PDA

View Full Version : How do you shoot, jpg, RAW or both?


theMusicMan
11th October 2008, 07:16 AM
Hi All

Following a request I have been asked to set up a poll regarding this interesting subject. So, simple question - how do you shoot using your E-Series camera...?

Henk
11th October 2008, 07:29 AM
I shoot normally raw only, for vacation snaps I may occasionally change to raw + jpg to keep the workload down as I do not batch process.

I use mainly Olympus Studio 2 and RawTherapee for processing, waiting for Bibble 5 to see if they fixed the conversion of greens and I'm currently testing Paint Shop Pro Photo X2 ultimate which looks pretty good if you do not have to get the best out of the orf for fixing highlights.

theMusicMan
11th October 2008, 07:30 AM
I shoot RAW only, and use Lightroom2 for all my post processing.

PeterD
11th October 2008, 07:32 AM
Thanks for setting this up John.

I shoot RAW only and PP in Lightroom with some assistance from PhotoPlus X2 when needed. Noise is handled in Neat Image and this is the first step I take before processing any shoots.

Peter

art frames
11th October 2008, 07:38 AM
And I shoot with both on the basis I store the raw files and very, very occasionally need one to help out when the jpg isn't good enough.

I am also very aware that computer people are busily changing the standards for all of these (supposedly) perfect standards on a regular basis and will no doubt have issues in the future with new computers or software that will be incompatible with old data.

So a device to make a perfect slide or real negative from a digital file would be a bonus.

Peter

snaarman
11th October 2008, 07:40 AM
I'm voting RAW only.
I do have the camera set for RAW + SQ but I only use the jpegs for preliminary browsing. They get overwritten when I develop the RAW file in PSE..

Pete

tlove
11th October 2008, 08:15 AM
I shoot RAW.

I used to shoot jpg, then found out how much more flexible it was (for me personally, at any rate) to shoot RAW, and I've never really looked back. I have - as an experiment - done occasional jpg shooting since, but I've not been 100% happy about not having control.

andym
11th October 2008, 08:39 AM
Raw only and develop in Silkypix.

I do my initial focus edit on the Raw files with Picassa.

Makonde
11th October 2008, 09:16 AM
For an outing with just a few shots i shoot RAW. If I'm going to take quite a lot I shoot RAW plus small JPEG. I skim through the jpegs and put the RAWs of the good ones into a working folder, dumping all the rest.

I have Adobe Camera RAW and photoshop for developing and PP; and when I've finished with a pic I save a copy as a tiff for future interoperability (also for printing if it's likely to be used in the magazine)

Nick Temple-Fry
11th October 2008, 09:21 AM
Raw only - develop in either Rawtherapee or Master to either tiff or jpg.

Post process in The GIMP. A good 90% will use the 'default' settings for RAW conversion - but it's nice to have the options to play with (for instance to adjust colour temperature/sharpness at this stage).

Nick

Xpres
11th October 2008, 09:38 AM
Raw only - process with ACR in elements. For web and preview I use Picassa.

OlyPaul
11th October 2008, 09:41 AM
Raw only, Silkypix and/or CS3, dam program ACDSee Pro 2.5.:)

photo_owl
11th October 2008, 09:42 AM
I am afraid the poll doesn't have enough options to give the full piture..........

It's different for different E cameras - I will always include a raw file when using the E510 but increasingly rarely with the E3 unless the circumstances suggest it to be a wise insurance, which includes anything with mixed light sources (although the 3 is still pretty good in this area overall). E400 is raw only - for what I use it for.

Nick Temple-Fry
11th October 2008, 10:19 AM
I am afraid the poll doesn't have enough options to give the full piture..........

It's different for different E cameras - I will always include a raw file when using the E510 but increasingly rarely with the E3 unless the circumstances suggest it to be a wise insurance, which includes anything with mixed light sources (although the 3 is still pretty good in this area overall). E400 is raw only - for what I use it for.

