Question for Professionals shooting jpegs?

Question

I read an article recently that stated that many busy pros who sell a lot of photos shoot primarily in jpeg. The reasons given had to do with workflow and time constraints. I'm talking about people who sell to magazines, postcards, stock, websites, etc. It was stated that they (the pros in question) shoot raw only when they can see a need to be exceptionally careful. I'm an enthusiast-level photographer who is considering a photography sideline, selling stock shots, and maybe producing some scenery/ cityscape type stuff for the tourism industry, etc. (I travel a lot...) If I can shoot HQ jpeg instead of Raw, and reduce my time in front of the computer, I'd be a happy boy. Any thoughts?

Thanks Dr Sam- that's exactly where I read this. But this is only his opinion, so I'm hoping to hear from any professional working photographers on here to see what they do!

Answer 1

My thoughts are 100% in agreement with you. I would reserve RAW for scenes where you are going to need the flexibility in post. I am not a professional photographer, though.

Some cameras capture RAW and JPG simultaneously as a safety net, but you bette carry spare cards!

See http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d200/quality-settings.htm for his reasoning on RAW.

Also see: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

Answer 2

When I am shooting under conditions where I can absolutely nail the exposure the way I want because I have experience with the situation and lighting, absolute control (like in the studio) or the subject brightness range under whatever the lighting is won't present a problem, I will shoot JPEG. I also shoot JPEG when I will be shooting a lot of images for an assignment, like a wedding or an event.

When you have hundreds, or maybe over a thousand images to go through, the extra conversion time is significant and time is money. I have my workflow set so that I can just dump the images, batch process them and edit for any images that don't work. I try to keep post to a minimum. A great, pragmatic arguement for getting things right in the camera.

I shoot RAW for B&W, my personal stuff, or where there is the possibility that I will need to post process in a way that needs the information contained in the RAW image. This may include recovering information from clipped channels and otherwise getting the most dynamic range out of an image, it will be a panoramic image, or the lighting is just a weird combo of sources. I also prefer RAW when I have been shooting at high ISO's (800+) because the noise reduction seems to have less effect on the image details.

In short, I will shoot JPEG in a production environment whenever possible. If I think the greater amount of image information available in RAW could be important to the image at some point, then I shoot RAW.

Some people argue that you should always shoot RAW because it gives you the best quality. That is only partially true. It gives you the best potential quality, but if the original image fits within the JPEG workspace (i.e., you can go from RAW, to JPEG (or TIFF) to print) then there is no practical advantage to RAW.

You could think of it as having two buckets. One bucket, JPEG, holds 1 gallon (litres, etc.) and the other (RAW) holds 2 gallons. If you only have 1 gallon to carry (you can get it right in camera and within the JPEG limitations) you don't need a 2 gallon bucket. It's bigger, weighs more and is less convenient to carry.

If it does the job for you, you do it. If it doesn't, you don't. Seems simple enough. Just because a professional does something doesn't mean you should. In the end, the actual results you get (not some theoretical, potential results) should determine what you do.

Answer 3

There was a similar question asked earlier this week and the responses were similar, quite mixed. I'll summarize what I have understood from these discussions: The need for raw data depends on the type of photography and anticipated use of an image, print size being a major factor.
Images with strong contrast (particularly B&W) may benefit from having the raw data available in post processing though getting it right in the camera minimizes post processing regardless of raw or jpeg.
Personally I prefer to do a minimum of post processing, I'd rather be out taking pictures.
It also raises another question. It's been stated that the camera hardware is better at producing the Jpeg than the software in the computer can produce a jpeg from raw data, is this accurate?
The Rockwell report makes one key observation, the raw data file is not universal, it's manufcturer specific unlike the jpeg file and so all these raw files may well be of little value in the not too distant future as it may well be difficult to find a computer that can read them. When was the last time you used a 5 1/4 inch floppy?
Once you've done your post processing is it worth saving the raw file? It's been likened to a negative. Perhaps it's better likened to an undeveloped negative and once the post processing is done the resultant jpeg or tiff file is the developed negative?

Answer 4

Depends entirely on the situation. But I rarely shoot RAW.

For event photography, where I and two others photographers may shoot 3000 images over a weekend fishing tournament ... and then I alone have to edit, prep and upload salable images to my website, you can bet your bippy we shoot ONLY jpgs.

For some "fine art" images, when I have the time to be more deliberate and am looking for optimal controlability, I'll shoot in RAW of course.

If I owned a camera with the RAW+jpg function I'd probably use it a lot. But I don't. My primary camera is an older Nikon DSLR, and, frankly, it's so slow buffering RAW images that I find it prohibitive most of the time.

