What do you use most Raw or Jpeg

jsherman999 · 03-22-2010, 01:36 PM

Estimates, of all the cameras I've owned or now own:

K100DS: raw 30% jpeg 70%
K20D: raw 5% jpeg 95%
D80: raw 20% jpeg 80%
D90: raw 10% jpeg 90%
D700: raw 40% jpeg 60%

I shoot raw more with the D700 than the D90 in order to take advantage of the extreme DR range, especially with highlight recovery. On my D90/K20D, there usually isn't enough to recover to make a difference or really add much to the image aesthetically.

.

Marc Sabatella · 03-22-2010, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by Itai

Get it right in the camera and there is no need to use anything but JPEG.

Sorry, as many times as this discussion has been had before, I can't let this pass. The above is true if you're always satisfied with the results obtainable using only the controls provided by the camera and don't wish to do PP, but wanting to do PP does *not* mean you didn't get it "right" in camera. It may mean you want a result the camera is incapable of producing on its own (custom curve, more control over sharpening or NR than the camera provides etc). I'm not saying you *must* shoot JPEG to do these things, but that RAW *can* produce advantages that will be visible to sufficiently discerning eyes.

Deni · 03-23-2010, 01:02 AM

Strictly RAW in my K100D (don't like to bother about setting correct whit balance) and much easier to correct exposure.

distudio · 03-23-2010, 04:59 AM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

Sorry, as many times as this discussion has been had before, I can't let this pass. The above is true if you're always satisfied with the results obtainable using only the controls provided by the camera and don't wish to do PP, but wanting to do PP does *not* mean you didn't get it "right" in camera. It may mean you want a result the camera is incapable of producing on its own (custom curve, more control over sharpening or NR than the camera provides etc). I'm not saying you *must* shoot JPEG to do these things, but that RAW *can* produce advantages that will be visible to sufficiently discerning eyes.

I'd sort of miss gamma control if I was stuck shooting jpg only.

Hemi345 · 03-23-2010, 07:52 AM

99.9% jpeg. After reading this thread, you'd think PP wasn't an option with jpeg if you didn't know any better...

benjikan · 03-23-2010, 09:36 AM

RAW, all of the time.

JeffJS · 03-23-2010, 09:47 AM

RAW.. See sig for cameras..

rustynail925 · 03-23-2010, 09:57 AM

Which is better for processing ACR or Lightroom?

Marc Sabatella · 03-23-2010, 11:49 AM

LR is more suited for processing large numbers of files quicky using a relatively small number of tools, Photohop for spending longer and doing more using more tools with each individual file.

filmamigo · 03-23-2010, 12:10 PM

*ist DL = 99.8% RAW (.PEF)
K10D = 99.8% RAW (.DNG)
K20D = 99.8% RAW (.DNG)

There is absolutely no reason to shoot JPEG. Using any of the most common image organizing/editing programs, RAW is as simple to use as JPEG. DNG is even better than PEF because I don't even have to wait for software companies to update their support for RAW in new cameras... DNG is nearly as universal as JPEG.

Shooting RAW almost 100% of the time, I have used Picassa (PC), iPhoto, Lightroom and Aperture. They all open RAW in a completely transparent manner (i.e. I never even notice that they are RAW and not JPEG, the program behaves the same way.) The only difference for me between RAW and JPEG is that when I grab the Exposure slider or change the White Balance, the results from the RAW file are smooth and don't immediately degrade.

The only time I shoot .JPG are those very few moments when I want to hand my memory card to someone else or immediately use the pictures right off the card. For example, I gave a friend a digital picture frame, and at his birthday party I shot onto a spare SD card with the camera set to low-res JPG. At the end of the birthday party, I plugged the SD card into the picture frame, and voila, his birthday present came pre-loaded with pictures from his birthday party.

distudio · 03-23-2010, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Hemi345

99.9% jpeg. After reading this thread, you'd think PP wasn't an option with jpeg if you didn't know any better...

Of course PP is an option using JPG files but no one can pretend it's near as effective.

Diffusion · 03-23-2010, 02:48 PM

RAW, predominantly that I cannot be bothered to set a WB manually, or to trust auto WB. In RAW, I just change it later without loss of quality.
I shot one day with JPEG, lost some nice pictures because I was still on Tungsten in daylight, had a nice bluecast and could recover only to BW.
Yes, a user error, but RAW is just more convenient (for me).
K10D and K-x

alexeyga · 03-23-2010, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by rustynail925

Which is better for processing ACR or Lightroom?

I'd give it to ACR

It's the same program in the essence, in a slightly different (and perhaps more "average user friendly) "wrapping"... I was using LR for a good while, but I never liked the whole "database" idea as I like to keep things simple and direct... So eventually i've decided to give ACR a try and never looked back...

