JPG versus RAW

[revelation2]

Hey guys, I'd like to know your take on the jpeg versus raw deal. Vote and tell me why.

Personally I shoot jpg basic with little to no work afterwards. If I have to fix a photo post-processing (as in, straighten or sharpen the image) then it means that I haven't done my job correctly. It means that I have to cover up my mistake in photoshop. Why basic? Because the files are half as large and the differences between normal and basic can only be seen on a 3' wide blown up print. Even then, there's just a tiny bit less blockiness.

Shooting raw seems like a waste of memory card space and my time at the computer, plus the file formats aren't nearly as versatile as Jpg.

Let the mud slinging begin.

[*SWEET*]

Raw... all the time...
MUCH better work done onto the picture after

[williamewart]

RAW always

[Blix]

Always RAW.

[enemy combatant]

Medium rare for me!

[Blix]

Originally Posted by revelation2

If I have to fix a photo post-processing (as in, straighten or sharpen the image) then it means that I haven't done my job correctly. It means that I have to cover up my mistake in photoshop.pace
Let the mud slinging begin.

I forgot to do the mud slinging


This actually means that you waste a LOT of image quality potential. You are not "correcting a mistake" when doing something like sharpening, as sharpening depends a lot on the type of image, and sharpening must be made specifically for your print output size.

And that goes for a lot of other post processing too.

A photograph isn`t more pure because you`re not doing anything to it, it just means you are lazy.

Enough mud?

[EBasil]

Since I shoot for display on computer monitors, I use .jpg, exclusively. RAW takes too much space on my chips and I don't need the extra manipulations I'm not going to make, anyway.

[nothclif]

Originally Posted by Blix

I forgot to do the mud slinging


This actually means that you waste a LOT of image quality potential. You are not "correcting a mistake" when doing something like sharpening, as sharpening depends a lot on the type of image, and sharpening must be made specifically for your print output size.

And that goes for a lot of other post processing too.

A photograph isn`t more pure because you`re not doing anything to it, it just means you are lazy.

Enough mud?

Same, unless I'm just doing quick snapshots I always shot in raw, mainly cause you'll lose a ton of quality and options in post-processing. Post-processing shouldn't be seen as a lack of ability but as a extension of your ability.

Digital cameras can only do so much, the higher your ISO the higher the "noise" is in your image, things like snow can trick the camera's white balance, or you could get dust on your sensor. Post-processing helps get around your camera's limitations. If you know your camera's limitations and how to enhance your your photos it'll make you a better photographer.

[SteveC]

Originally Posted by nothclif

Post-processing shouldn't be seen as a lack of ability but as a extension of your ability.

Exactly, it's a separate skill. Just like darkroom skills used to be.

[Blix]

Originally Posted by SteveC

Exactly, it's a separate skill. Just like darkroom skills used to be.

Or still is, some of us are still using film

I use digtal when I get paid for it

[Wells]

I shoot RAW at the highest possible resolution. It allows me to correct for white-balance, which is good because I shoot in a lot of weirdly-lit environments. I can also crop without having the resultant image look like ass.

Post-processed images aren't worse or worth less than than "straight from the camera" ones. There's no such thing as an "unprocessed" image.

When shooting film, the film, camera, exposure time, f-stop, and focus you use affects the image before the film leaves the camera. How hot or cold your chemicals are and how long you leave film in them affects the image. What kind of paper you print on and how you process that paper in chemicals affects the image.

Digital isn't much different. You can go with the camera manufacturer's settings; but there's no "neutral" setting that's going to create a perfect reflection of reality (paging Thomas Demand...).

[brainfartalerts]

Originally Posted by Wells

I shoot RAW at the highest possible resolution. It allows me to correct for white-balance, which is good because I shoot in a lot of weirdly-lit environments. I can also crop without having the resultant image look like ass.

Post-processed images aren't worse or worth less than than "straight from the camera" ones. There's no such thing as an "unprocessed" image.

When shooting film, the film, camera, exposure time, f-stop, and focus you use affects the image before the film leaves the camera. How hot or cold your chemicals are and how long you leave film in them affects the image. What kind of paper you print on and how you process that paper in chemicals affects the image.

Digital isn't much different. You can go with the camera manufacturer's settings; but there's no "neutral" setting that's going to create a perfect reflection of reality (paging Thomas Demand...).

Good point - not sure many understand the processes because they are seldom seen beyond the act of pressing the shutter button. Use either jpg or raw as needed/useful but you should never forget that the act of capturing the image is only the beginning of what being a photographer is all about.

By the way Wells, may I incorporate your militant gay knuckles into my avatar with your leave? Working on a little project related to packed symbolic imagery at the moment and trying to roll as many ideological stereotypes into minimal subject counts.

[IvanTheTerrible]

It all depends on what I'm shooting. If it's skate shots, it's definately going to be in JPG. When I'm doing a photoshoot, I'll shoot in raw.

[brainfartalerts]

Originally Posted by IvanTheTerrible

.... When I'm doing a photoshoot, I'll shoot in raw.

Doesn't that get a little cold up your way this time of year?

[bucksaw87]

my camera shoots in jpg (yay point and shoot), but i can get up to like 7 megapixels (the max i ever shoot is 3). and even with my point'n'shoot, i can get some excellent shots if i have my camera tweaked the right way...and i can get even better shots if i do some editing in photoshop

[Britney]

I shoot my Canon Rebel with RAW always because it uses the full 10mp instead of the 8 to shoot .jpg.

Just my 2 cents.

[Britney]

Originally Posted by Blix

I forgot to do the mud slinging


This actually means that you waste a LOT of image quality potential. You are not "correcting a mistake" when doing something like sharpening, as sharpening depends a lot on the type of image, and sharpening must be made specifically for your print output size.

And that goes for a lot of other post processing too.

A photograph isn`t more pure because you`re not doing anything to it, it just means you are lazy.

Enough mud?

i second this.

[Blix]

Originally Posted by Britney

I shoot my Canon Rebel with RAW always because it uses the full 10mp instead of the 8 to shoot .jpg.

Just my 2 cents.

Eh Britney, that`s not correct, you are still using the full 10mp of your XTi shooting jpg.

[rich (lush)]

raw becuase it makes me look twice at what you've shot, and only let out the good stuff. i like photos that grow on you, and you need to spend some time looking at it for that to happen. doing the development myself forces me to do that.

...but it costs time (which you could spend taking more photos) and money spent on memory cards and computing power to do this... Herni Cartier Bresson didn't want anything to do with the development process, and I sometimes wish i was the same...

"Actually, I'm not all that interested in the subject of photography. Once the picture is in the box, I'm not all that interested in what happens next. Hunters, after all, aren't cooks." - HCB

[F]

"Actually, I'm not all that interested in the subject of photography. Once the picture is in the box, I'm not all that interested in what happens next. Hunters, after all, aren't cooks." - HCB

Fuuuck that. I f i go out in the forest and kill a 1500 pounds caribou, i will cook it and have a freakin nice party eating it. Its not just about cutting the head and putting it to the wall. Hu?

Lets make it simple:

Raw- best quality for any of my clients
Jpeg- good family quality (who does not give a heck about the postprocessing thing)

And dont mix megapixels vs raw or jpeg.

-F