RAW VS JPEG

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by nick, Dec 17, 2007.

  1. nick

    nick Guest

    Heres a thought for all you people thinking that you should switch to RAW.
    My close friend who is a keen photographer always works with raw. I work
    with JPEG and think I'm generally careless and sloppy with my work. I'm
    quite jealous of his more scientific approach. After not having seen him for
    6 months I went round for a visit and found him quite despondent about his
    photography. He had hundreds of raw images and no time to process them.
    Now he avoids taking more photos until what he calls his "workload" is done.
    "workload" meaning processing his raw images.

    I'm still whizzing around taking loads of photos and enjoying my
    photography... Just how many people that work with raw will do so for more
    than 6 months before having had enough of spending endless nights in front
    of a computer fidling around with raw images that did'nt need any fiddling
    done to them?
     
    nick, Dec 17, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. nick wrote:
    > Heres a thought for all you people thinking that you should switch to RAW.
    > My close friend who is a keen photographer always works with raw. I work
    >

    C'mon, "nick" . This is so unoriginal; it's been done many times at
    first by clever Trolls, years later, by simpletons.

    You're not a simpleton, are you?

    --
    lsmft
     
    John McWilliams, Dec 17, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. nick

    Mardon Guest

    John McWilliams <> wrote:

    > nick wrote:
    >> Heres a thought for all you people thinking that you should switch to
    >> RAW. My close friend who is a keen photographer always works with
    >> raw. I work


    > C'mon, "nick" . This is so unoriginal; it's been done many times at
    > first by clever Trolls, years later, by simpletons.
    > You're not a simpleton, are you?


    I agree it sure sounds like a troll but I'll answer anyway. I started
    shooting RAW in 2002 with a Canon G2. Then went to RAW with a 20D and now
    shooting RAW with a 1DIII. I detest shooting jpeg since I have to get
    everything right at shutter-release time. I'd rather set the white-balance
    and level my horizons during PPing while sitting in a warm comfortable
    chair than do it out in the freezing cold where I often shoot. For
    example, the helicopter rappelling training I shot this Saturday was all
    shot in RAW and post-processed in CS3. I shot it Saturday and I had the
    images all finished and posted to the web before supper time Sunday. Post
    processing RAW is not that big of a deal.

    See: http://www.JustPhotos.ca/galleries/photojournalism/sjrfd/training/
     
    Mardon, Dec 17, 2007
    #3
  4. Mardon wrote:

    > I agree it sure sounds like a troll but I'll answer anyway. I started
    > shooting RAW in 2002 with a Canon G2. Then went to RAW with a 20D
    > and now shooting RAW with a 1DIII. I detest shooting jpeg since I
    > have to get everything right at shutter-release time. I'd rather set
    > the white-balance and level my horizons during PPing while sitting in
    > a warm comfortable chair than do it out in the freezing cold where I
    > often shoot. For example, the helicopter rappelling training I shot
    > this Saturday was all shot in RAW and post-processed in CS3. I shot
    > it Saturday and I had the images all finished and posted to the web
    > before supper time Sunday. Post processing RAW is not that big of a
    > deal.


    Two things. No disrespect meant. One, the Mk III is a highly capable
    camera that can nail it just about perfect every time when shooting JPG. If
    you don't believe me put RAW on CF and JPG on SD and compare the two. Two,
    while these snaps are nice, they aren't totally off the wall overly
    demanding of equipment and/or skill. To me, for these, it is a total waste
    of time post processing them. Time is money; you got a sweet $4,000 dSLR
    that is capable of outstanding results shooting in any mode. It's a waste
    of time wasting time for the sake of wasting time. Nice pics and it looks
    like you had a great time shooting the event. Thanks for posting them.






    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Dec 17, 2007
    #4
  5. nick

    Mardon Guest

    Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:

    > total waste of time post processing them. Time is money


    Not for me. I'm retired. Computers and cameras are my fun time.
     
    Mardon, Dec 17, 2007
    #5
  6. "Mardon" <> wrote:
    > Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
    >
    >> total waste of time post processing them. Time is money

    >
    > Not for me. I'm retired. Computers and cameras are my fun time.


    Better "wasting" time on the keepers after the fact than not getting any
    keepers at all because you were too busy figuring out the white balance.

    I guess that's why Rita has never shown us a single photo worth looking at;
    s/he doesn't get any keepers. But all the rejects have great white balance.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Dec 17, 2007
    #6
  7. Mardon wrote:

    >> total waste of time post processing them. Time is money

    >
    > Not for me. I'm retired. Computers and cameras are my fun time.