I guess what it comes down to - if you're a pro - is: Are you able to produce images that will sell!

BTW, did any of you notice something special about this post? I did.

It's this: intelligent discussion of an important issue, with answers that are thorough, well thought out, well written and virtually free of misspelled words and crappy sentence structure.

How refreshing!!!!

Answer 5

I shoot a lot of images when I am out doing my traveling and 99% of the time I am shooting in jpg but every once in awhile I will shoot a certain image in RAW. The reason is also dealing with workflow. Using the Nikon Capture NX I can still work with jpgs just like working with the RAW files. If I want to do something different I then I use Adobe Photoshop to finish it.

Also if you require a large image you can save it as a Tiff file when you are done. Also when shooting in RAW you will need a lot of disk space on your card. With the Nikon D2Xs the file size in RAW is over 20 MB and Tiff is over 35 MB but you can always carry plenty of CF cards.

Here are some articles to help you decide what works best for you.

http://www.lexar.com/dp/tips_lessons/cfcard_tips.html
http://www.lexar.com/dp/tips_lessons/mpeterson_fieldwrkflow.html
http://www.lexar.com/dp/index.html?CMP=EMC-DP

Hope this helps,
Kevin

Answer 6

I'm not professional, but I shoot RAW+basic JPEG at the same time. RAW for editing, and the JPEG is for browsing through, since RAW is a huge pain to browse through in Windows. Whatever RAW viewers are available(viewNX, Explorer plug-in) take forever to load a picture. But RAW holds more information and is better for processing.

Answer 7

This sounds correct to me...

In my workflow I only shoot RAW if I need an extended tonal range - so it's primarily in high contrast situations. I can easily do everything else in terms of colour and saturation to JPEG's but the main issue for me is the range of light I am trying to record.

Yes, it means more time processing to shoot RAW but sometimes it's essential in order to get the creative or technical effects I desire, and in particular to prevent blocked up highlights or shadows.

The main issues are Quality vs Time is Money, so when you are shooting with the light I'd tend to be on JPEG (or preferably TIFF), against the light / high contrast I am more likely tyo switch to RAW.

I hope that helps.

Answer 8

Only way to be safe and cover your backside is to shoot RAW... my camera does RAW and JPEG at the same time so I do both, I can easily sort through the photos with JPEG and then only work on the RAW files that are keepers... no way in the world I would use JPEG only, if I did I'm quite certain the best shot I would have at the perfect moment would be 1/2 stop over or under and with RAW that wouldn't be a problem.. with JPEG I would be kicking myself.

Anyone who just goes with JPEG is just being lazy... If you want to spend the time getting the shot you need to be prepared to spend the time to process it too. Using JPEG makes as much sense as shooting a wedding with film and then having Wal-mart develop and print the pictures... a pro worth a damn wouldn't do it.

Answer 9

This photographer (considered one of the top one hundred living today) does not shoot RAW. He formerly used sheet film cameras but now has gone digital. http://ronrosenstock.com/
This photographer, a very serious amateur I know, uses RAW
(check out his landscapes) http://tiborvari.com/

If you are not yet secure, why not shoot RAW + jpeg. The work flow will be reduced because you will only have to work on those that really need it.

Edited to add - I do find the remark that photographers who don't use RAW are lazy quite incorrect. Ron Rosenstock is HARDLY lazy. The truth is many of these people cut their teeth on chromes where you HAD to get it right in the camera and they still do. In studio portraiture I don't use RAW because I meter properly

Answer 10

there is not much difference if you shoot in jpeg and raw time constraints wise as you need to process the image with adobe photoshop or other editing software anyway. it is better to shoot using raw instead of jpeg as your client might need very high resolution files especially magazines or advertising firms. most pro cameras can shoot both raw and jpeg formats at the same time.

Answer 11

RAW and Jpeg at the highest camera setting will be the same resolution. RAW will just have more info...more information stored. In theory the picture will be better quality, but not higher resolution. a jpg compresses sections of similar colors together so it doesn't use as much memory, but the highest settings of both will have the same resolution. resolution and compression are two different things. yes, lower res needs less memory, but so does higher compression. most people will not see the difference in high raw and high res. if you work on jpgs and keep resaving as jpgs, eventually you will see the loss in info.

i shoot in high res jpgs. If I work on a photo, I save it as a photoshop file so I can go back and work more if I need to. But when uploaded for developing, showing proofs, I will use a jpg (uses less memory). So it may be that i have a photoshop file and a jpg of the same photo. If I am ready to develop, I use the jpg. If I need to do more editing. I open the photoshop file.