DSLRUsers.com

Ok, I was in the DA chat channel and this guy came in arguing that jpeg is the way to go and he shoots jpeg 90% of the time and owns the Fuji S3.

Not that he politely told me why jpeg was good but gave me a scoulding of "Raw is only for those who can't nail exposure and wb", "More mp doesn't make you a good photographer (between D200 and S3)" and "Faster fps doesn't neccessarily gets you the shot (D200 and S3 again)", he also arrogantly "expressed" why he shoots jpeg compared to raw, but I forgot what other rude comments he made so I won't put words in his mouth.

Now he also said shooting jpeg has brought him his camera gear, his mortgage etc. He also didn't mention what type of pro photographer he is.

Now I know the S3 gives really good jpeg files, but there is a difference in resolution between the S3 and the D200, the 12mp mode on the S3 can't compare to the D200, so I'm wondering, should we all just perfect our techniques instead of shooting raw?

for press work jpeg is the way to go
shooting at events is all about speed it's a race to get images submitted to photo agencies/newspapers right after the event, shooting in raw adds process to the editing process and you can't affort to loose time messign around with raw files

there are heaps of other photogs to compete with so that guy is right in sayign jpeg is the way to go concerning press work

Well he sort of has a point - if you do nail WB and exposure, what more else do you need RAW for? Saturation/NR etc can be done with a JPEG if you are sensible.

For press - as Wendell said - its about speed. And I suspect papers are not overly concerned with saturation and noise reduction (given what they print on). Speed - at least it gets you the image and you get paid. Something - even if it lacks colour and contrast - is better than nothing in their field.

FWIW I shoot RAW so its not my need, but I'm only a hobbyist.

This fellow sounds insecure. Why the need to announce how you make your living etc? He also has a lot to learn if he's applying these claims to all of photography. Every time something is saved to jpeg there is a quality loss, (including the writing of the information to the card). It may be minimal at first, but eventually becomes massive artifacts. Working with Raw, there is no quality loss. Nailing WB may be a personal choice, and an artistic way of changing the photo later. BW conversion in Raw is always better quality (as is sharpening IMO), and there is simply more information on both sides of the histogram. There are way more reasons to shoot in raw other than wb and exposure.

In the press world, it seems like so many of the images are soft already, so such minute details would be overkill given the advantages of speed on a jpeg.

And finally, of course more bloody MP's don't make better photographers. What kind of assenine statement is that, and who is stupid enough to claim otherwise? And if he follows his own advice, he should just go with a little 4mp point and shoot.
Trust me, this guy is dealing with his own issues. It's best to knod slowly, pat them on the back, and let them carry on with their obtuse little realities.

Grev,

Except for one salient point, Dave has nailed it all. This guy is an idiot, and as Dave correctly points out, an insecure one.

But as I said, Dave missed picking up on one salient point ...

and he shoots jpeg 90% of the time

If jpeg is so good, why does he choose to not shoot with it for 100% of the time? Clearly he does not have the confidence in his abilities the claims he has, and clearly it is simply not the best solution for all purposes. He has totally destroyed what little credibility he had.

The bottom line is that if you want the best possible quality image, there is no better starting point than a raw file, and not everyone has the same shooting agenda: a flexible approach - where you shoot based upon the needs of the assignment at hand - will serve you well.

Shoot for the job.

Raw = Uncompressed (or allegedly lossless compression in some cases)
JPEG = Compressed.

Simple really.

RAW has some nifty little things in it that allow you to save details much like a negative would and more.

You don't have to use them, but a RAW file will still give you better quality than a JPEG.

you think this fella would shoot raw+jpeg... that'll sort him out


Tim

Personally, I think people who don't think about shooting both obviously know very little about either.

The same goes for fanboys in the following battles:

Nikon vs Canon
ATI vs Nvidia
AMD vs Intel
PC vs Mac

If you're a fanboy of one and you're advocating against another but you know piss all about the other, there's a strong likelihood that you know piss all about the one you think you get.

Nnnnsic wrote:Personally, I think people who don't think about shooting both obviously know very little about either.

The same goes for fanboys in the following battles:

Nikon vs Canon
ATI vs Nvidia
AMD vs Intel
PC vs Mac

If you're a fanboy of one and you're advocating against another but you know piss all about the other, there's a strong likelihood that you know piss all about the one you think you get.

More:
McDonald vs Hungry Jack
Coke vs Pepsi
Ford vs Holden
pls have your input..........

