Ronald M
Mentor
I dispute JPEG processing is faster/easier. Unless you are happy with whatever the camera does. I never am. Had darkrooms to long.
Multi stage sharpening is screwed up
JPEG is 8 bit so gradients are not as smooth
WB is much more difficult to change
Put one in ACR and do a WB if not already perfect
Go to Bridge or LR, tools, develop settings, change all selected files to last change. They all change automatically. You may do this with any adjustment or combination of adjustments in ACR. Bridge is the same as LR.
Bring 6 at a time in to ACR, burn/dodge, gradient , any other local adjustments
Now open PS and go to file, scripts, automate, convert to TIFF, JPEG, pick a folder and max size of image, and any action you may wish to run. Select destination folder.
Click start and go have coffee.
About 3 sec per image you now have a JPEG finished and in place and the computer did all the work.
Nothing easier and you still have full control.
Multi stage sharpening is screwed up
JPEG is 8 bit so gradients are not as smooth
WB is much more difficult to change
Put one in ACR and do a WB if not already perfect
Go to Bridge or LR, tools, develop settings, change all selected files to last change. They all change automatically. You may do this with any adjustment or combination of adjustments in ACR. Bridge is the same as LR.
Bring 6 at a time in to ACR, burn/dodge, gradient , any other local adjustments
Now open PS and go to file, scripts, automate, convert to TIFF, JPEG, pick a folder and max size of image, and any action you may wish to run. Select destination folder.
Click start and go have coffee.
About 3 sec per image you now have a JPEG finished and in place and the computer did all the work.
Nothing easier and you still have full control.
Duane Pandorf
Well-known
This subject is real simple. Shoot RAW+JPG in camera and use which one suits you. Save the RAW file as if it's your negative or post process it for a better final JPG.
The RAW post processing software keeps getting better and future versions can bring new life to those older files.
The RAW post processing software keeps getting better and future versions can bring new life to those older files.
kuzano
Mentor
I stopped shooting RAW. Almost stopped Post Processing
I stopped shooting RAW. Almost stopped Post Processing
I shot RAW for about 5 years. I post processed with Photoshop 7... Then CS1, then CS2.
I stopped shooting RAW about 4 years ago, and have not used Photoshop for about that long. I fully understand what RAW is, and while I see all the justification for it, I'm not buying into it any more. Why do I want to capture "all the data that the camera sees", when I can capture as much data as is needed for a final image directly OOC.
With the image processing and settings now built into the cameras, RAW is unnecessary IMO.
Setting custom profiles (4 or more) has allowed me to study and become familiar with configuring the camera for the final images in JPEG format, and I really have not captured a RAW image for about 4 years. RAW to me is an unnecessary crutch. I have worked on computers (consulting and teching) for the last 25 years, and photography is my hobby.
I simply begrudge the time at the computer, managing RAW files, converting them, and POST Processing them.
I thought I had died and gone to heaven when I found the Fuji's of late have 7 custom profiles.
So, in my further opinion RAW is also favored by people who suffer GAS and never learn the full capabilities of ONE camera. But those are just judgements and opinions.
I don't say there is no room for RAW, but there is not in my schedule. I would prefer to use the full configuration and settings of my camera and just load near final files on my computer, dump the keepers, manage the rest and do what little tweaking in post that I do.
Not including RAW in my work flow is very freeing for me. I never really liked it the five years I did it, and I am very happy now not to deal with RAW.
Unlike many I see posting about RAW, I am not enamored of the whole Post Processing scene, and particularly RAW. Rather than the time spent in front of the computer, I wish to spend my time shooting, understanding that I can configure my camera with custom profiles to deliver all the elements of high quality images in JPEG, immediately usable files.
I'm shooting now like I learned to do the 40 years I shot film, and I like it that way. No RAW for me.
I stopped shooting RAW. Almost stopped Post Processing
I shot RAW for about 5 years. I post processed with Photoshop 7... Then CS1, then CS2.
I stopped shooting RAW about 4 years ago, and have not used Photoshop for about that long. I fully understand what RAW is, and while I see all the justification for it, I'm not buying into it any more. Why do I want to capture "all the data that the camera sees", when I can capture as much data as is needed for a final image directly OOC.