This touches on a good point - why do the Raw shooters choose Raw.

Certainly on the E-3 rarely do I need alter the colour temperature to get it right, the camera does a very good job on its own and I would guess that well less than 1 in every 100 shots needs amendment for that reason.

I choose RAW

1) because I do not want the camera throwing away any information without my explicit and considered say-so. I paid for those pixels and I want to play with them.

2) because if I'm going to do a major change to colour tone by playing with the temperature then I want to do it before the camera has made judgements about compression etc. Why do I want to make these changes - well almost always for 'artistic reasons' - because I want a warmer/colder colour interpretation. Analagous to making a choice about film stock or colour filter - but done in the warm without fiddling about in the field.

3) because, on the rare occaisions I take what by my standards is a really good shot then I'll want to process it as a tiff to retain as much information as possible. Other shots I'll process as jpg (but with the raw files as a 'security'), to keep down disc usage.

4) Because raw processors such as RawTherapee can let you pull back some highlight information which gets lost in in-camera conversion.

But of course there isn't a 'correct' choice. It's what suits you and your requirements/style of working.

Nick

Henk
11th October 2008, 10:49 AM
This touches on a good point - why do the Raw shooters choose Raw.

Certainly on the E-3 rarely do I need alter the colour temperature to get it right, the camera does a very good job on its own and I would guess that well less than 1 in every 100 shots needs amendment for that reason.

I choose RAW

1) because I do not want the camera throwing away any information without my explicit and considered say-so. I paid for those pixels and I want to play with them.

2) because if I'm going to do a major change to colour tone by playing with the temperature then I want to do it before the camera has made judgements about compression etc. Why do I want to make these changes - well almost always for 'artistic reasons' - because I want a warmer/colder colour interpretation. Analagous to making a choice about film stock or colour filter - but done in the warm without fiddling about in the field.

3) because, on the rare occaisions I take what by my standards is a really good shot then I'll want to process it as a tiff to retain as much information as possible. Other shots I'll process as jpg (but with the raw files as a 'security'), to keep down disc usage.

4) Because raw processors such as RawTherapee can let you pull back some highlight information which gets lost in in-camera conversion.

But of course there isn't a 'correct' choice. It's what suits you and your requirements/style of working.

Nick

Besides the reasons Nick already mentioned I shoot raw and archive my orfs, so when new generations of raw developers appear I can get even more out of some raws. I did so with E-500 orfs which developed much nicer in the latest versions of Olympus Studio etc.

Henk

Scapula Memory
11th October 2008, 11:06 AM
Raw only. Good data in, good data out. PSE6 / LR2 and NI or NJ for noise reduction. The benefits are highlight recovery and WB adjustments.

DerekW
11th October 2008, 11:08 PM
Just started to do Raw - ie in the last 6 weeks and use Aperture for processing with occasional PS work

Why - a combination of moral black mail from the various forums, <g>

the realisation of the benefits of Aperture for handling all my pics and as Raw handling came for free, and as it does give extra control, as described by others on this thread (which I am still learning about).

However Aperture does need a fairly poky machine I shall be upgrading my 5 year old G5 in the short term - and as for how a G4 laptop handles the work with all the various image files being generated it makes the G5 seem swift.

joeletx
12th October 2008, 02:25 AM
I shot both JPG and RAW. I found that Olympus JPG is exceptionally good but I also want the RAW files just in case I mess up or wanting to do additional alteration. When I download the pitures to the computer and review the jpg files at first. If I see some pictures that I am not happy with, I open the RAW files with Studio and play with it. If the jpg's look good, then I save the RAW's onto a DVD disks just in case I need them in the future.

Joe

StephenL
12th October 2008, 06:36 AM
RAW only, PP in Lightroom. Why? My feeling is that RAW, even with just Lightroom's defaults, is closer to what my mind sees than Jpegs, and it's certainly no slower a process. And I ENJOY it!