B.t.w. using ACR doesn't mean that you have to finish-up every single image in P-Shop... Straight JPG output from ACR is already much better than OOC JPG, but if RAW for you is only the beginning... P-Shop does come handy...

B.tw.-2 I've actually found ACR much better in batch processing as well...

snostorm · 03-23-2010, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by distudio

Of course PP is an option using JPG files but no one can pretend it's near as effective.

Very true.

But then, if you've set up the camera to shoot what you see, and you get the exposure right, or at least close, you don't need the wider range of adjustments offered by RAW processing. . . and the time and space saving (both shooting and processing) add up.

I'm a birder, and shoot over 40K images per season (which would be 560GB in RAW). I have, on occasion shot upwards of 1000 shots in one session (this WAS unusual -- the public introduction of the new polar bear baby at the zoo, and no, I wasn't "machine-gunning" -- mostly individual shots over a span of about 3 hours).

Different people have different needs. I don't get paid to shoot, and don't want it. With a well exposed jpg, with settings I like, RAW would only get me marginally better images (as Mark stated -- visible to a discerning eye) -- and in prints any differences would probably not be distinguishable. RAW takes the fun out of shooting for me, and I don't need it.

Don't get me wrong, I like quality and detail is all important for my type of shooting. Here are a few examples in case you might think that I'm just talking snapshots. The originals are obviously a lot better:

Scott

egordon99 · 03-26-2010, 07:15 AM

First off, your camera ONLY shoots RAW. When you select JPG, the camera takes the RAW data and pipes it into its on-board JPG processor to generate the JPG "image" to save to the card.

When you shoot RAW, the RAW "data" goes directly to the card and is not an image.

To generate an image, you use a RAW processor (software on your PC) which turns the data into a viewable image, much like the camera's JPG processor. The difference is that YOU have complete control over the image generation process. You can change the white balance, adjust the contrast/brightness/black point/etc....

So you can leave these decisions up to the camera's little processor (and hope it makes the right decisions since they are irreversible), or save the decisions for later where YOU have complete control over it.

03-23-2010, 12:10 PM	#40
filmamigo Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 797	I love DNG *ist DL = 99.8% RAW (.PEF) K10D = 99.8% RAW (.DNG) K20D = 99.8% RAW (.DNG) There is absolutely no reason to shoot JPEG. Using any of the most common image organizing/editing programs, RAW is as simple to use as JPEG. DNG is even better than PEF because I don't even have to wait for software companies to update their support for RAW in new cameras... DNG is nearly as universal as JPEG. Shooting RAW almost 100% of the time, I have used Picassa (PC), iPhoto, Lightroom and Aperture. They all open RAW in a completely transparent manner (i.e. I never even notice that they are RAW and not JPEG, the program behaves the same way.) The only difference for me between RAW and JPEG is that when I grab the Exposure slider or change the White Balance, the results from the RAW file are smooth and don't immediately degrade. The only time I shoot .JPG are those very few moments when I want to hand my memory card to someone else or immediately use the pictures right off the card. For example, I gave a friend a digital picture frame, and at his birthday party I shot onto a spare SD card with the camera set to low-res JPG. At the end of the birthday party, I plugged the SD card into the picture frame, and voila, his birthday present came pre-loaded with pictures from his birthday party.

03-23-2010, 02:58 PM	#43
alexeyga Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 838	Originally posted by rustynail925 Which is better for processing ACR or Lightroom? I'd give it to ACR It's the same program in the essence, in a slightly different (and perhaps more "average user friendly) "wrapping"... I was using LR for a good while, but I never liked the whole "database" idea as I like to keep things simple and direct... So eventually i've decided to give ACR a try and never looked back... B.t.w. using ACR doesn't mean that you have to finish-up every single image in P-Shop... Straight JPG output from ACR is already much better than OOC JPG, but if RAW for you is only the beginning... P-Shop does come handy... B.tw.-2 I've actually found ACR much better in batch processing as well... Last edited by alexeyga; 03-23-2010 at 03:21 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
[K10D RAW+]Exposure difference between RAW and JPEG	sterretje	Pentax DSLR Discussion	9	04-13-2010 02:06 AM
JPEG, RAW, JPEG + RAW...huh?	Raptorman	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	14	12-22-2009 11:49 AM
RAW or JPEG	tkcampbell	Pentax DSLR Discussion	24	12-13-2009 04:31 PM
RAW + JPEG with JPEG on One Star quality	laissezfaire	Pentax DSLR Discussion	58	12-10-2008 02:42 PM
raw vs .jpeg ????	nathancombs	Post Your Photos!	1	10-15-2007 09:30 PM

03-22-2010, 01:36 PM	#31
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Estimates, of all the cameras I've owned or now own: K100DS: raw 30% jpeg 70% K20D: raw 5% jpeg 95% D80: raw 20% jpeg 80% D90: raw 10% jpeg 90% D700: raw 40% jpeg 60% I shoot raw more with the D700 than the D90 in order to take advantage of the extreme DR range, especially with highlight recovery. On my D90/K20D, there usually isn't enough to recover to make a difference or really add much to the image aesthetically. .

