DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> I believe in JPEG
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 163, (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/25/2007 09:43:43 AM · #1
At the risk of being thought of as foolish, backward, I have decided to turn off the RAW for a while.

Curious question is, would anybody else here be so brave as to admit that you DON'T use RAW?

I'm actually convinced my photography has gone downhill since I started using RAW. My storage needs have tripled, I turn out fewer shots, I even SHOOT less because I dread the wasted shots.... yadda yadda. I don't have a built in RAW converter, so it adds a step, and I've found I don't like that.

As proof, my current entry is so far scoring as my third highest shot ever, and it was shot, gasp gasp, in JPEG.

Anybody else have the balls to admit it? :)
01/25/2007 09:45:34 AM · #2
I turn raw off alot. Simply because I do not have the time or the storage space available.

edit to add. 4 of my top 5 highest scores were all shot in jpeg.

Originally posted by nards656:

At the risk of being thought of as foolish, backward, I have decided to turn off the RAW for a while.

Curious question is, would anybody else here be so brave as to admit that you DON'T use RAW?

I'm actually convinced my photography has gone downhill since I started using RAW. My storage needs have tripled, I turn out fewer shots, I even SHOOT less because I dread the wasted shots.... yadda yadda. I don't have a built in RAW converter, so it adds a step, and I've found I don't like that.

As proof, my current entry is so far scoring as my third highest shot ever, and it was shot, gasp gasp, in JPEG.

Anybody else have the balls to admit it? :)


Message edited by author 2007-01-25 09:48:17.
01/25/2007 09:48:28 AM · #3
It's not important to always shoot one or the other. It's important to understand, the advantages and disadvantages of each and choose appropriately.
01/25/2007 09:50:18 AM · #4
I never use RAW when I'm shooting in studio. I use a light meter to get proper exposure so RAW becomes just a waste of time & storage. Now out & about is different though, I still make tons of mistakes when I'm shooting in changing light, so RAW is my friend there.
01/25/2007 09:50:35 AM · #5
I would shoot both at the same time on regular basis if I had a big stack of 8 Gig CF Cards..
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

It's not important to always shoot one or the other. It's important to understand, the advantages and disadvantages of each and choose appropriately.

01/25/2007 09:50:41 AM · #6
I almost never shoot in RAW. It just takes up so much space and for most of what I do its just fine. I've even heard of a JPEG image that was blown up to fit on the side of a building in NYC. RAW is good but JPEGS have gotten a bad rap IMO.
01/25/2007 09:51:59 AM · #7
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

It's not important to always shoot one or the other. It's important to understand, the advantages and disadvantages of each and choose appropriately.


To me it is important. I want my general approach to workflow to be consistent. I tried RAW because I thought it would help me be a better photographer. IT DIDN'T.

I think it's sometimes easy to believe that we gotta be using the latest and greatest of everything to be as good as the best.

The point I learned is that using RAW didn't automatically fix all my problems and it actually complicated the process for me.

So, yes, for me, it is important. Stop playing games with the camera and shoot. That's not an anti-PS statement - I love photoshopping. I just don't like RAW conversion.

I've got other reasons, too, but not enough time to discuss.
01/25/2007 09:52:37 AM · #8
I've only ever shot in RAW once. Right now I am not interested in learning it.
01/25/2007 09:52:57 AM · #9
Your storage needs tripled? Okay Quadrouple your memory card size..... problem solved. JPEG saves luminance data destorying the original colors. JPEG is fine but im a quality freak my final products are always stored in PNG's which are losslesly compressed. Such the same for my audio which is stored in ALAC.

But let me ask you this if i gave u the choice between two scanners. One is 100 dollars more then the other and told you. The cheaper scanner is known to produce innacurate colors but they look decent and no one will notice. Would you not spend the extra hundred on a scanner that reproduces the most accurate colors.

Quality is one thing but missing a shot is another. Use the compromise that works for you.
01/25/2007 09:55:18 AM · #10
I use to shoot in RAW all the time then when I upgraded and my RAW files were 15meg I decided to go back to jpg. I'm in a similar boat to you in that I feel I dont take advantage of what RAW can offer me, other than the occassional exposure or white balance adjustments. I got Nikon NX at christmas too so I should probably learn that and then I will feel the 15meg RAW files are worth it again.
01/25/2007 09:59:11 AM · #11
Originally posted by KarenNfld:

I've only ever shot in RAW once. Right now I am not interested in learning it.


