I shoot raw and have since day one... if JPEG is working for you I say continue to do it... I don't think if you feel that strongly anyone can say anything to change your mind.. Nothing wrong with it if you're happy.
Why Bother with RAW
- Thread starter Pistnbroke
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
sonya580
New member
I shoot RAW 99% of the time. Why? Because I can RETROACTIVELY control (change) any number of the shot's parameters. Things such as hue, contrast, brightness, exposure, sharpness, focus, alter backgrounds, dodge, burn etc., etc., etc. If it sounds like a lot of extra work...., it is. But it's worth the time to me to be able to create a picture that is exactly what I want. It may not be an accurate rendition of the scene, but it's my rendition and I'm willing to put in the time to make it happen. Old timers, shooting black and white, put in many hours in the darkroom customizing their prints. Shooting RAW is the same idea, different era, different technique.
Capturingtheunseen.com
Well-known member
Unless you know how to work with a raw image, stick to Jpeg. Wedding photography is one thing, wildlife photography is quite another challenge.
Capturingtheunseen.com
Well-known member
You can't make a bad image great, but you can make a bad image better....if it's a raw file.
kimball
Brian Kimball
I agree with others- if shooting JPG works for you, and you want to argue against raw, then stick with JPG. No need to switch.
But I will offer an analogy- shooting JPG is the film equivalent of developing at a 1-hour photo processor and then throwing away the negatives. Shooting raw is owning your own darkroom and having professional, creative control over the entire development & printing process.
The challenge: if you don't already have the post-processing skills and knowledge of how raw works (analogous to darkroom developing & printing skills), shooting raw can have a frustratingly steep learning curve that feels inefficient. That goes away with time as you learn your tools and their features that allow for quick development. But if you also don't have the patience to learn these skills... well, then I wouldn't recommend bothering.
Some may argue that they can post-process JPGs. True, to an extent. But that's analogous to taking a small print from that 1-hour photo lab to your local pro lab and asking them to copy it and enlarge it to 8x10. Just because you can do it doesn't mean it produces a quality image or is appropriate for a paid professional's workflow. An 8x10 print from the original negative will always be better and allow for more creative control, just as a JPG that you've produced from raw with your own skills will always match your creative vision better than a camera JPG will.
But I will offer an analogy- shooting JPG is the film equivalent of developing at a 1-hour photo processor and then throwing away the negatives. Shooting raw is owning your own darkroom and having professional, creative control over the entire development & printing process.
The challenge: if you don't already have the post-processing skills and knowledge of how raw works (analogous to darkroom developing & printing skills), shooting raw can have a frustratingly steep learning curve that feels inefficient. That goes away with time as you learn your tools and their features that allow for quick development. But if you also don't have the patience to learn these skills... well, then I wouldn't recommend bothering.
Some may argue that they can post-process JPGs. True, to an extent. But that's analogous to taking a small print from that 1-hour photo lab to your local pro lab and asking them to copy it and enlarge it to 8x10. Just because you can do it doesn't mean it produces a quality image or is appropriate for a paid professional's workflow. An 8x10 print from the original negative will always be better and allow for more creative control, just as a JPG that you've produced from raw with your own skills will always match your creative vision better than a camera JPG will.
D
Deleted member 115
Guest
As a purely hobby photographer, I am still learning this myself. ☝ Well said.
I photographed one wedding in my life, this year at the request of a friend. The lighting was challenging above my skill level. What helped me save some memories was RAW files and creating my own presets in LR to speed up the operation and keep the same feel throughout. But if someone is happy with jpeg more power to them.
I photographed one wedding in my life, this year at the request of a friend. The lighting was challenging above my skill level. What helped me save some memories was RAW files and creating my own presets in LR to speed up the operation and keep the same feel throughout. But if someone is happy with jpeg more power to them.
VERY IMPORTANT - if you are happy with your jpgs don't bother with RAW, it'll just slow you down.
If someday you find you are not getting satisfactory image quality you will have more data available to correct the image in post if you shoot RAW. Then when you convert to jpg to put your images on the net those changes will be visible.
I find RAW most useful when forced to shoot quickly in a crowd against both bright windows and dark walls and cannot use fill flash.
If the camera makers ever get around to using the power of AI that is now showing up in phones doing post post processing will be less necessary to get good enough images, even for many working pros.
If someday you find you are not getting satisfactory image quality you will have more data available to correct the image in post if you shoot RAW. Then when you convert to jpg to put your images on the net those changes will be visible.
I find RAW most useful when forced to shoot quickly in a crowd against both bright windows and dark walls and cannot use fill flash.
If the camera makers ever get around to using the power of AI that is now showing up in phones doing post post processing will be less necessary to get good enough images, even for many working pros.
I don't doubt that you have more control over the finished product if you shoot RAW. I shoot JPEG and I am happy. Please don't tell Steve, I shot JPEG in Costa Rica. 
I am not a professional and I mostly shoot travel, wildlife, and sports. This is what I usually do.
I have some picture controls that I have tweaked to my likening for JPEG files for different types of photography.
When I shoot travel or wildlife I shoot both RAW and JPEG. I like having the RAW to post process for the best results and the JPEG that I will copy to my iPhone and iPad and send off or post quickly online for family and friends. It may be weeks before I can spend any times post processing any of these images so I like to have the RAW.