DTD
12th October 2008, 09:05 AM
RAW, process in Aperture. Will save TIFFs finished versions in another folder.

Ian
12th October 2008, 12:42 PM
This is a very common question :)

I shoot both best quality mode JPEG and RAW simultaneously. The E-3 can still shoot quickly in this mode and storage is now cheaper than ever.

I work mainly from RAW files, but JPEGs are universally supported by viewers and the Web and it's handy to be able to edit a camera JPEG file in unusual circumstances and when speed is of the essence, especially for Web use.

RAW, though, is much more flexible when it comes to image adjustment, especially with white balance, and you will ultimately get better results with RAW.

Olympus RAW files are very good compared to most, but I would definitely recommend RAW over JPEG if you have to choose.

Ian

Ray Shotter
12th October 2008, 02:06 PM
I shoot in Raw and develop in Olympus Master/Studio. I did try shooting in JPeg when I owned an E-510 and realised subsequently that the opportunity to improve the JPegs was quite limited compared to developing in Raw. Also, I had used Raw only when I had my E-1. The main reason why I tried shooting in JPeg was because I was unable to convert E-510 ORF in Adobe Photoshop Elements 4.0 and wasn't prepared at that time to upgrade to either 5 or 6. Subsequently, I purchased Olympus Studio 2 and have never looked back. When photos are converted to JPeg subsequently I sometimes use Adobe Photshop Elements 4.0 for those procedures which are not available in Olympus Studio. Also, as someone else has commented - when shooting in Raw with the E-3 very little adjustment is needed most of the time anyway - but you do have the confidence that any slight adjustment which may be needed is easily made.

Ray.

Barr1e
12th October 2008, 09:37 PM
An interesting survey with the majority of you using RAW. I'm interested to know what advantage you all gain from using this please. Please don't shout. :)

Regards. Barr1e

StephenL
13th October 2008, 06:27 AM
Pleasure! I enjoy it.

PeterD
13th October 2008, 06:34 AM
An interesting survey with the majority of you using RAW. I'm interested to know what advantage you all gain from using this please. Please don't shout. :)

Regards. Barr1e

Barrie

1. Long term storage. - jpg do deteriorate each time you open/close them.
2. Flexibility - I like to see what I am adjusting and do not trust blind changes e.g. in-camera.

Those are the two main reasons.

Peter

Ian
13th October 2008, 08:00 AM
Barrie

1. Long term storage. - jpg do deteriorate each time you open/close them.
2. Flexibility - I like to see what I am adjusting and do not trust blind changes e.g. in-camera.

Those are the two main reasons.

Peter

Please allow me the opportunity to clarify this - JPEGs don't deteriorate by opening and closing them, but when opening and re-saving them.

You can view JPEGs as many times as you like, but if you open a JPEG in an image editor and then re-save, even when doing nothing to the image, re-compression of the file will degrade the image in a cumulative manner.

Ian

PeterD
13th October 2008, 08:37 AM
Please allow me the opportunity to clarify this - JPEGs don't deteriorate by opening and closing them, but when opening and re-saving them.

You can view JPEGs as many times as you like, but if you open a JPEG in an image editor and then re-save, even when doing nothing to the image, re-compression of the file will degrade the image in a cumulative manner.

Ian

Thanks for clarifying my comments Ian, On reflection it was a sloppy way of putting it:o.

Peter

Barr1e
13th October 2008, 08:51 AM
Thanks for responding.

Now that I have returned to this thread and taken more time to read it I find the question answered throughout the thread.

Thanks again for an item which has me now thinking of shooting RAW. My problem now is choosing a program to get me off the ground.

*Is a program like Raw Therapee as good as say Lightroom or Elements?
I know I can Google but here on e-group are the real users.