Theres not necesarily much to learn. I can open all my RAW's with default "conversion" settings just as if i had jpegs. Canon RAW's have jpeg thumbnails anyways so you can find which image is which.

Using Adobe Lightroom you can open your raws and not have to tocuha single covnersion setting. It opens them in "As Shot". Unfortunatly all software isnt like this. Opening in photosdhop asks information for each picture so on and so forth.

But the quality is undeniable and the control over the image is also. You might find you dont need it you might not do post processing that can benifit from control over shadows and better level control.
01/25/2007 09:59:33 AM · #12
I don't shoot raw, I never have. I don't think I even have the appropriate software to convert an image from RAW. ONce I learn how to use it, then maybe. BUt I'm perfectly happy using my little jpegs. ;)
01/25/2007 09:59:39 AM · #13
I've met with some fairly well paid wedding photographers who absolutely swear by jpeg and think that raw is a waste of time. I listen to them talk. I take it all in. And then I go ... "nah, it's not for me, I can't do it". So I'm still shooting raw.

01/25/2007 10:01:49 AM · #14
Originally posted by nards656:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

It's not important to always shoot one or the other. It's important to understand, the advantages and disadvantages of each and choose appropriately.


To me it is important. I want my general approach to workflow to be consistent. I tried RAW because I thought it would help me be a better photographer. IT DIDN'T.

I think it's sometimes easy to believe that we gotta be using the latest and greatest of everything to be as good as the best.

The point I learned is that using RAW didn't automatically fix all my problems and it actually complicated the process for me.

So, yes, for me, it is important. Stop playing games with the camera and shoot. That's not an anti-PS statement - I love photoshopping. I just don't like RAW conversion.

I've got other reasons, too, but not enough time to discuss.


I think you have done exactly what I suggested. For you, the advantages of RAW are always outweighed by the advantages of JPEG.
01/25/2007 10:02:43 AM · #15
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:

Your storage needs tripled? Okay Quadrouple your memory card size..... problem solved.


Hard drive, not memory card. Yes, double the size for the raw, then once again for the JPEG that results from conversion. That's three.

Originally posted by rainmotorsports:


JPEG saves luminance data destorying the original colors. JPEG is fine but im a quality freak my final products are always stored in PNG's which are losslesly compressed. Such the same for my audio which is stored in ALAC.

Just curious if you can actually see the difference at anything less than 20x30 inches. Storing them at high quality seems to me to be rather useless if no one ever views them at such a quality level. That's MY situation. Yours may be very different.
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:


But let me ask you this if i gave u the choice between two scanners. One is 100 dollars more then the other and told you. The cheaper scanner is known to produce innacurate colors but they look decent and no one will notice. Would you not spend the extra hundred on a scanner that reproduces the most accurate colors.

It would depend on my outlook, my budget, and my involvement at the time. Remember, I'm largely a hobbyist with a few opportunities here and there to shoot for money. If, in answer to your question, the color quality were the ONLY difference, $100 would be cheap. That, however, does not cover the entire gamut of my conversion.
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:


Quality is one thing but missing a shot is another. Use the compromise that works for you.

JPEG is not a compromise in my situation and in my opinion. ALWAYS using RAW is ridiculous if it doesn't offer anything.

See, I told ya it takes balls. I'm already getting fussed at :)
01/25/2007 10:04:15 AM · #16
Originally posted by Spazmo99:


I think you have done exactly what I suggested. For you, the advantages of RAW are always outweighed by the advantages of JPEG.

Basically, yes. Good analysis.
edit - spelling

Message edited by author 2007-01-25 10:04:28.
01/25/2007 10:05:18 AM · #17
I have never shot in raw. While I think there are probably some advantages, the file size and conversion software stop me.
01/25/2007 10:09:11 AM · #18
Boy dont even speak to me about Hard drive space. DV Footage COMPRESSED is 13GB an hour. And i just recently lost 3 250 GB SATA WD drives. lol RAW images... yeah they take up less then a losslessly compressed song. Im currently limping around on a 100 GB drive and backing up unused data daily to DVD's.

I can understand the conversion step to be a bit much and not time efficient for your work.

Jpeg in complicated situations can show artifacts at "100% Quality" in a file as little as 640x480 pixels. JPEG compresses every 8x8 Square and changes the colors to be closer in hue. An 8x8 Block thats half Black and half white the white will actually darken every othe rpixel. Thats that weird crap around objects in images called jpeg artifacts. The less complex the image is the less youll see it.

Alos when you shoto somethign that varies in colros say a graas field. Theres already so much diversity in color that you wont se the artifacts.

