Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-08-2015, 05:37 AM   #1
Veteran Member
kshapero's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: South Florida, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 437
I don't have time for RAW

Being lazy as I am or maybe I am just efficient, JPEG's seem to retain my various settings better than RAW when I look at them on my monitor. In JPEG sometimes I do a quick PP tweak and I am done. With RAW usually much more tweaking is needed (i.e. more time). What am I missing? I know it is good to have the RAW file, just in case, if I screw up the original JPEG, but in all my digital years, that is rare. So to be safe I shoot in DNG + JPEG, but I almost never touch the RAW file. I guess I am just a PP Poser.
Opposing views welcome, but be kind.

01-08-2015, 06:07 AM   #2
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,469
QuoteOriginally posted by kshapero Quote
What am I missing?
A coherent question.
01-08-2015, 06:18 AM   #3
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 4,833
IMO, jpg works well when you have good light. DNG starts to shine when you have harsh shadows, dim light, oddly colored artificial lighting, or other suboptimal conditions.

I always use DNG because so many of my images are in "bad" light. A single DNG with a little processing looks far better than the in-camera HDR.
01-08-2015, 06:33 AM   #4
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Lyngby, Copenhagen
Photos: Albums
Posts: 742
You're missing the experience of seeing horrible artifacts appear when altering a JPEG several exposure stops. That's what RAW is for.


That said, I shoot JPEG too. I've practiced a lot and I'm able to handle high-contrast scenes and most forms of odd lighting using the in-camera JPEG tools.
I switch to RAW if I'm in a hurry, or if the shot is really important for me (once in a lifetime opportunities), or if the lighting is extremely tricky (eg. stage lighting). But that almost never happens.


Regards,
--Anders.

01-08-2015, 07:39 AM   #5
Pentaxian
Oldbayrunner's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,661
QuoteOriginally posted by kshapero Quote
JPEG's seem to retain my various settings better than RAW when I look at them on my monitor. In JPEG sometimes I do a quick PP tweak and I am done. With RAW usually much more tweaking is needed (i.e. more time). What am I missing?
Don't forget some camera settings don't affect raw. In essence camera jpeg data is derived from your cameras built in jpeg processing engine utilizing the cameras basic and other selectable jpeg enhancements that are available in one's camera, coupled with the color space selected between Srgb or Adobe rgb opposed to minimal initial raw processing which usually appears duller and requires many more adjustments via ones raw processing software for enhancement.. It however does contain much more of the original picture capture data to work with vs jpeg. Then one has to factor in one's monitor type and how well it is calibrated for color. What it boils down to is ones preference, there is no right or wrong it strictly depends for ones original photo copies how much data one wants to have to work with initially. In either case it is advisable to work only with copies of the original photos for printing or internet posting leaving the original file undisturbed for later use.
01-08-2015, 08:21 AM   #6
Pentaxian
cxdoo's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Limassol, Cyprus
Posts: 1,149
I shoot RAW since ever. I like the comfort of not thinking about white balance and (more or less justified) feeling that I can fix the photo in PP better than if I shot jpeg.
With that said, the burden of fixing hundreds of photos after every trip or occasion is not something I like.


So what I do is, I shoot RAW, I import stuff to Lightroom and then I fix photos I like or plan to share, individually. The rest stays as is for me to rediscover (or delete) them later.
01-08-2015, 08:39 AM - 4 Likes   #7
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,325
QuoteOriginally posted by kshapero Quote
What am I missing?
You really aren't missing anything.
Shooting jpeg vs raw is akin to a TV dinner vs cooking from scratch. If you're happy with the recipe of the TV dinner (the firmware) go for it; but if you need more than a little salt, pepper, or a dash of ketchup (minor tweaks) to season it to your taste you need to cook the raw ingredients yourself.
Eat the TV dinner if you like it, but keep the fresh ingredients on hand just in case something goes wrong.


Last edited by Parallax; 01-08-2015 at 11:54 AM.
01-08-2015, 08:42 AM   #8
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,448
I don't know what type of photos you prefer to shoot and I don't know your target demographic, so it's tough to really get into the pros and cons of JPEG v RAW. I seem to recall an article posted in the forum around the time of the Winter Olympics that mentioned all the Getty photographers were shooting in JPEG because of file size and time restrictions. That's probably a good microcosm of the argument for JPEG. If you are a highly skilled photographer and only do minor PP and your target audience is small web size or low res images, then JPEG works out just fine. If you can consistently nail exposure and composition every time, JPEG probably works fine. The problem comes when you have to edit and re-edit a JPEG file. The lossy compression catches up to you very quickly.

I think more landscape shooters shoot RAW because typically we turn these prints into large wall size images (24x36 or even larger), we regularly have to compensate for high contrast and other difficult lighting situations, and often a lot of time is spent on PP "keepers'. RAW images allow us much more control and much more processing latitude than a JPEG would. We can tweak and re-tweak to our hearts content. We are also dealing with 14bit images that provide a lot more color depth than a JPEG. RAW is more for photographers who want finite control of their final image output, compared to allowing a software engineer to determine the final product.

