One thing RAW+jpeg is great for is comparing the same shot as shot in each format.

The difference can be astounding. On the RAW side, you see colors and detail that just doesn't exist on the jpeg side. I've done numerous side by side comparisons with NX 2 (and if you really want to see a mismatch, check out a 14 bit RAW file in NX2 and compare it to the jpeg file in some other program, or just Windows/Mac preview).

After seeing that, I would never use jpeg again for anything remotely serious or worthwhile.

I shoot raw because JPG I might not be able to get all I need from the image. RAW gives me a little wiggle room if I mess up.

It amazes me that I still keep seeing people who are not shooting for a large magazine that needs images as fast as it can possibly get them, and who still bitch, whine, and moan about the extra "work" involved in shooting RAW.

I shoot in 14-bit RAW, with lossless compression, except when frame rate requirements demand (e.g. airshows) demand that I drop down to 12-bit. When I get home, LR2 will copy the images from the card to my storage server, convert each to DNG, rename the file to how I like things, add keywords, and even make a backup to a separate hard disk... all in one step.

If I were ever to need small JPGs right then, it's simple: Ctrl-A to select all, then File --> Export with Preset --> JPGs for email, and then select an output folder. Inside of 6 seconds the conversion has begun, and in a couple of minutes I have a folder full of JPG's. What's there to call work? Plus, those JPGs are now processed from the RAW, using the color profiles of my choice, and saved with my own conversion settings (pixel dimensions, compression factors, etc.). Much better JPGs (meaning, JPGs much more suited to how I want them) than straight out of camera. And, I only have to go through that "tedious" 6-second workflow when I want them, which 99% of the time I don't.

Most of my post work gets done in LR2. Photoshop is opened when necessary, and files that will be printed large and sold to someone get carefully reprocessed in NX2, because I do find that NX2 gives just that little bit better image quality, and people who are paying for my images deserve every little bit of detail and quality I can give them.

There are people who need to shoot JPGs. The aforementioned deadline-bound PJ's is one group, people with ancient computers that bog down with large file sizes are another (but a new and fast computer is $600 to $900, which pales in comparison to the investment many of us have in photo gear), and there are a few others. But those who claim that RAW is too much extra work, either just don't know how to do it properly or place a much lower value on image quality than I do.

I'm sure I'll get some offended responses, and of course everyone has a right to their own opinion. To each his own, of course. But you asked for opinions, and that's mine.

Raw only, unless I'm shooting in bulk and need quick results, then it's 'Raw+jpg' fine.

Used to use BreezeBrowser Pro but since ViewNX became stable, I'm pretty happy with it, especially as it's still free! Capture NX2 for most PP.

I agree with Rodolpho... I don't understand the complaints about the amount of work a RAW file is. You still have to resize a JPG if you want to ship it off to family and friends, or the web - right? Most of us aren't shooting untouched, full-resolution files around. In which case we're resizing and (usually) sharpening.

So build an action or a batch process that will slap on a color profile, resize and sharpen. Easy, quick, and you've got all the advantages of that increased image data.

That said, people should shoot what makes them happy - so while I might not understand, I accept and encourage anyone to shoot anything they like

Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
It amazes me that I still keep seeing people who are not shooting for a large magazine that needs images as fast as it can possibly get them, and who still bitch, whine, and moan about the extra "work" involved in shooting RAW.

I shoot in 14-bit RAW, with lossless compression, except when frame rate requirements demand (e.g. airshows) demand that I drop down to 12-bit. When I get home, LR2 will copy the images from the card to my storage server, convert each to DNG, rename the file to how I like things, add keywords, and even make a backup to a separate hard disk... all in one step.

If I were ever to need small JPGs right then, it's simple: Ctrl-A to select all, then File --> Export with Preset --> JPGs for email, and then select an output folder. Inside of 6 seconds the conversion has begun, and in a couple of minutes I have a folder full of JPG's. What's there to call work? Plus, those JPGs are now processed from the RAW, using the color profiles of my choice, and saved with my own conversion settings (pixel dimensions, compression factors, etc.). Much better JPGs (meaning, JPGs much more suited to how I want them) than straight out of camera. And, I only have to go through that "tedious" 6-second workflow when I want them, which 99% of the time I don't.

Most of my post work gets done in LR2. Photoshop is opened when necessary, and files that will be printed large and sold to someone get carefully reprocessed in NX2, because I do find that NX2 gives just that little bit better image quality, and people who are paying for my images deserve every little bit of detail and quality I can give them.

There are people who need to shoot JPGs. The aforementioned deadline-bound PJ's is one group, people with ancient computers that bog down with large file sizes are another (but a new and fast computer is $600 to $900, which pales in comparison to the investment many of us have in photo gear), and there are a few others. But those who claim that RAW is too much extra work, either just don't know how to do it properly or place a much lower value on image quality than I do.