But if you want an example take JPEGS main weakness in artifacts. Text is where it shows up the worst. Now a 4x6 print from a 6MP camera shot in JPEG. Your not gonna see anything onthe print.

The point is I know whats there, and I can see it on my screen. I personally have problems with that.
01/25/2007 10:10:43 AM · #19
I have resisted shooting in RAW until very recently, like within the last month or so. I remember a post a year or two ago by ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', '/') + 1) . ' grigrigirlsaying that she shot jpegs only, and I thought at the time that if it was good enough for her then jpegs would do for me for awhile, also. Recently, though, I have started shooting RAW. It's becoming more the norm and I decided I had better start learning how to use it if I want to keep up!

BTW, I haven't seen or heard anything from Julia since soon after Katrina, but in linking to her username above I see that she's popped in to DPC recently. Julia, if you read this, I hope you'll become a regular here again soon, you've been missed! Hope all's well with you and your family. _Ray
01/25/2007 10:11:01 AM · #20
Originally posted by nards656:

At the risk of being thought of as foolish, backward, I have decided to turn off the RAW for a while.

Curious question is, would anybody else here be so brave as to admit that you DON'T use RAW?



You sir, are a brave man. After shooting under the minimal rules, I am amazed anyone will shoot in JPEG only mode except for the pros.

I got 2 reasons why I haven't yet.

1. White Balance
2. Exposure

I have thought about sucking it up and doing RAW+JPEG and only using the JPEG. That way I have the backup of the RAW file if I need to fix it, but I haven't gotten the white balance thing down still.

01/25/2007 10:11:48 AM · #21
I would gladly upgrade all my 2Gig cards for 8 Gig or bigger but first I need to upgrade my wallet from empty to overflowing and busting at the seams.

Originally posted by rainmotorsports:

Your storage needs tripled? Okay Quadrouple your memory card size..... problem solved.

01/25/2007 10:12:09 AM · #22
I used to hate RAW because of the conversion steps and files sizes, but ever since CS2 and iPhoto made the process easy I've been shooting RAW almost exclusively. Storage is cheap these days (I recently bought two 200GB 7200 RPM Maxtor drives for $30 each), so that's not an issue for me. I just sold a challenge entry for $100 yesterday, so having higher quality originals makes it easier to recover costs in the long run. Even if I could get the exposure and white balance absolutely correct in JPEG, I'd rather have the 16bit data and lower noise available with RAW.
01/25/2007 10:12:45 AM · #23
FWIW, I shoot both.

For weddings, most paid work, or my own personal work, I shoot RAW. I need and want the flexibility and quality that RAW gives.

For family snaps, ebay shots, shots of test setups, etc. I shoot jpeg. I simply don't want to waste time fooling around with RAW.
01/25/2007 10:14:11 AM · #24
Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by nards656:

At the risk of being thought of as foolish, backward, I have decided to turn off the RAW for a while.

Curious question is, would anybody else here be so brave as to admit that you DON'T use RAW?



You sir, are a brave man. After shooting under the minimal rules, I am amazed anyone will shoot in JPEG only mode except for the pros.

I got 2 reasons why I haven't yet.

1. White Balance
2. Exposure

I have thought about sucking it up and doing RAW+JPEG and only using the JPEG. That way I have the backup of the RAW file if I need to fix it, but I haven't gotten the white balance thing down still.


Preset your camera's white balance for the shot its only one challenge. And I think the bigger complaint is cropping.

This image was only croppsed so it can be sold as a print ( a worthless one at that.) but the image uncropped looks virtually the same. It hasnt been edited past that. I in the correctt challenge would be willing to enter this shot UNEDITED straight from the camera becaus ei know croping and editing it would not make it a bette rpicture. The picture sucks due to where the sun is. ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/69487/thumb/457638.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/69487/thumb/457638.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
01/25/2007 10:16:01 AM · #25
Originally posted by Bugzeye:

I would gladly upgrade all my 2Gig cards for 8 Gig or bigger but first I need to upgrade my wallet from empty to overflowing and busting at the seams.

Originally posted by rainmotorsports:

Your storage needs tripled? Okay Quadrouple your memory card size..... problem solved.


Trust me I feel you I was suppsoed to be buying a D50 next week, but car problems, accidents, and tickets that all occured in the same month. (my hell month). Im broke and will have to wait till December to get my camera. Upside is instead of a D50 im aiming for a D200 this time. I guess it all works out.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 12/09/2019 12:58:10 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 12/09/2019 12:58:10 AM EST.