With the image processing and settings now built into the cameras, RAW is unnecessary IMO.
Setting custom profiles (4 or more) has allowed me to study and become familiar with configuring the camera for the final images in JPEG format, and I really have not captured a RAW image for about 4 years. RAW to me is an unnecessary crutch. I have worked on computers (consulting and teching) for the last 25 years, and photography is my hobby.
I simply begrudge the time at the computer, managing RAW files, converting them, and POST Processing them.
I thought I had died and gone to heaven when I found the Fuji's of late have 7 custom profiles.
So, in my further opinion RAW is also favored by people who suffer GAS and never learn the full capabilities of ONE camera. But those are just judgements and opinions.
I don't say there is no room for RAW, but there is not in my schedule. I would prefer to use the full configuration and settings of my camera and just load near final files on my computer, dump the keepers, manage the rest and do what little tweaking in post that I do.
Not including RAW in my work flow is very freeing for me. I never really liked it the five years I did it, and I am very happy now not to deal with RAW.
Unlike many I see posting about RAW, I am not enamored of the whole Post Processing scene, and particularly RAW. Rather than the time spent in front of the computer, I wish to spend my time shooting, understanding that I can configure my camera with custom profiles to deliver all the elements of high quality images in JPEG, immediately usable files.
I'm shooting now like I learned to do the 40 years I shot film, and I like it that way. No RAW for me.
Paddy C
Unused film collector
I've run experiments shooting raw and best-quality JPGs at the same time (as well as adjusting the picture profile for the JPGs) and I always find a significant preference for the final file I get when working with the raw files.
Michael Markey
Mentor
willie_901
Mentor
Why indeed?
I don't use JPEGs unless I have no other choice.
JPEGs are convenient. Convenience has a price.
On rare commercial gigs image delivery has to be immediate to make money (sporting events, etc).
If the exposure and color temperature are perfect when the shutter opens, raw files are redundant. The information destroyed by JPEG compression is not relevant to digital, print viewing. This is a relatively rare circumstance.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Yes, RAW is better in Canon comparing to in camera JPEG1. EOS M is no exclusion.
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
Tried both; went back to film. 
Chris
Chris
Michael Markey
Mentor
Tried both; went back to film.
Chris
Yep .. tried them both and film ... use all three
CVickery
Established
I've used RAW for years and IMO it's an even more compelling choice with modern processors. At one point it did take some post-processing work to get jpgs that were equal or better than the OOC jpgs. Now it's trivial to apply a basic profile in LR as you upload the files and all the in-camera options that you typically use are automatically applied and you have the ability to generate a jpg immediately that is the same or better than the straight OOC jpg, and still retain all the strength of the RAW files.
raid
Dad Photographer
I would have said the same as what Duane has said .... but he said it first.
Bill Clark
Mentor
This is the way I understand digital file processing:
RAW is like undeveloped film. The RAW file is developed with a computer using a program. I start the process with Bridge which is part of Photoshop.
All digital cameras start out with a RAW file then, if you let it it will make a JPEG with the processor in camera. I equate using this method like Polaroid film.
I believe cameras started out making a JPEG file is because of hardware constraints during the olden dazes of digital photography. Things like card capacity, computer constraints, the software ability to work with a RAW file back then was next to impossible for most of us.
But that's changed. We all have a choice. I choose, with my cameras to make all RAW files.
RAW is like undeveloped film. The RAW file is developed with a computer using a program. I start the process with Bridge which is part of Photoshop.
All digital cameras start out with a RAW file then, if you let it it will make a JPEG with the processor in camera. I equate using this method like Polaroid film.
I believe cameras started out making a JPEG file is because of hardware constraints during the olden dazes of digital photography. Things like card capacity, computer constraints, the software ability to work with a RAW file back then was next to impossible for most of us.
But that's changed. We all have a choice. I choose, with my cameras to make all RAW files.
Hsg
who dares wins
This is a 100% crop from a Fuji jpg, fine setting.
