Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Do You Guys Shoot In RAW Or Jpeg?  
User currently offlineWoady From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 400 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5312 times:

I was just wondering whether you guys let your cameras do the processing and shoot in JPEG or whether you shoot with RAW then edit the files on your PCs?

Woady


A300-600R, 757-200, 767-200/300/ER, ERJ145, ATR72
52 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJohndm1957 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5291 times:

Bit of both for me.

RAW is so time consuming, but a better bet if conditions are poor.



Canon 550D, 18-55, 50 1.8, 100-400L
User currently offlineTS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5286 times:

I shoot RAW under potentially difficult light situations like night or cabin shots or in case the focal length isn't enough so I have to crop. Otherwise JPEG fine gives great quality with the 10D.

Thomas


User currently offlineEdoca From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 688 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5274 times:

For me, it depends on a few things: my camera can shoot more pics in a burst when using jpeg. So if I want to make sure I catch a fast-moving object, and the lighting conditions allow it, I'll go for jpeg.
With difficult light, I go straight to RAW - it takes a bit more post-processing but it's generally worth it.


User currently offlineINNflight From Switzerland, joined Apr 2004, 3767 posts, RR: 60
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5273 times:

L jpg fine quality. Suits me fine. I find RAW shooting with the 300D sucks. The buffer's too small, you need way more CF cards and also post processing is more time consuming.

I have never been in a situation so far where I did regret not shooting RAW. My results are perfectly okay with jpg also.

cheers,
Florian



Jet Visuals
User currently offlineEDDL From Germany, joined Dec 2002, 738 posts, RR: 15
Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5258 times:

RAW all the way! Haven't shot a single JPEG image in the last years ...

EDDL


User currently offlineAKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 45
Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5248 times:

Only RAW for me (aviation stuff).
For weddings, landscape, people jpg fine is good enough.

Vasco


User currently offlineChrisH From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 16
Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5248 times:

Havent shot a single JPG since I got my D70 a year ago. RAW 4 life =)


what seems to be the officer, problem?
User currently offlineWoady From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 400 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5230 times:

Sounds like I might have to have a bit of a practice with RAW, only have a small memory card at the moment though.

Woady



A300-600R, 757-200, 767-200/300/ER, ERJ145, ATR72
User currently offlineTommy Mogren From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 912 posts, RR: 21
Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5216 times:

RAW for 100%



Tommy Mogren



Flightdeck Action - Cockpit Videos on Blu-ray and DVD - Flights In The Cockpit- You're Invited!
User currently offlineLHRSIMON From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1343 posts, RR: 22
Reply 10, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5215 times:

L.Fine JPEG for me. Same as Florian with all the same reasons as well. I just dont have the time to edit RAW.

Cheers
Simon C



Canon 1D Mk III,Canon 20D+17-40 L f4.0,70-200 L IS USM f2.8,400 L USM f5.6,135 mm L f2.0, 50 mm f1.8,1.4 x II extender
User currently offlineAirplanepics From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2003, 2739 posts, RR: 40
Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5213 times:

If i'm going to be taking lot's of photos, I use Jpeg.
But, if Im shooting a rare subject, or know I wont take a lot of photos, I'll shoot RAW.

Also, In bad weather - I usually shoot RAW.

Simon.



Simon - London-Aviation.com
User currently offlineMygind66 From Spain, joined May 2004, 1058 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5212 times:

RAW RAW RAW!
Probably because I need some help when the photo lacks of some quality  Big grin

Enrique


User currently offlineJavibi From Spain, joined Oct 2004, 1371 posts, RR: 41
Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5198 times:

100% RAW!!

And once you get used to it processing is as fast as with JPEG, IMHO.

j



"Be prepared to engage in constructive debate". Are YOU prepared?
User currently offlineGhostbase From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 354 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5180 times:

The Pentax *istD gives the option of saving photos in non-compressed TIFF format which seems to be a good compromise. What would be a 1536x1024 800KB sized JPEG file comes out at 4.6MB in TIFF, this means I can shoot nearly four times more images than using the RAW format. I have certainly noticed that there appears to be reduced loss of image quality when editing TIFF files as opposed to JPEG.

 ghost 



"I chase my dreams but I never seem to arrive"
User currently offlineFL350 From Belgium, joined Feb 2003, 517 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5178 times:

100% RAW (aviation) and like Javier said once you get used to process pics in RAW it's fast as a Jpeg.
RAW allows better work space if commercial use of the image is needed.
I shoot Jpeg for fashion shows, holidays, landscapes and all the rest...

Cheers

Fabrice



Fabrice Sanchez - Brussels Aviation Photography
User currently offlineSenorcarnival From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5148 times:

RAW is too much work sometimes just to get to tweak with WB and exposure compensation, so like many here, I only shoot RAW in difficult conditions, regardless if it's for aviation or otherwise.
While it's not as time-consuming as it sounds, it can be that way when your computer is slow as it is then you throw a massive TIFF file at it.