Regards. Barr1e

[Edit - *I forgot to mention Olympus Studio in my question re programs]

Makonde
13th October 2008, 09:17 AM
If you have Photoshop then Adobe Camera Raw is a free download. If you use The Gimp then you'll know there are DCRAW plugins

If you don't have Photoshop or similar then IMO you should get that. If price is a consideration and you are a newcomer to Photoshop then Photoshop Elements is much cheaper than the full version, quite good enough to begin with and from version 5 onwards takes Adobe Camera Raw as a free plugin.

I use ACR and Pshop but am thinking about adding Lightroom - anyone comment on what extra that gives you over and above ACR? (I am not interested in the organisational / workflow aspects of Lightroom - just the image manipulation possibilities)

Henk
13th October 2008, 03:12 PM
*Is a program like Raw Therapee as good as say Lightroom or Elements?

Yes. Looking at image quality you can get equal results. Lightroom has more bells and whistles and DAM but you pay for that. (way too much IMHO)

RawTherapee is a free program, the next version is coming soon. It is an excellent program to use in combination with PSP or PSE.

I do test most raw developer programs regularly (for personal use) and find that you can get excellent and comparable results from most of them.

As the area where I live and shoot my photo's has a lot of grassland the correct development of the different shades of grass-green is very important to me. None of the programs do a perfect job on this but some come very close, like RawTherapee and PSP X2 ultimate.

Cheers,
Henk

Solar
13th October 2008, 03:27 PM
I shoot Raw only unless I need to give someone the uncooked jpegs to preview which pics they want (like on a paid shoot, sometimes for product shots) ... Otherwise just Raw only these days.

Barr1e
13th October 2008, 05:46 PM
Yes. Looking at image quality you can get equal results. Lightroom has more bells and whistles and DAM but you pay for that. (way too much IMHO)

RawTherapee is a free program, the next version is coming soon. It is an excellent program to use in combination with PSP or PSE.

I do test most raw developer programs regularly (for personal use) and find that you can get excellent and comparable results from most of them.

As the area where I live and shoot my photo's has a lot of grassland the correct development of the different shades of grass-green is very important to me. None of the programs do a perfect job on this but some come very close, like RawTherapee and PSP X2 ultimate.

Cheers,
Henk

Thanks Henk -

I have downloaded RawThereapee, now all I have to do is take some Raw images.

Regards. Barr1e

Ellie
13th October 2008, 11:59 PM
I shoot mostly jpeg, I'm trying to work out why, but it's mainly because the RAW files from the E400 are so huge and I don't do a lot of editing.

If the light is challenging or it's a special, one-of occasion, I'll use RAW which gives me more leeway to get the picture right.

I haven't voted because my choices don't seem to be covered.

HughofBardfield
14th October 2008, 08:53 AM
I choose RAW

1) because I do not want the camera throwing away any information without my explicit and considered say-so. I paid for those pixels and I want to play with them.

2) because if I'm going to do a major change to colour tone by playing with the temperature then I want to do it before the camera has made judgements about compression etc. Why do I want to make these changes - well almost always for 'artistic reasons' - because I want a warmer/colder colour interpretation. Analagous to making a choice about film stock or colour filter - but done in the warm without fiddling about in the field.

3) because, on the rare occaisions I take what by my standards is a really good shot then I'll want to process it as a tiff to retain as much information as possible. Other shots I'll process as jpg (but with the raw files as a 'security'), to keep down disc usage.

4) Because raw processors such as RawTherapee can let you pull back some highlight information which gets lost in in-camera conversion.

But of course there isn't a 'correct' choice. It's what suits you and your requirements/style of working.

Nick

RAW only - like Nick said - why throw away the "negatives"? :confused:

Processed thru Lightroom 2.1rc (almost always), Lightzone (sometimes) or Raw Therapee (rarely), depending on what the file needs. If it needs further work, I usually export to Photoshop CS (as PSD) or PTLens / ShiftN as TIFF.

Since discovering this:

http://www.rawworkflow.com/blog/2008/9/29/instant-jpeg-from-raw-ijfr.html

I would no longer bother shooting RAW+JPEG even if I wanted quick proofs.