03-22-2010, 10:17 PM	#32
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by Itai Get it right in the camera and there is no need to use anything but JPEG. Sorry, as many times as this discussion has been had before, I can't let this pass. The above is true if you're always satisfied with the results obtainable using only the controls provided by the camera and don't wish to do PP, but wanting to do PP does not mean you didn't get it "right" in camera. It may mean you want a result the camera is incapable of producing on its own (custom curve, more control over sharpening or NR than the camera provides etc). I'm not saying you must shoot JPEG to do these things, but that RAW can produce advantages that will be visible to sufficiently discerning eyes.

03-23-2010, 01:02 AM	#33
Deni Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Tirana, Albania, South Europe, Planet Earth Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 621	Strictly RAW in my K100D (don't like to bother about setting correct whit balance) and much easier to correct exposure.

03-23-2010, 04:59 AM	#34
distudio Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sydney Photos: Albums Posts: 450	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella Sorry, as many times as this discussion has been had before, I can't let this pass. The above is true if you're always satisfied with the results obtainable using only the controls provided by the camera and don't wish to do PP, but wanting to do PP does not mean you didn't get it "right" in camera. It may mean you want a result the camera is incapable of producing on its own (custom curve, more control over sharpening or NR than the camera provides etc). I'm not saying you must shoot JPEG to do these things, but that RAW can produce advantages that will be visible to sufficiently discerning eyes. I'd sort of miss gamma control if I was stuck shooting jpg only.

03-23-2010, 07:52 AM	#35
Hemi345 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Colorado Posts: 127	99.9% jpeg. After reading this thread, you'd think PP wasn't an option with jpeg if you didn't know any better...

03-23-2010, 09:36 AM	#36
benjikan Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,308	RAW, all of the time.

03-23-2010, 09:47 AM	#37
JeffJS Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,484	RAW.. See sig for cameras..

03-23-2010, 09:57 AM	#38
rustynail925 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,551	Which is better for processing ACR or Lightroom?

03-23-2010, 11:49 AM	#39
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	LR is more suited for processing large numbers of files quicky using a relatively small number of tools, Photohop for spending longer and doing more using more tools with each individual file.

03-23-2010, 02:27 PM	#41
distudio Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sydney Photos: Albums Posts: 450	Originally posted by Hemi345 99.9% jpeg. After reading this thread, you'd think PP wasn't an option with jpeg if you didn't know any better... Of course PP is an option using JPG files but no one can pretend it's near as effective.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-23-2010, 02:48 PM	#42
Diffusion Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 74	RAW, predominantly that I cannot be bothered to set a WB manually, or to trust auto WB. In RAW, I just change it later without loss of quality. I shot one day with JPEG, lost some nice pictures because I was still on Tungsten in daylight, had a nice bluecast and could recover only to BW. Yes, a user error, but RAW is just more convenient (for me). K10D and K-x

03-23-2010, 04:12 PM	#44
snostorm Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA Posts: 1,535	Originally posted by distudio Of course PP is an option using JPG files but no one can pretend it's near as effective. Very true. But then, if you've set up the camera to shoot what you see, and you get the exposure right, or at least close, you don't need the wider range of adjustments offered by RAW processing. . . and the time and space saving (both shooting and processing) add up. I'm a birder, and shoot over 40K images per season (which would be 560GB in RAW). I have, on occasion shot upwards of 1000 shots in one session (this WAS unusual -- the public introduction of the new polar bear baby at the zoo, and no, I wasn't "machine-gunning" -- mostly individual shots over a span of about 3 hours). Different people have different needs. I don't get paid to shoot, and don't want it. With a well exposed jpg, with settings I like, RAW would only get me marginally better images (as Mark stated -- visible to a discerning eye) -- and in prints any differences would probably not be distinguishable. RAW takes the fun out of shooting for me, and I don't need it. Don't get me wrong, I like quality and detail is all important for my type of shooting. Here are a few examples in case you might think that I'm just talking snapshots. The originals are obviously a lot better: Scott

03-26-2010, 07:15 AM	#45
egordon99 Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Outside of Philly Posts: 1,561	First off, your camera ONLY shoots RAW. When you select JPG, the camera takes the RAW data and pipes it into its on-board JPG processor to generate the JPG "image" to save to the card. When you shoot RAW, the RAW "data" goes directly to the card and is not an image. To generate an image, you use a RAW processor (software on your PC) which turns the data into a viewable image, much like the camera's JPG processor. The difference is that YOU have complete control over the image generation process. You can change the white balance, adjust the contrast/brightness/black point/etc.... So you can leave these decisions up to the camera's little processor (and hope it makes the right decisions since they are irreversible), or save the decisions for later where YOU have complete control over it.