I'm sure I'll get some offended responses, and of course everyone has a right to their own opinion. To each his own, of course. But you asked for opinions, and that's mine.
I guess my question on RAW before making the leap of faith is this. Isn't it true that the whole point of RAW is so that you can custom process individual photos? If you are simply batch processing all your photos with LR2 or NX2, would the IQ be still superior to D300's JPG?

rico wrote:
I have no patience for RAW

This is a statement that always cracks me up. I guess most people don't realize that with most softwares that are available this is no longer a valid limitation. As I mentioned in my post above, I shoot 100% RAW and using a preset I made in Lightroom, apply the preset to all my imported images so they are automatically converted to that "jpeg" look immediately. All I need to do is make some minor exposure tweaks, maybe adjust the black slider and crop as needed - nothing different as if I had shot jpeg.

Michael

I only shoot RAW for the shots that matter.

My problem is that I won't press the shutter unless it matters

I will concede however that processing times, even on a raided dual core AMD workstation leaves much to be desired...it lengthens the time to do some of the most basic edits but you gain so much flexibility in recovering images from blown highlights and the like.

I swear by RAW now but it took me close to a year to get there.

I use both NX2 and Lightroom 2.3 x64. I also shoot raw on my D700 and D200, if I want a JPG I can convert down to it but from JPG to RAW. I use 8(4) and 16GB(3) cards if I need to shoot more pictures than they allow before I can download/backup/format, then I am not watching for a picture but just keeping a shutter button depressed to see how many I can snap before the battery goes dead and I have to change it or the card first.

I have had days with 800 pictures and days with 80.

I have however dropped from 14bit to back to 12bit because I personally have not gained enough to warrant using it.

I guess as with RAW/JPG and 12BIT/14BIT comes down to what you want out of your photos.

codeninja wrote:
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
It amazes me that I still keep seeing people who are not shooting for a large magazine that needs images as fast as it can possibly get them, and who still bitch, whine, and moan about the extra "work" involved in shooting RAW.

I shoot in 14-bit RAW, with lossless compression, except when frame rate requirements demand (e.g. airshows) demand that I drop down to 12-bit. When I get home, LR2 will copy the images from the card to my storage server, convert each to DNG, rename the file to how I like things, add keywords, and even make a backup to a separate hard disk... all in one step.

If I were ever to need small JPGs right then, it's simple: Ctrl-A to select all, then File --> Export with Preset --> JPGs for email, and then select an output folder. Inside of 6 seconds the conversion has begun, and in a couple of minutes I have a folder full of JPG's. What's there to call work? Plus, those JPGs are now processed from the RAW, using the color profiles of my choice, and saved with my own conversion settings (pixel dimensions, compression factors, etc.). Much better JPGs (meaning, JPGs much more suited to how I want them) than straight out of camera. And, I only have to go through that "tedious" 6-second workflow when I want them, which 99% of the time I don't.

Most of my post work gets done in LR2. Photoshop is opened when necessary, and files that will be printed large and sold to someone get carefully reprocessed in NX2, because I do find that NX2 gives just that little bit better image quality, and people who are paying for my images deserve every little bit of detail and quality I can give them.

There are people who need to shoot JPGs. The aforementioned deadline-bound PJ's is one group, people with ancient computers that bog down with large file sizes are another (but a new and fast computer is $600 to $900, which pales in comparison to the investment many of us have in photo gear), and there are a few others. But those who claim that RAW is too much extra work, either just don't know how to do it properly or place a much lower value on image quality than I do.

I'm sure I'll get some offended responses, and of course everyone has a right to their own opinion. To each his own, of course. But you asked for opinions, and that's mine.
I guess my question on RAW before making the leap of faith is this. Isn't it true that the whole point of RAW is so that you can custom process individual photos? If you are simply batch processing all your photos with LR2 or NX2, would the IQ be still superior to D300's JPG?

With a 12 or 14 bit RAW file on a D300, you're getting several million more colors than you do with a jpeg file. Further, you're throwing away a ton of data by using jpeg. With a RAW file, you save that data.

JPG sucks when you are trying to shoot in sunlight with the clouds coming in and out. RAW with the D300 is real nice. Not using LR? That is your problem.
Shoot RAW-export to PSD, export to JPG. You have it all.
I don't get shooting RAW and JPG at the same time. What is the point?

Actually, I don't always shoot JPEG. Often the camera of choice requires film. Is that the sound of Rodolfo throwing up? Leica M4, Elmar 50, Kodak Gold 100, no metering, no batteries:

Kodak Gold? Egads.

Try some Porta 160 sometime . Great stuff.

Could someone compare between JPG out of batch processed RAW is better than JPG off of D300?