    That changes everything and explains a lot. Anyway, keep busy and enjoy
    yourself. Have fun with the old Mk III.





    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Dec 17, 2007
    #7
  8. nick

    ray Guest

    On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 00:24:07 +0000, nick wrote:

    > Heres a thought for all you people thinking that you should switch to RAW.
    > My close friend who is a keen photographer always works with raw. I work
    > with JPEG and think I'm generally careless and sloppy with my work. I'm
    > quite jealous of his more scientific approach. After not having seen him for
    > 6 months I went round for a visit and found him quite despondent about his
    > photography. He had hundreds of raw images and no time to process them.
    > Now he avoids taking more photos until what he calls his "workload" is done.
    > "workload" meaning processing his raw images.
    >
    > I'm still whizzing around taking loads of photos and enjoying my
    > photography... Just how many people that work with raw will do so for more
    > than 6 months before having had enough of spending endless nights in front
    > of a computer fidling around with raw images that did'nt need any fiddling
    > done to them?


    He may not know it, but it is a relatively trivial job to do batch
    conversions of all the raw files to jpeg. I routinely do that to see how
    many of them I want to fiddle with. And when I do start processing, I can
    run them all through ufraw rather rapidly making basic changes to exposure
    etc.
     
    ray, Dec 17, 2007
    #8
  9. nick

    Matt Ion Guest

    Mardon wrote:
    > John McWilliams <> wrote:
    >
    >> nick wrote:
    >>> Heres a thought for all you people thinking that you should switch to
    >>> RAW. My close friend who is a keen photographer always works with
    >>> raw. I work

    >
    >> C'mon, "nick" . This is so unoriginal; it's been done many times at
    >> first by clever Trolls, years later, by simpletons.
    >> You're not a simpleton, are you?

    >
    > I agree it sure sounds like a troll but I'll answer anyway. I started
    > shooting RAW in 2002 with a Canon G2. Then went to RAW with a 20D and now
    > shooting RAW with a 1DIII. I detest shooting jpeg since I have to get
    > everything right at shutter-release time. I'd rather set the white-balance
    > and level my horizons during PPing while sitting in a warm comfortable
    > chair than do it out in the freezing cold where I often shoot. For
    > example, the helicopter rappelling training I shot this Saturday was all
    > shot in RAW and post-processed in CS3. I shot it Saturday and I had the
    > images all finished and posted to the web before supper time Sunday. Post
    > processing RAW is not that big of a deal.
    >
    > See: http://www.JustPhotos.ca/galleries/photojournalism/sjrfd/training/


    The solution is simple: shoot RAW with embedded large/fine JPEG. Most
    viewers will allow you to work with just the JPEG, which speeds things
    up, and you still have the RAW available if you need to do any
    high-level tweaking.

    Seriously, some people just have to make things SO complicated.
     
    Matt Ion, Dec 17, 2007
    #9
  10. nick

    BF Guest

    nick wrote:
    > Heres a thought for all you people thinking that you should switch to RAW.
    > My close friend who is a keen photographer always works with raw. I work
    > with JPEG and think I'm generally careless and sloppy with my work. I'm
    > quite jealous of his more scientific approach. After not having seen him for
    > 6 months I went round for a visit and found him quite despondent about his
    > photography. He had hundreds of raw images and no time to process them.
    > Now he avoids taking more photos until what he calls his "workload" is done.
    > "workload" meaning processing his raw images.
    >
    > I'm still whizzing around taking loads of photos and enjoying my
    > photography... Just how many people that work with raw will do so for more
    > than 6 months before having had enough of spending endless nights in front
    > of a computer fidling around with raw images that did'nt need any fiddling
    > done to them?
    >
    >

    I only shoot RAW. I consider myself a good amateur photographer. If I
    can get professional results and concentrated on getting a great shot
    instead of exposure, white balance, etc., why would I not shoot RAW. I
    know the pros don't like to hear that but I shot my son's wedding and
    after processing the RAW images I got professional results and it didn't
    cost my son and daughter-in-law anything. Yes it took some time but the
    results were well worth the effort.
     
    BF, Dec 17, 2007
    #10
  11. Matt Ion <> wrote:
    >
    >The solution is simple: shoot RAW with embedded
    >large/fine JPEG. Most viewers will allow you to work
    >with just the JPEG, which speeds things up, and you
    >still have the RAW available if you need to do any
    >high-level tweaking.
    >
    >Seriously, some people just have to make things SO complicated.


    I shoot RAW+JPEG, but the JPEG is smallest most basic
    the camera will do. I want it to take less space and
    less time. It is used to preview, and doesn't need to
    be perfection. It also frees up time while shooting to
    allow concentration on composition and "art", rather
    then technical details such as the amount of sharpening,
    white balance, contrast and other conversion parameters.

