JPEGs - the choice of many pros?

Carabosse (e2 Member)

9

31 Oct 2006 - 12:00 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

I was doing a bit of video at a ceremony for winners of a garden competition in NW London and got chatting to the stills tog.

He'd been in the business for 30 odd years apparently and had been a full-time freelance pro for most of that time. A couple of interesting things emerged:

First of all he was using a Canon 5D with a (shock, horror) a Sigma lens. Secondly, and more interestingly and suprising to me, he was shooting JPEG... not full size JPEG, but JPEG at the reduced setting! He told me that he had enlarged up to A1 even from these smaller JPEGs.

I mentioned to him that I was a member of an internet photo site - and about the passion for using RAW amongst many of the amateurs and some pros on here. He chuckled and said he was well aware of the advantages of RAW but that he was far too busy earning a living from photography to afford the extra time involved, when he could get all the quality he and his clients needed from medium-sized JPEGs.

In fact he had stopped using the full-sized JPEGs on the 5D because of complaints from clients over the large file sizes!

I said I would relay his comments on here and see what observations people would have.

onewildworld

9

31 Oct 2006 - 12:09 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

Quote: the quality he and his clients needed from medium-sized JPEGs.

There's the important line in the whole post. If his clients are happy and he's making money, then it works for him. I know many wedding 'togs shooting on medium JPEG settings as it is as big as they need to print the sizes they offer - some of these guys are really good wedding 'togs, some just average, but they all make money from doing it and offer a good service.

At the end of the day, it's not the kit you use or the method you work in that matters, it's that you do what you do well and know why you do it.

As great as the advantages of RAW are, for some people, it's just not necessary.

Both RAW and JPEG have a place. You have to decide what works for you. Personally, I shoot RAW for most things, but JPEG for events.

Dave

Sezz (e2 Member)

7

31 Oct 2006 - 12:28 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

I've briefly dabbled with RAW also and yes it certainly takes more time and effort to convert, but even as a relative ameteur, I can instantly see the difference in detail and quality. I can't honestly say all my recent shots are taken in RAW but in my opinion I know they should be!

Sez

Stockczech

5

31 Oct 2006 - 6:43 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

Quote: At the end of the day, it's not the kit you use or the method you work in that matters, it's that you do what you do well and know why you do it.


Says it all really!

Sheila

ZenTog

10

31 Oct 2006 - 7:21 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

I used to only shoot in Raw before I started in the eventing business, and then time consideration came into play. When you have to process upto 5000images plus a day or 7-12gig over a long weekend, then it has to be medium sized jpeg. With the eos1dmk2 I can shoot both if I need to on two seperate cards, but to be honest at the top size I sell to surfers or horse people 15inx10in, then jpeg is fine.

If I was shooting for bill boards or much larger art prints, I wouldnt need to take as many images so I would go back to Raw shooting

keithh

8

31 Oct 2006 - 7:50 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

More and more journo's and sports togs are now shooting RAW as they can process them in batches at very comparative speeds. I shoot endless sports shots during the tennis grass season and not one is a jpg.

It's the idea of someone claiming to be too busy earning a living to be afford the extra time - he's taking shots at a local gardening award ceremony - how pushed can he be?..and medium sized jpg at A1....clearly his eyesight is going.

stevekhart

6

31 Oct 2006 - 8:05 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

I had a similar conversation with a freelancer about 2 months ago - he was shooting for the local advertiser. I was quite chuffed when he was struggling to get shots of the gallery; I showed him my efforts and he attempted to do the same (with his sigma lens on a d2x). He did say that the image sizes required did not amount to more than 10x8 and he felt that jpg was sufficient.

keithh

8

31 Oct 2006 - 8:10 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

I don't allow the 'image pipeline' to slow down and in fact the 1Ds processes RAW files quicker than it does large jpgs.

I can see of course the attraction of jp-gs for many people and why they'd use them...it's when the excuse given by people for dismissing them shows a clear lack of any understanding of them.

On one hand we have togs saying 'they don't need the file sizes' etc and on the other hand a magazine editor on this site claiming he needed huge files for mid market magazine pages.