I shoot JPEG (normal) 99% of the time. When I think I'm going to be post-processing my images extensively I'll shoot in RAW.

RAw only Lightroom

rico wrote:
Actually, I don't always shoot JPEG. Often the camera of choice requires film. Is that the sound of Rodolfo throwing up?

Good God, no. I loved film, and I miss my Tri-X days because they were a lot of fun. I still have a Nikon EM with 50/1.8 as my favorite paperweight. Today and even in the future, for anyone at any level, film is still a perfectly valid choice if you like it, know it, and choose to use it for artistic, nostalgic, personal, aesthetic, or any other reasons. I hope that covers enough ground.

But most people who ask me about the viability or advisability of film these days have neither the experience nor the knowledge to use film well and be happy with it. They are beginner shooters, and they want snapshots, they want to learn, they want to save money, and maybe they dream of getting to be really good. So to them I say: unless (or until) you already know and love film, and you know why you want to use it, then for you... film is dead. Buy a digital camera, and don't look back.

I see no incompatibility between those two points of view... they're just aimed at different people, or even the same person at different times.

Rodolfo, how do you like your 60mm f/2.8?

Love it. The AF-S micro is small, light, and sharp as a razor. Really appreciate it, so much smaller than the 105VR. But I do miss the reach (esp. with 1.4x or 1.7x) when outside with flowers.

And just to stay on subject, wonderful what you can do with ETTR and RAW files to get some serious dynamic range and shadow details into macro shots with the 60...

codeninja wrote:
I guess my question on RAW before making the leap of faith is this. Isn't it true that the whole point of RAW is so that you can custom process individual photos? If you are simply batch processing all your photos with LR2 or NX2, would the IQ be still superior to D300's JPG?

Yes, most of the time. A low-noise, perfectly-exposed, perfectly-white-balanced JPG may do better with the camera's processing than with LR2. Not better than NX2, which can duplicate all the camera's processing with the far greater horsepower of the computer CPU. But, in most cases, the shot will not be absolutely perfect. And for all of those shots, which are most shots, then RAW is uncontestably superior.

Bayer interpolation and other technical issues aside (because they affect any recording of the image regardless of format), a 12-bit camera RAW records 4,096 levels each of red, green, and blue. 14-bit records 16,384 levels of each color. JPG is only 8 bits, which means the most important 256 shades of each color are selected. From 12-bit to 8-bit, you lose 15 out of every 16 shades of RGB the sensor captured... you throw away 94% of your data.

Any processing you have to do will start eliminating some of those shades (those are the missing parts of the histogram in Photoshop). That includes stretching DR by adjusting white/black points, using curves or anything else to correct for a color cast, and every other type of processing or adjustment you ever saw. Plus, the JPG is already set and fixed to the white balance chosen when shooting; altering the white balance alters every pixel and every color destructively in a JPG. With RAW, the software simply re-interprets the file with the change in color temperature you selected.

What would you rather have: RAW where you start with 4,096 (or 16,384) reds, and after editing and still having 2,000 or 3,000 reds you select the best 256 to save your final image as JPG? Or shoot in JPG, then edit to where you only have 150 reds left and save again?

RAW images provide greater highlight recovery. There's easy ability to do exposure bracketing post-shooting using RAW. Non-destructive editing, non-destructive WB changes. And the kicker... by the time you decide that a particular shot is so good (or so screwed up) that it really needs personal attention, it's too late to go back and reshoot in RAW.

So the safe bet, the easy bet, the best-image-quality bet, is always going to be to shoot RAW. There are some very specific reasons why some people can and should choose to use JPG for everything, but those people already know who they are. If you cannot come up with a strong and powerful reason not to use RAW, and you care about the quality of your images, RAW is what would be best for you.

It's not like I have an opinion on the subject, you know?

I shoot 12 bit RAW plus JPEG Fine medium and use the jpegs for culling / selection only.

I shoot a UNIWB and a flat tone curve and process the selected RAW files in NX2 with post processing done in CS3 geared toward my final output requirements.

There is now way you get optimal quality out of a jpeg as compared to a properly processed RAW file.

I suppose if I were shooting just family stuff I might live with jpegs, although I just last weekend shot a christening and compared the processed RAW images to the jpegs and the processed RAW absolutely were better.


It all depends on what you're willing to settle for.

Here is the dilema. I want the maximum possible IQ out of D300, whiile not having to tweak every single photos one by one individually. That leaves the option of batch processing RAW, and I'm not 100% if that is still better than JPG out of D300. Sure, I can do special processing on some photos, but there is no way I would do it all...

I don't think you understand. RAW blows jpeg away on any scale. You're throwing out millions of colors and megabytes of detail by using jpeg.

Both, but not simultaneously. RAW for all my personal stuff, JPG for the swim, soccer and baseball teams only because there are just too many photos to convert.