHING. I'm basically just doing snapshots (oh, such a dirty word). On the other hand, if I were to slow down my shooting, save RAW, and post-process the winners, I might give them a few dozen really nice photos, and they'll be like, "That's all you took?!" [8-)]
Part of the trick of being a photographer is to understand your client's expectations, and to deliver on them, not what you expect from yourself. If every photo you took had to be up to your own personal standards, you'd exhaust yourself with wasted effort that is completely lost upon your client.
I shoot only JPEG. I strive to get it right every time so I spend minimal time in processing. I just shot over 600 pics at a wedding and I do not have time to touch every one of them.
Mark
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
Mark, you can "get it right" with the RAW file, too. If you use a target to get the right exposure and white balance, it will ensure the right RAW file, and then if you need to adjust any, you can batch process similar files, finally converting them to high quality jpgs.
That way, you still have the RAW file for future use. The RAW file contains much more information than a jpg, and will give you more flexibility should you decide to go back and edit them.
That way, you still have the RAW file for future use. The RAW file contains much more information than a jpg, and will give you more flexibility should you decide to go back and edit them.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
I also think it would be nice to have the RAW due to the fact that the Bride/Groom are going to pick out a few very spceific shots for printing (like a larger version of one shot that will get framed and things like that). It would be a very good thing to have a high quality file to play with for those particular photos. No post editing every shot, but have the files needed to edit/modify special ones.
Keith B
07-19-2009, 03:51 PM
I voted RAW, but I occasionally shoot RAW+Jpg when I'm shooting with the intent of BW final product. Being able to see the BW preview when set to monochrome is invaluable.
HiFiGuy1
07-19-2009, 05:55 PM
Either just RAW, or RAW+JPEG?
Just RAW. Post processing software such as Lightroom make it so fast and easy that I recommend it to everyone that is comfortable with a computer.
Do you think it is safe to just shoot in RAW, and not JPEG?
Yes.
I personally have never heard of a case where either the RAW or JPEG files get corrupt, and then the other file format has saved them.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>
Neither have I. The optimal situation is two simulataneous cards in the camera (such as CF and SD), then another backup when they are transferred to permanent storage.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>
Daniel,
I only disagree with you on this from my experience recently, because I would have liked to have thumbnails to look at while organizing archived images and had to open each RAW file to see what the heck it was. Therefore I shoot RAW+small JPEG, just so I can have a quick peek to see if it is a keeper or not, and in what folder/classification I need to place it. Small JPEGs don't take up a significant amount of space, and I think it is more convenient to have them. If you want to trash them later after archiving and classification, you'd still have the option.
Daniel Browning
07-19-2009, 10:43 PM
...I would have liked to have thumbnails to look at while organizing archived images...
RAW files already have two preview JPEG images embedded in them: one is a small, uncompressed JPEG thumbnail, the other is a very large (usually full size) compressed JPEG. (Yes, that means "RAW+JPEG" is actually saving *two* full size JPEG files.) If you have the right software installed (free downloads from Canon, Microsoft, etc.), the thumbnails are visible in the file managers of XP, Vista, OS X, as well as most image applications.
clemmb
07-25-2009, 12:31 AM
There are lots of opinions and ultimately what works for you is the right answer but check out the 6 Digital Photography Myths on http://www.nobsphotosuccess.com
Mark
SupraSonic
08-04-2009, 03:32 AM
RaW good for post production
I always shoot in RAW mode.
Simple workflow:
Dump the CF cards to the computer
Check the files with DPP deleting the images I don't want.
Convert the images to jpeg and store the jpegs in the archive.
I use jpeg in the archive due to speed and I always keep the RAW files in case I want to do something more with an image later.
For backup: I store both the jpeg and raw file on two different computers. All the raw files are also backed up to a DLT tape and the tapes are stored outside my house.
tgbara
08-04-2009, 10:28 AM
LOL! That's great! "RAW if I care about what I'm doing, JPEG if it's for someone else/I'm not being paid/picture dump"
That's well said. Becaue when i open my RAW files in lightroom, i go over them painstaintly to make sure that every detail
is brought out in that 'digital negative'. My jpeg shots take up less space on my CF and i can't really edit them in lightroom.