If I am shooting sports in a location that I have shot in before I will only shoot JPEG. I don’t spend a lot of time post processing these images and I usually try to upload several hundred photos quickly. JPEG saves storage space and the quality is excellent for the purpose.
If I am shooting sports at a location that I have not shot in before I will take RAW and JPEG. I have found color correction is much easier in RAW if the indoor lighting happens to be bizarre, like a gym with three different types of overhead lighting! If the lighting is fine I might trash the RAW and work with the JPEG in post
I don’t think it is one size fits all. Find what works for you.
I have some picture controls that I have tweaked to my likening for JPEG files for different types of photography.
When I shoot travel or wildlife I shoot both RAW and JPEG. I like having the RAW to post process for the best results and the JPEG that I will copy to my iPhone and iPad and send off or post quickly online for family and friends. It may be weeks before I can spend any times post processing any of these images so I like to have the RAW.
If I am shooting sports in a location that I have shot in before I will only shoot JPEG. I don’t spend a lot of time post processing these images and I usually try to upload several hundred photos quickly. JPEG saves storage space and the quality is excellent for the purpose.
If I am shooting sports at a location that I have not shot in before I will take RAW and JPEG. I have found color correction is much easier in RAW if the indoor lighting happens to be bizarre, like a gym with three different types of overhead lighting! If the lighting is fine I might trash the RAW and work with the JPEG in post
I don’t think it is one size fits all. Find what works for you.
My biggest reason to shoot RAW, same image, different outcome.
Not saying that it is the best shot but I believe much better with both birds in shot.
Sooty Oystercatcher, Haematopus longirostris, 420-500mm.
Pied Oystercatcher, Haematopus fuliginosus, 420-550mm
jpeg
RAW
Not saying that it is the best shot but I believe much better with both birds in shot.
Sooty Oystercatcher, Haematopus longirostris, 420-500mm.
Pied Oystercatcher, Haematopus fuliginosus, 420-550mm
jpeg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
RAW
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Lighthouse
New member
As others have said...if what you’re doing suits you, there is no reason to change and obviously all the reasons you been given here have not convinced you . I shoot RAW only and then use SnapBridge to automatically upload 2.2 megapixel jpegs to my iPad via Bluetooth . I now have my pics to upload to social media or share with family ,and my RAW files I download to my computer for post processing and/or printing. This works well for me.
Some jobs need a hammer. Some jobs need a wrench. Some jobs need neither, but something else. If what you have, .jpeg, works for you and you are very comfortable with it, keep doing so.
W
W
I thought this was a wildlife forum? Weddings? Bears getting married?
Shooting RAW for wildlife allows for greater latitude in processing dark images when your camera has reached its maximum ability and you take the shot anyway, among other things, like helping sky along.
Beside the hints above I just thought I write something because you claim you listen to old peope in order not to die in ignorance
IMO beyond the technical part that @Steve explained already in depth and probably much better than most of us would be able to, there is still more to it.
I am not a typical example for a romantic person being into family, weddings and all this, I am not a pro phtographer and especially not at events, but I understand that despite the quick and dirty mentality in times of social media a wedding still something special and most people at least hope it's a once in a lifetime event and experience. If it comes to keepings and memories related to it they deserve to get the best quality and this also applies to pictures.
Some years ago my "almost" daughter (daughter of my girl friend) got married. When watching the photographer at the events I was impressed because he was really good in getting in touch with the people, find the right spots, moments, situations and scenes that usually make the difference. At the end it was absolutely infuriating to get pictures that turned out to be shot as JPG - not even particularly well - and then processed poorly if at all. Wrong colors,, burnt out details in the wedding dress, overdone sharpening, noise, ...
However, they couldn't be rescued because the originals were JPG ...
From this experience I can imagine that it is as likely to run into scenarios where bit depth and proper post processing make a big difference for an event photographer just as for a nature and wildlife photographer. Not sure but I think it was Henry Ford who said something lke "Quality is doing things right even if nobody is watching" and this also applies to time invested in post processing of picture. Delivering quality is in the long term the best and most effective way of self marketing, direct sales and building customer relationship, because recommendations are the best - and cheapest - advert you can get. If I were a pro photographer, one of the priority things to get there - beside taking good pictures of course in the first place
- is shooting RAW and do good post processing.YES, I am old and YES, I was converted to be a RAW shooter really late myself, but NO, I would never ever step back and here we are talking just about my own pictures shot for pleasure. Whenever somebody asks me if I would shoot a private event I have to say no, as I am not interested in it and I know I wouldn't be good in it because I can't handle the people. But I always recommend to ask a bit more deeply about what the photographer is doing with the material after the event ... and to consider looking for somebody else if it sounds to JPEGgy.
Still learning every day about taking and processing pictures and always thinking of being too slow, I think that these days there is software on the market that allows workflows to be made so efficient that IMHO there is no excuse any more for shooting JPG, especially if making photos that others pay for.
However, in the end we are all different and have to find our way. May be in a few years time mankind is so accustomed to emoticons, and artificially created graphics of all kinds that the fine differences don't matter anymore and RAW becomes obsolete anyway. Maybe GIF's will then be the perfect solution
.