Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


PRIZES GALORE! Enter The ePHOTOzine Exclusive Christmas Prize Draw; Over £10,000 Worth of Prizes! Plus A Gift For Everybody On Christmas Day!

Raw vs JPEG Is it worth the extra space and effort?


FionaB 8 9 United Kingdom
27 Jul 2014 11:58AM
probably already been said but it depends what you are doing with your images, i like processing mine and using different techniques and RAW is almost essential for weddings ( i have never shot a wedding with the groom being in a suit but there is still a black jacket to contrast with a white dress. but if you are pretty much happy with what you have got coming out the printer as it is then i dont see the point of you changing.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

petebfrance 2 1.3k United Kingdom
27 Jul 2014 12:07PM

Quote:..... I use 3 USB hard disks for backup so I don't see any problem. I don't just back up original files, but submissions to agencies and 'all files' as well. For all files I use Microsoft free issue "Sync Toy".

Thanks - that's interesting. I'm currently doing the task manually and it's a bit of a pain, so will have a look at Sync Toy.
redhed17 9 679 England
27 Jul 2014 12:17PM

Quote:I feel sure that more than a "minority" of people do not use RAW alone, but perhaps without a survey of all photographers, we will never know. So lets not be too critical of those who may well be in the majority, those who process .jpg files, or "RAW + jpg."



I think the majority of people will use Jpeg only, so RAW or RAW+Jpeg users are definitely in the minority. And of those I would think RAW+Jpeg would be a minority. Does it matter? Not really. :-/

Of course, everyone is free to do whatever they want, whatever works for them, however I reserve the right to point out when I think people may not be getting the best out of the things they are doing, in my opinion. It is a way to learn, but it is my opinion for some things. What works for me may work for you, it may not.

With some things technical things though, one format is definitely has advantages over the other in some circumstances, but all you can do is inform and allow people to make the choice that is right for them. And obviously with RAW+Jpeg you theoretically get the best of both, but there are implications to doing that which people are right to point out, because a user may not have know the negatives of what they are doing, or may know and accept them, but others may not. As long as you know all the options, you can make an informed decision on what is right for you. Smile

That is why although RAW and/or Jpeg threads come up all the time, and people may get fed up of them, hopefully someone will find them useful, and even those that think they know it all may find something they didn't know occasionally.

And if you are fed up with this subject btw then pass on by and don't contribute, your negativity will not be missed. Wink lol
Chris_L e2
1.5k United Kingdom
27 Jul 2014 12:44PM

Quote:So lets not be too critical of those who may well be in the majority, those who process .jpg files, or "RAW + jpg

I didn't think anybody had been. Whatever works for you works for you. Anybody who has never tried raw owes it to themselves to try it out especially if they feel their results aren't as good as they'd like. LR has a working free trial period and for Canon this is free and has undergone a major overhaul

Here's that video , that ended up resurrecting this thread, in case you missed it




28 Jul 2014 1:44AM
Minority, majority... Are we talking politics here or trying to elect/appoint the ruling format? Till today I thought that photography, being an art, was deeply individual, almost intimate, business of the artist.
And still do... And it is up to the artist to choose the subject, the canvas,and the brushSmile
ade_mcfade e2
10 15.1k 216 England
28 Jul 2014 8:12AM

Quote:I feel sure that more than a "minority" of people do not use RAW alone, but perhaps without a survey of all photographers, we will never know. So lets not be too critical of those who may well be in the majority, those who process .jpg files, or "RAW + jpg."


Surely it is damaging to teach new photographers bad habits, like shooting RAW+JPG ?

Get people into the good habit of shooting RAW from the off....

RAW+JPG is a bit like buying a car and a set of seats for the car....

when you look inside the car, you'll see that the car already has seats!! You'll realize that you've totally wasted your money on the extra seats.

