MircoV Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 As long a person knows what RAW is, how to use it and what you are missing by shooting on JPEG only there is no problem i think. The point is that everyone should know how to use RAW and off course a camera to decide with confidence to use JPEG only. The issue is that many people use JPEG just because they dont know how to use RAW and wants to avoid it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Halberstadt Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 When I have the time and memory available, I shoot both. The out of camera JPGs *often* look particularly good and I have a hard time matching Sony's excellent out of camera JPG's with RAW post processing in LR. Of course having the RAW files you have the added insurance in case there's a substantial over or under exposure, or need for the finest quality- even if you don't end up using them. Recently I've learned of another advantage of having the JPGs. If you also shoot stock video of the same scene (which I'm trying to do now) the video will match the JPGs. I'm hoping to offer packages that include video and stills of the same subject with the same look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colblimp Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 RAW only here. Why anyone would shoot in JPEG is beyond me, especially for the stock industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 . Why anyone would shoot in JPEG is beyond me, especially for the stock industry. Because the majority of stock work isn't too demanding. I changed over because a few borderline images were getting me in trouble and RAW would have helped with a few of them. On top of that it deals with dynamic range better. and if you use LR the differenc in workflow is pretty minimal. Rendering and import take a fair bit longer, though- if i had hundreds of images at a time for a job I'd consider jpeg. But I can see why people use jpg because, er, I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 When I have the time and memory available, I shoot both. The out of camera JPGs *often* look particularly good and I have a hard time matching Sony's excellent out of camera JPG's with RAW post processing in LR. Of course having the RAW files you have the added insurance in case there's a substantial over or under exposure, or need for the finest quality- even if you don't end up using them. Recently I've learned of another advantage of having the JPGs. If you also shoot stock video of the same scene (which I'm trying to do now) the video will match the JPGs. I'm hoping to offer packages that include video and stills of the same subject with the same look. I don't know about Sony - this may not be available - but if you want to get raw images matching the in-camera JPEGs for Nikons and Canons, then choose the Camera Standard profile under Camera Calibration: Profiles in Lightroom and similar in ACR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 If I were shooting news then I would go with jpeg's, but I don't so I use RAW's to get the best I can from the image. Caveat: My best may not be someone else's best. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DHill Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 When I have the time and memory available, I shoot both. The out of camera JPGs *often* look particularly good and I have a hard time matching Sony's excellent out of camera JPG's with RAW post processing in LR. Of course having the RAW files you have the added insurance in case there's a substantial over or under exposure, or need for the finest quality- even if you don't end up using them. Recently I've learned of another advantage of having the JPGs. If you also shoot stock video of the same scene (which I'm trying to do now) the video will match the JPGs. I'm hoping to offer packages that include video and stills of the same subject with the same look. I don't know about Sony - this may not be available - but if you want to get raw images matching the in-camera JPEGs for Nikons and Canons, then choose the Camera Standard profile under Camera Calibration: Profiles in Lightroom and similar in ACR. Very good point, MDM. And if it isn't available, just invest in a ColorChecker Passport, create a profile and add it into your import preset. I find that produces even better colour than the camera profiles built into Lightroom. It's really easy to do - the instructions make it really simple. And great if you have more than one camera, for matching the colour between them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 When I have the time and memory available, I shoot both. The out of camera JPGs *often* look particularly good and I have a hard time matching Sony's excellent out of camera JPG's with RAW post processing in LR. Of course having the RAW files you have the added insurance in case there's a substantial over or under exposure, or need for the finest quality- even if you don't end up using them. Recently I've learned of another advantage of having the JPGs. If you also shoot stock video of the same scene (which I'm trying to do now) the video will match the JPGs. I'm hoping to offer packages that include video and stills of the same subject with the same look. I don't know about Sony - this may not be available - but if you want to get raw images matching the in-camera JPEGs for Nikons and