RAW vs JPEG

Ok, I have just started to shoot exclusivly in RAW with my D60. It was never much of an option before because of a lack of Adobe camera RAW. But now I have that and I can process my images in photoshop.

I am not really looking for a why should I shoot RAW over JPEG arguement here. What I want to know is when do you RAW users shoot JEPGS and why?

Also, as a newbie to RAW processing, I would like some tips from you guys on how you handle your work flow.

Thanks!

As a rule I don't shoot JPEG at all. I'm not in any hurry to get a finished product out. As a beginner I enjoy the process of tinkering with the shot the same way film users would have when developing themselves. Again, because I'm a beginner, I frequently need to make adjustments. :o

Workflow - With a few exceptions I don't really have a workflow model at this point.

Here are the few things I do with new images:
Create an appropriately named folder (Christmas 05 for example)
Move the RAW files to the folder
Batch rename with Adobe Bridge
Batch convert without any processing to JPEG to a new folder within the one created above (Christmas 05\JPEG)
Create other folders named Processed and Posts for finished work and things I'm posting within the original folder (Christmas 05\Processed and Christmas 05\Posts)
After all of that is done I have a batch file that copies new or modified files to my external hd for archiving

Does that count as workflow or is workflow defined more as steps taken to actually process the shot? If the steps above do count as workflow then I guess I have more workflow then I thought! :D

Hope you don't mind I moved this to the digital cameras forum. There will still be a link in ViewFinder and I think it will be better for everyone if it's archived in this forum.

I don't shoot JPEG at all anymore. Both of my cameras (EOS 1D and 10D) have the option to capture both at the same time. I used to always shoot both, since most of my photos go straight to the Web. But my computers got faster and little by little I found that I was only using the RAW files. I finally stopped capturing JPEGs at all, mostly to get more images per card. I haven't looked back. If I need JPEGs I just make them from the layered TIFF "master" files I make with any image I'm going to use.

I hardly ever shoot jpeg's anymore, but when I do: 1. they are snapshots that I don't plan on doing much with and that I don't want to spend a lot of time post processing. 2. jpeg's come in handy when I need a little more speed out of my DRebel. With only a 4 shot burst, it dosen't take much to fill the buffer, and waiting for the camera to write big RAW files seems like an eternity.

As far as workflow goes, I don't really have anything fancy that I do. I download the images. Open Adobe Bridge, and go through the images. If I see something I like, I open in with Adobe RAW and go from there. My pics sit on my hard drive till I get a bunch of them, then I go back and rename the folders they are in and burn 2 copies to DVD's. Then I delete the files from my hard drive, and start all over again.

Almo,

I only shoot RAW. There is just so much more control. Also, you can "save" more images if shot in RAW.

Work flows vary. But, there is editing the RAW file (exposure, white-balance, highlight & shadow recovery, etc.) and then there is the rest of the editing (burning, masking, sharpening, etc.). A good discussion on this is here:

http://luminous-landscape.com/tutori...workflow.shtml

Have fun. Once you've made a "save" that would have been a lost cause shooting jpegs, you may not go back.

Tim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldSchool

Almo,
Have fun. Once you've made a "save" that would have been a lost cause shooting jpegs, you may not go back.

Tim

---

Amen to that! Even with that LCD panel to check your picture and histogram, you can still be disappointed when you look at the picture on the PC. When I first started using RAW I was amazed (no other word for it) at what I could do with the raw photo compared to jpeg.

I've read comments from portrait photographers on another site that say they use jpeg because their conditions are controlled, and they never need to make adjustments. This saves them a lot of time. Maybe this is true, I'm getting to the point where very little has to be done to the picture, but I like having the security blanket. In any case controlled conditiions like that are the vast minority for the pictures I take, so I can't do without it. :)

Under very tight time restrictions and taking a lot of shots for either journalistic use or digital presentation, I use JPEG and shoot for minimal post processing.

When more time is available as in portraits, advertising, public relations, art photography etc., then RAW is ideal, but top quality post processing with raw format is very time consuming.

Ronnoco

I should be using RAW, but I have not seen the need. I have not seen that much loss of detail nor any problems adjusting colors, britness, contast, gama etc or editing the JPEG photos compared to RAW. I know that I can't adjust the white balance but I mostly shoot landscapes or sports, and of crouse the snap shoots of family. I hardly ever have to use photo shop. I do almost all the editing inside Thumbs Plus, with the digi camera raw plugin installed.

When I'm at work doing my product shots, I usually shoot .Jpg or when I'm shooting a sporting event. When shooting anything else I use RAW. My workflow when I'm doing shooting is this:

1. Download all files to a "To Process" folder.

2. Using ACDSee 8, I go through all the images and delete the bad ones

3. Sometimes I'll wait a day or two and look at the images again and delete a few more

4. Batch rename all the files that are left by date, and move them to the folder where they will stay.

5. I also tag them in ACDSee so I know which ones I'd like to work on later edit.