    After the images are previewed, selected keepers are
    processed from RAW. Note that it might be that each is
    individually processed (granted that is a time consuming
    venture), but it can also very easily be that virtually
    everything is close enough to being the same that they
    are all done with a batch process.

    Perhaps too complicated for some, but it does provide
    the results required by a perfectionist.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Dec 17, 2007
    #11
  12. nick

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article <>, nick
    <> wrote:

    > Heres a thought for all you people thinking that you should switch to RAW.
    > My close friend who is a keen photographer always works with raw. I work
    > with JPEG and think I'm generally careless and sloppy with my work. I'm
    > quite jealous of his more scientific approach. After not having seen him for
    > 6 months I went round for a visit and found him quite despondent about his
    > photography. He had hundreds of raw images and no time to process them.
    > Now he avoids taking more photos until what he calls his "workload" is done.
    > "workload" meaning processing his raw images.
    >
    > I'm still whizzing around taking loads of photos and enjoying my
    > photography... Just how many people that work with raw will do so for more
    > than 6 months before having had enough of spending endless nights in front
    > of a computer fidling around with raw images that did'nt need any fiddling
    > done to them?


    If you're spending a lot of time fixing RAW images, you need to learn
    how to get it right in the camera.

    Using PhotoShop, I open the RAW image, bring up the shadows and *maybe*
    tweak exposure a little. Sharpen and save. That's it.
     
    Mr. Strat, Dec 17, 2007
    #12
  13. nick

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article <>, nick
    <> wrote:

    > I'm still whizzing around taking loads of photos and enjoying my
    > photography... Just how many people that work with raw will do so for more
    > than 6 months before having had enough of spending endless nights in front
    > of a computer fidling around with raw images that did'nt need any fiddling
    > done to them?


    Considering the countless hours I spent through the years in the
    darkroom, a minimal amount of time at the computer is nothing.
     
    Mr. Strat, Dec 17, 2007
    #13
  14. "Mr. Strat" <> wrote:
    >
    >If you're spending a lot of time fixing RAW images, you need to learn
    >how to get it right in the camera.


    Missing shots while wasting time figuring out how to
    "get it right in the camera" is the reason you can't
    shoot children, or for that matter a sunset, and get
    anything worth the time you take.

    >Using PhotoShop, I open the RAW image, bring up the shadows and *maybe*
    >tweak exposure a little. Sharpen and save. That's it.


    Huh? It thought you said you get it right in the camera?
    Obviously you don't.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Dec 17, 2007
    #14
  15. nick

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article <>, Floyd L. Davidson
    <> wrote:

    > Missing shots while wasting time figuring out how to
    > "get it right in the camera" is the reason you can't
    > shoot children, or for that matter a sunset, and get
    > anything worth the time you take.


    I can photograph children just fine and still get it right.

    But then, it would seem that you've never created a decent image. I
    guess it's easier to spout technobabble rather than create a good
    image.

    > >Using PhotoShop, I open the RAW image, bring up the shadows and *maybe*
    > >tweak exposure a little. Sharpen and save. That's it.

    >
    > Huh? It thought you said you get it right in the camera?
    > Obviously you don't.


    Shadow levels are always going to have to be raised when shooting RAW
    with the Canon, or at least this one. Exposure tweaks are rare because
    I'm so good. Sharpening? Well, you gotta do it regardless.
     
    Mr. Strat, Dec 17, 2007
    #15
  16. nick wrote:
    > Heres a thought for all you people thinking that you should switch to
    > RAW. My close friend who is a keen photographer always works with
    > raw. I work with JPEG and think I'm generally careless and sloppy
    > with my work. I'm quite jealous of his more scientific approach.
    > After not having seen him for 6 months I went round for a visit and
    > found him quite despondent about his photography. He had hundreds of
    > raw images and no time to process them. Now he avoids taking more
    > photos until what he calls his "workload" is done. "workload" meaning
    > processing his raw images.
    > I'm still whizzing around taking loads of photos and enjoying my
    > photography... Just how many people that work with raw will do so
    > for more than 6 months before having had enough of spending endless
    > nights in front of a computer fidling around with raw images that
    > did'nt need any fiddling done to them?


    I come from a slide-photography background, so I do try and get it right
    in the camera, and I don't shoot RAW. Similar reasons. Getting the
    moment or capturing the essence of an occasion is what matters to me - I'm
    not after studio quality posed images.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 17, 2007
    #16
  17. nick

    nick Guest

    "John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > nick wrote:
    >> Heres a thought for all you people thinking that you should switch to
    >> RAW. My close friend who is a keen photographer always works with raw.
    >> I work

    > C'mon, "nick" . This is so unoriginal; it's been done many times at first
    > by clever Trolls, years later, by simpletons.
    >
    > You're not a simpleton, are you?