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5143 times:

I don't waste my time shooting raw for airplanes. Learn how to set your exposure right the first time, and jpeg does the trick easy enough. I only use RAW on portraits, and then only for rare occaisions.

User currently offlineFlyingzacko From Germany, joined May 2005, 583 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5137 times:

Quoting JeffM (Reply 17):
I don't waste my time shooting raw for airplanes. Learn how to set your exposure right the first time, and jpeg does the trick easy enough.

That's what I would say. I mean maybe it's just me being naive, but I don't really get the whole RAW thing. What's really good about it besides the fact, that you can alter a couple of more things like the lighting, etc. afterwards.

Cheers,
Sebastian



Canon 40D + 24-70 f/2.8 L + 70-200 f/4 L + Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlineAA777 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 2544 posts, RR: 28
Reply 19, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5137 times:

I use JPEG. I have found that with my equipment (Nikon D70), and the lens (70-300) basic lens.... that RAW has actually given me poorer results than JPEG and the largest size.... I should probably start trying RAW again, as I have found the best settings for my camera, but even when I was using less than proper settings, I always found JPEG quality to be better.... plus a heck of a lot smaller to download, and a lot lot lot easier to mess around with on PS.

-AA777


User currently offlineChrisH From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 16
Reply 20, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5084 times:

Quoting Flyingzacko (Reply 18):
What's really good about it besides the fact, that you can alter a couple of more things like the lighting, etc. afterwards.

You can get the full dynamic range from the sensor and work with a 16 bit file, giving more detail in dark areas etc. I like to make a big print every now and then, and I don't mind selling images either, feels much better to be able to offer a 16 bit TIF processed by me, rather than a posterized 8-bit jpg processed cheap&dirty by the software in the camera.

But hey, maybe you guys are still using auto-levels in photoshop too. Whatever works for you.

I recommend reading this page for those of you who have yet to see the light ;o)

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...rstanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml



what seems to be the officer, problem?
User currently offlineSean377 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1225 posts, RR: 40
Reply 21, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5083 times:

Quoting Flyingzacko (Reply 18):
What's really good about it besides the fact, that you can alter a couple of more things like the lighting, etc. afterwards.

Pasted from Photoshop's Help File:

"Camera raw image file formats are like digital negatives. They are created by a variety of digital cameras and contain all the information the camera has about the image. The image information is directly captured from the camera's Charged Coupled Device (CCD) or Complementary Metal-Oxide Semiconductor (CMOS) without filters and adjustments applied by the camera. This lets photographers interpret the image data rather than letting the camera make the adjustments and conversions.

Similar to TIFF, a camera raw image file does not throw away any image information to generate a file--it's lossless--but camera raw image files have the advantage of being smaller than uncompressed TIFFs. Only camera raw images contain the actual data captured by the sensor without any in-camera processing".


The 1st bit is the important bit. Digital negatives. Just as a processing shop can adjust the final image of a film negative during processing, we can do the same with RAW files.

It's fair to say that modern digital cameras do a fine job in creating good quality jpegs, but if it get's it wrong, your stuck without the RAW file.

Having said all that, I am still experimenting with RAW, and yes, it can be time-consuming, but I put that down to clunky software!

Sean



Flying is the second greatest thrill known to man... Landing is the first!
User currently offlineINNflight From Switzerland, joined Apr 2004, 3767 posts, RR: 60
Reply 22, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5071 times:

Quoting ChrisH (Reply 20):
I like to make a big print every now and then, and I don't mind selling images either

I shoot jpg, made several poster prints of them ( about 2,5m wide, with almost no pixels visible from a viewing distance of 30cm! ) and also regularly sell photos.

So far, I never lost a photo deal because of jpg. You can upsize a well-shot jpg 3000pixels file to 6000 all the time without great quality loss. You'd have a 400dpi photo with that, more than enough for all customers I had yet.

Quoting JeffM (Reply 17):
Learn how to set your exposure right the first time, and jpeg does the trick easy enough.

Well said.

Florian



Jet Visuals
User currently offlineSyncmaster From United States of America, joined Jul 2002, 2039 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5071 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

RAW, and only RAW. Yes, it's more time-consuming, but the benefits are endless.

And as long as you have a good program for the conversion, it's even better. Personally I use a Capture One/Photoshop CS combination and would highly recommend it.

-Charlie


User currently offlineChrisH From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 16
Reply 24, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5061 times:

Quoting INNflight (Reply 22):
I shoot jpg, made several poster prints of them ( about 2,5m wide, with almost no pixels visible from a viewing distance of 30cm! ) and also regularly sell photos.

Sure it's possible, looks OK, no more. I've done side by side comparisons on an Epson 9600 and much prefer the RAW-output. Obliviousness is bliss I suppose.