I shoot exclusively RAW, because I started as a landscape shooter. I could never shoot JPEG because I would just not be happy with the final results. However, lately I've been shooting more and more sports and wildlife and I can see how shooting that genre in JPEG would work. Aside from a crop here and there and maybe some saturation and sharpening, there is not a lot of PP that needs/can be done.

So maybe JPEG fits your style and you aren't really missing anything. But I know for my landscape gallery, because I actually market my work and make a little extra income from it, the expected end results require RAW images out of the camera so that I can create a saleable final product. It's the desired end result and demographic that ultimately determines your processes.
01-08-2015, 09:03 AM   #9
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
blackcloudbrew's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cotati, California USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,460
There are many reasons pro and con for shooting either (just like the endless babble about cropped sensors versus full frame sensors). I read, I shot, I made my choice for my photography (which broke down to be about 95% raw and 5% jpeg). I do each for good reasons that work for me. The is no law that you have to shoot one or the other. I see the OP as making the determination for his photography. Go for it I say.
01-08-2015, 09:30 AM   #10
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,603
I went on a trip recently and for ease of use, I shot jpegs. For snap shots, it was probably easier. For landscape shots, there definitely is a lot less leeway when it comes to getting dynamic range out or even sharpening with jpegs than with RAW files. Not a huge deal, but definitely a difference.
01-08-2015, 09:32 AM   #11
Veteran Member
CarlJF's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Quebec City
Posts: 1,185
I couldn't say more than Nomadkng. Depending on what you want or expect for the final product, you may not miss anything by sticking to jpg. Raw and JPG both have their use depending on the situation.

I use both and I'm very happy that my camera has a JPG + DNG settings. For family pictures, I use JPG, since the results are good enough to print 4x6 ending up in the family albums. There's no need to spend a lot of time tweaking these pictures that have no interest for people outside of the family.

On the other end, for serious shooting, I always use the DNG for the keepers. I want to process them to my liking and show them at their best, which ususally isn't the generic JPG setting of the camera. I don't mind spending many hours working on a keeper. I also work a lot in B&W, and in this situation the results are just much better in DNG than in JPG. Once in B&W, the JPG only has 256 levels of gray, which makes it unsuitable for almost any post-processing other than cropping.

So, if you don't do, or don't want to do, a lot of post-processing whatever teh reason, JPG is the way to go. If you want to do a significant amount of PP, the raw file will ususally gives you better results and much more latitude on what you can do. When you do PP on a jpg, you usually can go too far from the original without being limited by compression artefacts.
01-08-2015, 09:33 AM - 1 Like   #12
Pentaxian
mikeSF's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Bay Area, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,612
there are many ways to use a camera, and unless you are shooting challenging light situations, you may be just fine using JPG output. Why complicate life unnecessarily?

Now please can we get back to FILTERS vs. NO FILTERS?


edit: I clicked on your gallery to see what kind of shooting you do, but most of the image placeholders did not have a visible image (at least for me). Among the three images I saw, this one would have benefited greatly from some highlight recovery and lifting of shadows using RAW:



there is also a purplish looking sky which could be adjusted a little better using RAW processing.
Just trying to give a practical example to your question.

Last edited by mikeSF; 01-08-2015 at 09:38 AM.
01-08-2015, 09:35 AM   #13
Pentaxian
cxdoo's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Limassol, Cyprus
Posts: 1,149
BTW, on my last trip I realized RAW+ is excellent when reviewing the day's shots on a crappy tablet/laptop. JPEGs for viewing on the spot, and RAWs for leisurely PP at home.
01-08-2015, 09:38 AM   #14
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,448
QuoteOriginally posted by mikeSF Quote
Now please can we get back to FILTERS vs. NO FILTERS?
troll...
01-08-2015, 09:43 AM - 1 Like   #15
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
acoufap's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,161
QuoteOriginally posted by kshapero Quote
Being lazy as I am or maybe I am just efficient, JPEG's seem to retain my various settings better than RAW when I look at them on my monitor. In JPEG sometimes I do a quick PP tweak and I am done. With RAW usually much more tweaking is needed (i.e. more time). What am I missing? I know it is good to have the RAW file, just in case, if I screw up the original JPEG, but in all my digital years, that is rare. So to be safe I shoot in DNG + JPEG, but I almost never touch the RAW file. I guess I am just a PP Poser.
Opposing views welcome, but be kind.
If you're satisfied with your JPEG images everything is fine.

But maybe some day you recognize that some of them could be better. Then it's good to have the raw files to create your images as you want them this time. The first time I really understood what could be meant with "better" and how to reach it in digital post processing was when I read George Barr's book "From Camera to Computer".
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
jpeg, photography, photoshop, pp, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why I don't love my Sirui T-025X (although it might be right for you) frogoutofwater Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 3 05-13-2014 06:27 AM
Got a Pentax ME, have a K-30. I'm thinking FA lenses for both but don't know Bootleg Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 8 12-03-2013 05:22 PM
I really don't have a clue Dave W Pentax DSLR Discussion 4 06-13-2013 06:03 PM
Money I don't have on things I don't need daacon Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 12-13-2007 10:04 PM
PPL's RAW>Tiff have combed histograms-K100D jpegs don't-Why? tlooknbill Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 2 11-19-2007 12:19 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:19 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top