Ok - to get to the seats you need to open the door and get inside, so you need to learn how a key works, and maybe how to put on a seat belt - how to move it forward to reach the pedals and maybe adjust the height....

But once you've sussed that... bingo
mikehit e2
5 7.1k 11 United Kingdom
28 Jul 2014 12:14PM
[cheeky mode on]
Hmm. I wonder how many people who advocate 'learn photography using film. Learn how to do it properly in camera' became 'shoot raw for maximum data' when it should be 'shoot jpeg so you learn how to do it properly in camera instead of using software to correct your errors'

[/cheeky mode off]
779HOB 2 1.1k United Kingdom
28 Jul 2014 12:30PM
Deciding to shoot RAW or Jpeg is like deciding which lens to use. Some jobs require Jpeg because you don't have time to process RAW. I prefer to shoot RAW but don't always have the luxury.
Chris_L e2
1.5k United Kingdom
28 Jul 2014 12:37PM
You can shoot everything in automatic mode and let the camera make every decision for you apart from composition.

You can shoot everything manually making all decisions yourself.

Or you can do something in between.


Quote:shoot jpeg so you learn how to do it properly in camera instead of using software to correct your errors
You're not necessarily correcting errors, you're doing your own processing instead of hoping the automatic machine does a good job.
mikehit e2
5 7.1k 11 United Kingdom
28 Jul 2014 1:30PM

Quote:
shoot jpeg so you learn how to do it properly in camera instead of using software to correct your errors You're not necessarily correcting errors, you're doing your own processing instead of hoping the automatic machine does a good job.



If you read the whole paragraph instead of that phrase in isolation you will see what I was getting at.
ade_mcfade e2
10 15.1k 216 England
28 Jul 2014 1:47PM
The world has moved on

in 2003 when I got my first DSLR, shooting RAW was an issue - not that many affordable programs to edit them, slow CF cards meant you could only shoot about 5 files and you'd get buffering etc...

These are issues of the past

If your workflow is such that JPG is a faster solution than RAW, you should look at your Workflow - NOW!
ade_mcfade e2
10 15.1k 216 England
28 Jul 2014 1:57PM
(note that with a program like Irfanview you can instantly create JPG "previews" or "proofs" from the RAW file and email them to your picture editor... )
Chris_L e2
1.5k United Kingdom
28 Jul 2014 2:27PM
My bad Mike, I wasn't really quoting you but the kind of people who say what you quoted, sorry about that.
28 Jul 2014 3:28PM

Quote:(note that with a program like Irfanview you can instantly create JPG "previews" or "proofs" from the RAW file and email them to your picture editor... )


Tried to compare them to full size off-camera JPGs? ...Sorry, forgot - you don't take JPGsWink
779HOB 2 1.1k United Kingdom
28 Jul 2014 4:16PM

Quote:If your workflow is such that JPG is a faster solution than RAW, you should look at your Workflow - NOW!


Its not really workflow. It's location and time. A few weekends ago I was on Dartmoor shooting a cycling event for a company. 3000 riders and I was at two locations. There were 5 photographers in total, not that that matters here. We are expected to get at least 2 shots of each rider at each location. I took in total 8000 photos. We all met in a lay-by and took the cards out of our cameras and copied the photos over to the bosses laptop. Had a coffee and I drove home. Now there's no way the 52,000 photos taken on that day could have been processed from RAW, let along the storage. Another example would be football matches. You are sat at the side of the pitch, maybe in the rain, with two cameras and a laptop. In the first 10 minutes of the game you should have filed at least 6 photos and then as the action happens you snap, take the card from camera to laptop, edit (crop a little, resize, maybe auto contrast) caption and file, while you are keeping an eye on the game and still shooting. If you're lucky its dry, if not you are huddled under a coat trying to keep your laptop dry.

In those cases RAW is not the right choice.

I can edit a RAW file in about 5 minutes but I can edit the jpeg in the above football situation in about 1 minute including captioning.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.