[Edited 2005-07-05 10:26:40]


what seems to be the officer, problem?
25 Post contains images Javibi : That explains a lot of things... Will you organize some practical classes for us underachievers, Jeff? I'll surely join them and have fun if you do!!
26 JeffM : No, there are plenty of "experts" jumping at the chance to show you their workflow. I've seen them, and am amazed at how much work they require. What
27 Post contains links and images ChrisH : If "acceptable" is the standard you strive for, then congrats on finding a workflow to suit you. I recommend you start shooting JPG Small in your Can
28 Post contains images JeffM : Good for you Chris... I have two DSLRs...Nikon and Canon...and because I don't treat airplanes like some teenage virgin I want to get in bed, doesn't
29 Post contains images Sean377 : Do I sense a scrap???
30 Post contains images ChrisH : Lovely, you're very experienced. I've owned Fuji S1/S2/S3, D70 and soon the D2X. No you've made that pretty clear already And you've got the pics to
31 Andrewuber : My good friend Charles Juszczak convinced me to try RAW back in January of this year - and I've been hooked ever since. You have SO MUCH flexibility i
32 Javibi : I've just received phone calls from BOTH Nikon and Canon (they follow closely this forum) and they just told me they are going to skip RAW capabilitie
33 FlyingZacko : Thanks for the response. But hey, maybe next time you just keep crap like this to yourself. If only owned my DSLR for about 4 months now, and haven't
34 Javibi : Please, guys, do not take this so personal!! Our good friend JeffM made the most valid point in this discussion: But if you are shooting in difficult
35 FlyingZacko : All I was trying to say, is that I value every comment with constructive critique in it. But Chris' comment was just sarcastic and not entailing anyth
36 ChrisH : That comment was actually not aimed at you, it just happened to follow another response to your question. I should've made that more clear. Snide rem
37 FlyingZacko : I definitely take that back then, Chris. Thanks for clarifying that. Cheers, Sebastian
38 Wietse : Let me just jump on this one as well. Whatever works for you. Damn right! Isn't that the whole point here? If you find a way of doing things that sui
39 Post contains images ChrisH : Wietse: Read between the lines and you'll see I'm giving lots of advice, the rest is just forum banter   Love it! I was actually taking you seriously
40 Post contains images JeffM : Wietse, Forget about it...he has over 400 pictures....he is obviously an expert. Most likely a true legend in his own mind. LOL -Jeff
41 Post contains images TS : Good one!
42 Post contains images ChrisH : pot. kettle. black I'm done with this.
43 Post contains images JeffM : Woady, Do yourself a favor....try them both and see what suits you. You sure are! Good luck on that search for a camera that can finally keep up with
44 Post contains images Sean377 : I'll lend you my old one!
45 Post contains links and images ChrisH : Thanks chief, but no need for luck, told you I got it coming: Then maybe, just maybe, I'll be able to upload 757 sideshots and be a top photog. like
46 FlyingZacko : What is that D2X anyways? Is it like the Canon 1D's. Excuse my ignorance. Cheers, Sebastian
47 Post contains links ChrisH : Yep, 12mpixels @ 5fps or 6.7mpix @ 8fps in the highspeed cropmode. A true beast of a camera. It's not fullframe like the 1Ds, so retains the 1.5x crop
48 FlyingZacko : That camera is a beast indeed. Wish I had a beast of a bank account for something like that too. I'm happy for you. Let us know when you get it, and t
49 Jofa : In my opinion JPG can't compare to RAW when it comes to quality. Nowadays i always use RAW when doing night photography or shooting in twilight. I al
50 Post contains images Woady : Thanks guys! I will have a practice with RAW when it's not too nice (more often than not here). Woady
51 TACAA320 : Don`t kill me for this question: Is the picture quality differente between RAW and jpg?
52 Post contains links TS : http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/rawtruth1.shtml Thomas
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Do You Use Sharpening In Camera Raw? posted Thu May 18 2006 07:44:35 by Seachaz
What Do You Guys Think? posted Fri Jul 21 2006 19:29:09 by EI A330-200
How Do You Guys Do It? Help posted Thu Mar 30 2006 01:36:46 by AA2MM
What Do You Guys Think Of This....? posted Sat Dec 3 2005 17:30:20 by Nirmalmakadia
What Do You Guys Do For Storage? posted Thu Nov 17 2005 06:03:15 by Notar520AC
How Do You Guys Finance Your Hobby? posted Sat Aug 13 2005 18:00:25 by AKE0404AR
What Equipment Do You Guys Use To Scan Slides? posted Sun Aug 31 2003 14:05:49 by Airways1
Scanners: How Do You Guys Get It So Sharp? posted Mon Jul 28 2003 14:18:57 by Thom@s
How Do You Guys Get Good Photos These Days? posted Sat Jul 12 2003 20:44:29 by Jhooper
What Do You Save To CD-TIFF Or JPG? posted Sat Apr 26 2003 11:39:40 by Qantas744