RAW v JPG ?

[Guest CJS2]

Just been doing a bit of surfing on the net and came across this sight by 'Ken Rockwell', He does various reviews etc, but this one on RAW v JAPG is interesting. He certainly does not mince his words, to the point of being brash?

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

 

Should provoke some comments?

 

. . . . I stand on the fance, these are the views of Ken Rockwell

 

CJS2

[Cameraman]

Sorry I became bored, he just goes on and on and links to rubbish.

 

Better answers can be gained by simply asking questions and discussing things on here.

 

I have the programmes for RAW, came with the camera software, but too complicated for me.

 

I normally shoot in JPEG, cos thats what suits me,(and struggle to edit) and in the final result its what I'm happy with that counts, if someone compliments me then its a nice bonus.

 

Maybe differant if I did it for a living, or for profit.

[Steve Randles]

Well he's certainly anti-RAW, thats for sure but keeps coming back and saying if thats for you then use it.

 

I wonder if he has done a shoot in RAW in the past and processed them incorrectly, deleted the originals and not had a good shot from it or something and therefore lost a contract/job or whatever.

 

90% of the time I shoot in JPEG, but the other 10% I shoot RAW. I'm convinced in the fact that RAW delivers more flexibility and will continue to grow in popularity. A good example of this would be the latest HDR photography, which does not work especially well with bracketed shots but with the ability to change the exposure in RAW software of any shot then multiple images for HDR use can be derived from one shot. This is just one avenue of exploration, I'm still very green when it comes to RAW photography but like to use it on days when the light is constantly changing, even in the time it takes to take two photos, the comfort factor being I can set the whitebalance of the RAW shot before anything else which is something you cannot in my view do that acurately within photoshop, although with some "piddling" it can be.

 

Its horses for courses really, and I still sit on the fence with this issue and continue to explore the RAW factor always covering myself by shooting every RAW shot in JPEG aswell. I think what I'm saying is that I know JPEG works and I'm treating RAW as a new tool, I'll keep testing and using it and find the better areas for myself where its best utilised.

 

Steve...

[Steve Randles]

I'm actually just reading on of the links he included in his RAW smackdown. its here http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/How_to/o_R...W_workflow.html and the site is called "Petteri's Pontifications". He mentions lots of stuff pro RAW and highlights something I meant to mention in my post above, thats one of workflow. Workflow is easy if your setup for it and actions and all kinds of automation can be used within Photoshop.

 

Indeed even in Adobes Camera RAW you can adjust or process one shot from a RAW shoot then save the settings for future use, even apply it to all RAW files in a given folder and a base start point.

 

Steve...

[MrWiggly]

I'm in the same position as Steve really ...

 

To feel safe and secure I do 99% of my images in JPEG format, because that is what I am familiar with.

 

I have "played around" with RAW images, and there's no doubt that the processes involved have a lot to offer, but it is still a bit of a "brain scrambler" area for me !!

[Cameraman]

90% of the time I shoot in JPEG, but the other 10% I shoot RAW.

 

Its horses for courses really, and I still sit on the fence with this issue and continue to explore the RAW factor always covering myself by shooting every RAW shot in JPEG aswell. I think what I'm saying is that I know JPEG works and I'm treating RAW as a new tool, I'll keep testing and using it and find the better areas for myself where its best utilised.

 

Indeed even in Adobes Camera RAW you can adjust or process one shot from a RAW shoot then save the settings for future use, even apply it to all RAW files in a given folder and a base start point.

 

I know what you mean, having taken ages to come over to digital, and now wishing I'd done it years ago. I'm still coming to grips with what you can do to JPEG, RAW just baffles me. The last part of your quote is way over my head.

 

I like to read whats said about the subject, so I can keep an open mind and when I'm more advanced perhaps dabble?

 

90% of the time I shoot by chance and luck, but the other 10% I shoot carefully and considered.

[Guest CJS2]

Its horses for courses really, and I still sit on the fence with this issue and continue to explore the RAW factor always covering myself by shooting every RAW shot in JPEG aswell. I think what I'm saying is that I know JPEG works and I'm treating RAW as a new tool, I'll keep testing and using it and find the better areas for myself where its best utilised.

 

Steve...

 

I only put this subject up as a discussion item, I have never taken a picture in RAW. However, I can see from Ken Rockwells point of view that, to use RAW on hundreds of shots in a session, the time taken to sort them out makes it comercialy impractical. Dont forget, as far as I know, all picture submisions to the media are required to be JPEG format. A truly ultimate picture, money/time no object maybe, Digital Vogue? Perhaps RAW is the only answer?

 

I can see that RAW appeals to Hobbyist, where time is no object. It certainly requires the appropriate camera. In another post of Kens, he talks of setting 'white balance' at WB-3, shooting through an 81A filter, in JPEG, giving him a straight out of camera picture he likes the balance of. I for one, am guilty of relying very heavily on the auto setting of my very capable SLR, using only a fraction of its true ability. Problem I find is, that I like to shoot it as it happens, warts and all, so I often dont have time to fiddle with the manual side of my camera. May be I should try harder?

 

[corydoras]

I'm not going to get too deeply involved in this, but if my camera had a RAW format I would use it. Sticking with jpeg when RAW is on offer is a bit like buying a Porche and running about in second gear.

[Cameraman]

I'm not going to get too deeply involved in this, but if my camera had a RAW format I would use it. Sticking with jpeg when RAW is on offer is a bit like buying a Porche and running about in second gear.

 

I see your point, but just because a car can do 160mph you dont have to do it, but its nice to have the choice.

[corydoras]

I see your point, but just because a car can do 160mph you dont have to do it, but its nice to have the choice.

No but it would be nice to cruise at 85. I would not use RAW for EVERY shot, the files are enormous. There is a half-way house. Most decent cameras support TIFF format. This is uncompressed so big files, but can be edited as easily as JPEG.