I could never achieve such clarity and 'clean' look with natural colors using a RAW file and even if I did, that would be a waste of time because jpgs from the camera are already of such high quality.
here is the full image:
I could never achieve such clarity and 'clean' look with natural colors using a RAW file and even if I did, that would be a waste of time because jpgs from the camera are already of such high quality.
here is the full image:
Canyongazer
Canyongazer
Well, that settles it:
Some of us shall shoot RAW
Some of us shall shoot jpegs
Some of us shall shoot RAW some of the time
Some of us shall shoot jpegs some of the time
Some of us shall shoot both
But seriously folks, personally speaking, I shoot jpegs with the Fujis 'cause they are good and end use is usually undemanding.
I think of and treat the Nikon D800e as a "medium format" camera like my late lamented Mamiya 7II---only the best lenses, usually on a tripod, RAW only. End use pretty much limitless in my world.
As others have pointed out, "RAW or jpeg?"...well, it depends.
Good arguments are made on both sides....if that were not so the discussion would not come up again and again.
Some of us shall shoot RAW
Some of us shall shoot jpegs
Some of us shall shoot RAW some of the time
Some of us shall shoot jpegs some of the time
Some of us shall shoot both
But seriously folks, personally speaking, I shoot jpegs with the Fujis 'cause they are good and end use is usually undemanding.
I think of and treat the Nikon D800e as a "medium format" camera like my late lamented Mamiya 7II---only the best lenses, usually on a tripod, RAW only. End use pretty much limitless in my world.
As others have pointed out, "RAW or jpeg?"...well, it depends.
Good arguments are made on both sides....if that were not so the discussion would not come up again and again.
back alley
IMAGES
this is a surprising number of responses to my op...
i was talking about the difference between the jpeg output from my fuji as compared to the eos m...the fuji jpeg is just so much better...with the canon i will have to use raw for a noticeable improvement in output.
i was talking about the difference between the jpeg output from my fuji as compared to the eos m...the fuji jpeg is just so much better...with the canon i will have to use raw for a noticeable improvement in output.
Michael Markey
Mentor
Like I said Joe ...it depends on the camera
It appears that different camera manufactures have different priorities.
When I used Canon I shot raw ...same with the Merrills but Richo appears to have put more effort into the jpeg files.
It appears from users that Fuji have also done so.
It appears that different camera manufactures have different priorities.
When I used Canon I shot raw ...same with the Merrills but Richo appears to have put more effort into the jpeg files.
It appears from users that Fuji have also done so.
DominikDUK
Well-known
RAW and JPEG aren't even in the same class RAW has more color depth/info than jpeg.
It is often sharper and/or contains more details at higher iso due to the build in noise reduction of the camera that kills detail in the jpeg.
It can be manipulated to a much higher extent than a jpeg before it shows on the image.
Etc..
It is often sharper and/or contains more details at higher iso due to the build in noise reduction of the camera that kills detail in the jpeg.
It can be manipulated to a much higher extent than a jpeg before it shows on the image.
Etc..
back alley
IMAGES
have you any experience with the fuji jpegs?
seakayaker1
Well-known
I shoot raw only. At time of post-processing I save the original raw file, then save a jpeg file if posting online and save a tiff file for printing.
The flexibility of having a raw file for future use if you keep the image and want to reprocess and then save a different version of the image latter.
Choices are good, no right answer, just user preference.
The flexibility of having a raw file for future use if you keep the image and want to reprocess and then save a different version of the image latter.
Choices are good, no right answer, just user preference.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I shoot RAW in those cameras for which Aperture will convert the RAW file: D-Lux 3, D-lux 4; M8.2; X100; Nikon D300 and D700. Aperture, running on my Snow Leopard, will not accept RAW from my X10 or my D-Lux 6. But these cameras produce gorgeous JPEGS! So, I have been shooting JPEGS with them. I have now added LR, which will accept their RAW files. I just thought I should. LR isn't as intuitive as Aperture; in fact I lost some nice pictures before I understood how the filing works; but now I can see for myself if I really need to shoot the D-Lux 6 and the X10 in RAW. I just added LR out of guilt, really. I was OK with the JPEGS.