Canons, then choose the Camera Standard profile under Camera Calibration: Profiles in Lightroom and similar in ACR. Very good point, MDM. And if it isn't available, just invest in a ColorChecker Passport, create a profile and add it into your import preset. I find that produces even better colour than the camera profiles built into Lightroom. It's really easy to do - the instructions make it really simple. And great if you have more than one camera, for matching the colour between them. Absolutely. I got one a few months ago and it has made a big difference to my ability to get colour the way I want. I don't know how I lived without one for so long. But a hardware calibrator is almost essential with that. I don't know about elsewhere but x-rite have some very good offers on in the UK for colorimeters and passports at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marianne Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 When I upgraded years ago to LR3 I was suddenly able to brighten up some dark RAW photos I'd taken in Scotland a few years before, they had amazing skies and the detail in the buildings was fine though I went up a lot with the exposure. I'd knocked the lever to set everything at -3 by mistake and was sure those photos were goners - if I had shot in jpeg they would've been. I had just learned about shooting RAW right before that trip and was so happy I had. I was actually going through to delete stuff after upgrading my library and decided to try saving them. With RAW you always have all the data and as technology gets better, you don't lose out. These are from an old D70 but it was great to be able to get that sky and save the buildings: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 For stock I always shoot raw, but when I had to (occasionally) use a camera as a part of my last job, I would often use JPGs as it saved a bit of time and the end result wasn't going through a QC process, or indeed need a particularly high standard of reproduction. I was just recording stuff. On the odd occasion when I have shot Live News I should have used JPG plus raw, but, in the excitement of the moment, have forgotten to use the facility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marianne Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 I try to remember to shoot RAW + jpeg when I shoot Live News too - don't always remember. I went through a phase - for a few years - where I always shot RAW + jpeg and ended up wasting way too much time deleting the jpegs after processing the RAW files. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 and ended up wasting way too much time deleting the jpegs after processing the RAW files. Sort by file type then just right-click drag a window over the group of jpegs and delete. I did both for a while before I was brave enough to abandon jpegs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Halberstadt Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 When I have the time and memory available, I shoot both. The out of camera JPGs *often* look particularly good and I have a hard time matching Sony's excellent out of camera JPG's with RAW post processing in LR. Of course having the RAW files you have the added insurance in case there's a substantial over or under exposure, or need for the finest quality- even if you don't end up using them. Recently I've learned of another advantage of having the JPGs. If you also shoot stock video of the same scene (which I'm trying to do now) the video will match the JPGs. I'm hoping to offer packages that include video and stills of the same subject with the same look. I don't know about Sony - this may not be available - but if you want to get raw images matching the in-camera JPEGs for Nikons and Canons, then choose the Camera Standard profile under Camera Calibration: Profiles in Lightroom and similar in ACR. Thanks MDM-LR does have the Sony conversion profiles. But the conversion isn't the same. It can be pretty close though and certainly would work for many circumstances with little or no further futzing. Just for giggles I did a conversion (see photo below) with the top being a RAW file simply converted as is with Adobe's Standard conversion, second (middle) crop is from the setting you suggested RAW conversion matching my camera's "standard" setting, and the bottom crop is the camera's "standard" jpg. All with no corrections in LR. For me I often like the out of camera JPG look alot, plus I hate sitting in front of my computer when I don't have to. I do shoot RAW files too for backup- sometimes AWB is off or there are large contrast differences etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Just for giggles I did a conversion (see photo below) with the top being a RAW file simply converted as is with Adobe's Standard conversion, second (middle) crop is from the setting you suggested RAW conversion matching my camera's "standard" setting, and the bottom crop is the camera's "standard" jpg. All with no corrections in LR. For me I often like the out of camera JPG look alot, plus I hate sitting in front of my computer when I don't have to. I do shoot RAW files too for backup- sometimes AWB is off or there are large contrast differences etc. I personally would have liked to lift the shadows a little bit and keep the colours, which the RAW file would be great for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.