    Logged on and see a huge list of replies whcih I wil read in a minute.
    Unoriginal and done first by clerver trolls my posting may be, but it seems
    to have got a response. Actually, I meant what I said about raw and jpeg
    causing me a heacache when it comes to chosing. I think raw may be past
    its use by date if the dramatic drop in referecnes to it in the glossy photo
    mags is aanything to go by.
     
    nick, Dec 17, 2007
    #17
  18. nick

    tomm42 Guest

    On Dec 16, 7:24 pm, "nick" <> wrote:
    > Heres a thought for all you people thinking that you should switch to RAW.
    > My close friend who is a keen photographer always works with raw. I work
    > with JPEG and think I'm generally careless and sloppy with my work. I'm
    > quite jealous of his more scientific approach. After not having seen him for
    > 6 months I went round for a visit and found him quite despondent about his
    > photography. He had hundreds of raw images and no time to process them.
    > Now he avoids taking more photos until what he calls his "workload" is done.
    > "workload" meaning processing his raw images.
    >
    > I'm still whizzing around taking loads of photos and enjoying my
    > photography... Just how many people that work with raw will do so for more
    > than 6 months before having had enough of spending endless nights in front
    > of a computer fidling around with raw images that did'nt need any fiddling
    > done to them?



    Shooting jpeg will give you a good result, but will never get beyond a
    certain point, if you want the best results the shooting RAW and
    processing at 16bits (yes I know it is only 12 or 14 bits in the
    camera). Your best photos will be nailing every thing, just like with
    jpeg, which also minimizes your processing time. I always look at RAW
    as developing your film. The best exposures would print the best but
    you still had the opportunity to customize the processing. After all
    jpeg gives what the manufacturer thainks is appropriate for the given
    camera, you can modify this by in camera settings but you get far more
    flexibility with RAW, and high bit levels gives even more.

    Tom
     
    tomm42, Dec 17, 2007
    #18
  19. nick

    Ali Guest

    It's a valid point, however please remember that he could always batch
    process his RAW images if time was such a big issue.


    "nick" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Heres a thought for all you people thinking that you should switch to RAW.
    > My close friend who is a keen photographer always works with raw. I work
    > with JPEG and think I'm generally careless and sloppy with my work. I'm
    > quite jealous of his more scientific approach. After not having seen him
    > for 6 months I went round for a visit and found him quite despondent about
    > his photography. He had hundreds of raw images and no time to process
    > them. Now he avoids taking more photos until what he calls his "workload"
    > is done. "workload" meaning processing his raw images.
    >
    > I'm still whizzing around taking loads of photos and enjoying my
    > photography... Just how many people that work with raw will do so for
    > more than 6 months before having had enough of spending endless nights in
    > front of a computer fidling around with raw images that did'nt need any
    > fiddling done to them?
    >
     
    Ali, Dec 17, 2007
    #19
  20. nick wrote:
    > "John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> nick wrote:
    >>> Heres a thought for all you people thinking that you should switch to
    >>> RAW. My close friend who is a keen photographer always works with raw.
    >>> I work

    >> C'mon, "nick" . This is so unoriginal; it's been done many times at first
    >> by clever Trolls, years later, by simpletons.
    >>
    >> You're not a simpleton, are you?

    >
    >
    > Logged on and see a huge list of replies whcih I wil read in a minute.
    > Unoriginal and done first by clerver trolls my posting may be, but it seems
    > to have got a response. Actually, I meant what I said about raw and jpeg
    > causing me a heacache when it comes to chosing. I think raw may be past
    > its use by date if the dramatic drop in referecnes to it in the glossy photo
    > mags is aanything to go by.
    >


    number of replies means squat. If you are serious, Googling this group
    alone will give lots of info.

    good luck.

    --

    john mcwilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Dec 17, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. kl
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    961
    Martin Brown
    Nov 12, 2003
  2. certsnsearches

    Exiff-jpeg and jpeg

    certsnsearches, Jan 7, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    3,329
    Jim Townsend
    Jan 7, 2004
  3. Amit
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,310
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)
    Mar 17, 2006
  4. Conrad

    jpeg and jpeg 2000

    Conrad, Jan 25, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    72
    Views:
    1,748
    Barry Pearson
    Feb 3, 2007
  5. Trellis Management
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    496
    Wallace D.
    Oct 1, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page