I am a 100% jpeger Why...it just works for me.

ps. But I will give raw a try one day

shutterbug wrote:I am a 100% jpeger Why...it just works for me.

ps. But I will give raw a try one day

Really Vince, so all your weddings are shot in Jpeg, wow! More credit to you! I wouldn't have guessed.

Well I didn't say he's not right (not fully though) and he didn't tell me what type of photographer he is either. It is just the way he is delivering these "truths" that were offending.

Good commentaries from everybody though.

Alpha_7 wrote:

shutterbug wrote:I am a 100% jpeger Why...it just works for me.

ps. But I will give raw a try one day

Really Vince, so all your weddings are shot in Jpeg, wow! More credit to you! I wouldn't have guessed.

Thanks, Yes 100% jpegger

I'd agree with what has already been said.... either the chap does not know how to use raw to his advantage, or he is just taking an ignorant line to stir up an argument.

I wouldn't tell anyone that one is better over the other as it is not... I shoot RAW most of the time when I know I want to play with the image a bit, or have a safeguard behind me just incase... at the same time I will switch to jpeg if i'm shooting something newsworthy and need to get it to the paper asap.

both have positives and negatives depending on what you are shooting and what your arrangements are.

In the case of this person.. I wouldn't bother replying or making an issue out of it.. spend the time you would waste replying and get out there taking photos.


cheers

birddog114 wrote:pls have your input..........

This is easy, but OT, Birdy :

McDonald vs Hungry Jack

Subway

Coke vs Pepsi

Dr. Pepper

Ford vs Holden

Mercedes

Should have pointed that guy to dpreview. They're always ready to rehash the JPEG/RAW battle.

I'd disagree that 3fps is always enough though.

I wouldn't want a DSLR that couldn't be switched between JPEG and RAW, although I shoot 95% in RAW.

I remember when I first opened an NEF file in photoshop. I thought, "Wow, what's this extra screen...."
For correcting CA, adjusting WB, etc etc etc and I was converted!
I normally shoot raw+jpg basic. This way we can get a quick slideshow happening after the event and helps save time if some need "removing".

Of course I have found some of the other excellent features of PS and look forward to more. What I haven't worked out yet is why when I save it as a jpg after all the corrections, it looks duller than it did in PS. That's for another day.

Anyway, it's RAW for me.

tasadam wrote:I remember when I first opened an NEF file in photoshop. I thought, "Wow, what's this extra screen...."
For correcting CA, adjusting WB, etc etc etc and I was converted!

If someone's tried shooting RAW and then processed it through the manufacturer's basic software (even Canon's DPP is guilty of this IMO) then the controls are usually fairly limited (sometimes just choosing a different WB). As such some people assume that RAW isn't worth the overheads. But if they use a "real" converter (e.g. CaptureOne or ACR) a whole new world of flexibility opens up...

If I shot JPEG on my recent African trip I'm sure I'd be very disappointed. The cameras' AutoWB often got things slightly wrong (even when it was "right" it often varied a bit through a sequence of shots). There was little time to be tweaking WB manually all the time (I could have done this [I used to before I started using RAW] but even then I'm sure I'd have missed it a few times). Also I did screw up the exposure a few times (e.g. switching from photographing a bird, to an elephant with an overcast sky behind, without remembering to dial in some -ve exposure compensation). With the RAW files, when this happened I was able to save the highlights (and had less noise in the "dark" elephant areas to boot). With JPEG I'd probably have to bin it.
Getting it perfect in camera every time would be nice, but there would have been a lot of lost opportunities along the way. Sometimes getting the exposure "perfect" in-camera is a luxury you just can't afford.
Similarly, on this trip I found quite a few occasions where we'd pull up in our vehicles to see some action going on, but by the time the dust had settled the picture I'd seen had disappeared (and sometimes the dust was from other vehicles!). But I was able to capture quite a few good shots in that time, while most of my companions weren't (or didn't try). The contrast on the shots would be low, with no real blacks in the frame. But by simply "tweaking some sliders" in the RAW conversion most of the dust "disappeared", and with minimal/no posterisation (due to the change being made before the image was rendered into an 8-bit file).

I try not to tell people that "you should use RAW instead of JPEG", but those are just some examples of why I'm happier shooting RAW than JPEG...

What I haven't worked out yet is why when I save it as a jpg after all the corrections, it looks duller than it did in PS. That's for another day.

I'd presume that comes down to colourspace (profile) issues (e.g. an AdobeRGB file that's viewed by something that doesn't know about profiles [and thus will show it to you in your monitor's native colour space] will typically look "flatter" than an sRGB file in that case [only because the monitor's native space is more similar to sRGB]).