Comments on: Why Shoot in Raw?

By: Loraine McCall

Loraine McCall — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 01:04:06 +0000

I personally prefer to use RAW because of my workflow. But I think this is as debatable as shooting digital or film. If the guy or gal behind the lens likes to process film then let them.

If in doubt try both and then choose what suits you best.

Good luck!

By: XposurePro Photography Community

XposurePro Photography Community — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 02:55:44 +0000

I can’t imagine not using RAW .. the speed and consistency of my studios workflow is completely dependent on the use of RAW. Without it I would have less clients, less profits and a larger workload.

By: Jay McIntyre

Jay McIntyre — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:44:29 +0000

Great discussion happening here for sure, I love the fried chicken analogy!

Only problem is what if you are a bad cook? for that it might be best to shoot JPEG + RAW until you know and understand how to ‘cook’

By: Anna

Anna — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:09:09 +0000

Great article you wrote here. It is a topic that actually a lot of people get confused about or just do not know the difference. For me I use to always shoot in JPEG but now I always shoot in RAW.

By: Lance

Lance — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 15:42:02 +0000

this article is so fraught with ignorance and misinformation, i’ve lost respect for S&P. you simply don’t know what you are talking about.

By: Jason

Jason — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 03:07:24 +0000

I think there is a great discussion happening here.

Here’s my personal opinion:
jpeg – is fried chicken bought from the local deli
RAW – is bringing home all of the ingredients, and cooking the chicken yourself.

There will always be a place & time for both.

I’m also a chef(hence the metaphor), and I choose to shoot strictly in RAW. When I first started out in photography I didn’t shoot RAW because I didn’t understand it. I look back at some of my past work and WISH I had shot in RAW!

I just love the fact that I can go back and “cook” the image a little more, or “season” it just a little differently.

In the end I think you have to do what you feel is best for YOUR work-flow.

But this is just my humble opinion.

By: Tim A.

Tim A. — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:50:28 +0000

RAW ultimately gives you absolute control. You are not relying on what your camera THINKS is the best way to handle the image. You do it all yourself. And, as many people pointed out, RAW allows you control exposure, white balance, and even vibrance much better than on a JPG where much of the image information is already lost and the image may be more compressed than you think.

In terms of when to use what, I think it’s quality vs. quantity. If you are just doing standard run of the mill family photos with minimal processing if any and you’re not as interested in quality as much as having a good set of images to preserve the memory of the event, then go for JPG. I’ve used JPG too when shooting marathons and such where I will hand off the files, up to 500 or 800 photos at a time, on a DVD to the people in charge of the race pretty much right after the race is done.

But if you’re going to be shooting a bunch but then weeding out only the best. Say at a 10% return rate and you will work on each one to get the best photo possible that fits your vision and your mind’s eye? Then you are doing a disservice if you shoot in anything other than RAW. It gives you the highest degree of control to achieve an end result that you truly want without any compromise.

So yeah. There’s a time and place for both!

By: sunith

sunith — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:18:52 +0000

I am surprised that you didn’t mention JPEG artifacts. That could be the single reason that anyone would want to use RAW.

By: Jorge

Jorge — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:15:59 +0000

I use LR 2.x. I also shoot jpeg+Raw. Yes. it does take down the capacity on my CF cards. Yes. Jpeg is fine for a good part of my stuff. However, my agents, and photo editors DEMAND I shoot the raw file. What happens is I send the jpg’s and they select the ones they wish to market. At that point, I then process the raw file and convert it to a 80mb TIFF and send that to them. So, now i have the jpg (4.5 to 7mb), the NEF (raw file 14mb), and now a TIFF file (about 70-80mb) Yeah. Lots of HD space required by me. I ALWAYS have my camera set to jpeg+raw. Never know when an image is a sell-able.
As I said above, I use Lightroom 2.x for it’s library, and the developing power but when I need to convert a NEF (raw) file I use Capture NX and then save it as a TIFF. i then import the TIFF into lightroom and have all three sitting there.
Hope that helps
J

By: Len Metcalf

Len Metcalf — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:22:31 +0000

Raw has advantages if you are doing big edits and changes. For example I convert most of my digital images into black and white ones. In doing so I apply quite heavy colour adjustments simulating black and white filters. With having greater bit depth I can make bigger changes without getting banding in my final images. If my output image was very similar to the capture jpg would be ok. One of the biggest differences is bit depth.