Do you shoot in .jpg or RAW

When I started , I used to shot in .jpg but now I shoot only in raw (.nef having a Nikon).
The pro regarding shooting is raw is the quality of the image (I suppose better chance to sell your work).
The con is that is (sometimes) time consuming when you have to convert from raw to jpg and maybe review color balance, etc, etc.
Donald

When I can I shoot RAW + JPG basic. That way I can upload stuff to the agencies right away from any spot with wi-fi from my netbook, yet I keep the RAW just in case I need higher resolution files.

RAW only, but true, post-processing takes longer.

Only RAW. Process in lightroom. (crop, keywords and captions)

There is a well know proverb: more haste less speed.
That is if you try and go too fast you are slower in the long run.
o I always shoot RAW. The conversion in lightroom only takes a few seconds and It is easier for handling all the captions and keywords.

Lightroom sucks on my netbook, I'm afraid. Depends on workflow and how tight deadline we're talking about.

I shoot in RAW only, convert to DNG with the Lightroom import. It's a lot easier to make color and exposure corrections in LR, bring down blown out highlights and the like. For major breaking news, I'd probably shoo tin RAW + JPEG. The thought of not have a RAW file to fall back on would make me really uncomfortable.

Raw + jpg fine, but very seldom need the raw file. Most photojournalists I know don't even shoot in raw anymore. It is a waste of space, and you don't gain anything you can't do in-camera. With time frames measured now in second it is imperative to be able to submit as fast as possible, and RAW does not allow that time frame to be met anymore.

The new Nikon D4 that was developed for the photojournalist, with their direct input, emphasizes this in it's direct internet connecting capability. There is no room to spend converting, and editing a raw file. The need is to be able to upload it from camera as fast as possible. In doing this there is no editing of a RAW file involved. You do not upload the RAW file. It is not accepted, or allowed. You upload jpg files so why deal with converting, and editing to get the color right. The camera does it all, and very well.

I still shoot with a RAW backup file only to show it is in fact my photo as no one else has the original RAW file. I've luckily never had to use it yet.

I shoot Raw and jpeg,most guys i know who work for AFP and Getty shoot that way too. If you need speed the jpeg is there for you but i always have the Raw file as its what we used to call 'The Negative'. Simple workflow for me shoot Raw+jpeg, Quick edit, keyword and caption selected images etc in photo mechanic then send images. With a decent laptop it don't take long to do it.

I don't intend to start any argument, but for what I collect from people from many backgrounds (meaning from local newspapers to AP/AFP/Getty staff photographers or stringers to s couple of world renowned PJs I had the chance to know and talk during a workshop last year) professionals will use whatever medium is best for the job. Amateurs are more worried about the RAW vs JPG dilemma than pros.
For example, most of the fashion photographers I know work hard to get the white balance well at the time of the shot, then use JPGs. The versatility of using RAW is shadowed by the fact that no matter how good a batch process you run, it's still not practical to process 2000+ pictures if you can just have them right at the time of the take.
Most of the PJs I know like to shoot RAW + JPG. Those who work for wire like AP may, from what I've found out, send them over the RAW files and leave the editing to the editorial desk. If you work for a newspaper, you most likely will shoot JPGs and send them as fast as you can. For that purpose I go with RAW + basic JPGs: good enough for the web, good enough for a newspaper, and if needed I can provide the extra resolution.
What I want to stress is that there is no single right answer to the question: you use what's best for the job. If at all possible, RAW is best, no doubt, but if you expose carefully (as you should) you can still go ith JPGs in those cases you may need it (Imay turn to JPGs in those rare cases when the buffer gets filled too quickly and I need more frames).
RAW + JPG give you speed and flexibility, so I think its the wise choice. Just spend some extra cash on real fast cards.

raw only, use lightroom to make minor corrections and that it

know your camera inside out and shoot raw.

Patricio,

I think you nailed it: use the best tool for the job.

I usually shoot RAW+JPEG normal. If I need to email shots to a PE I plug my camera into my tablet, import the low resolution jpg and email it right away.

When I get back to a place where I have time I will import the RAW, tag and caption and the e-mail or upload from my laptop.

In short it seems to come down to a workflow that works for you, but many PJs seem to shoot in RAW+JPEG so that they keep their options open.

I have spoken to some sports guys that prefer JPEG because of the larger frame buffer when shooting a lot of frames at one time. It also allows them to quickly file shots between periods, quarters, etc.

Victor

victor but since you.re filing jpg. and they are ok why do you need the raw? the other aspect that might be important is that the medium eg d300 to low cameras have a certain life span. for the d300 it.s about 100k after that you.ll probably have to replace the motor like I had to.

Lawrence,

Historically, I have shot a lot of stuff in very low light. I discovered that I was throwing out too much information in the camera using jpg to make the picture usable. This was especially true in dark shadows that would be rendered as black in the jpg, but from RAW I could lighten it up by 2 stops or more.

Also, at high ISO noise levels were very high on my older cameras, and noise reduction applied on the RAW seemed to produce a much better, clearer picture.

Recently something else has popped up: integrity of the picture. With all the concerns about photos being manipulated having a RAW image, taken directly from the sensor, is proof positive that the image is accurate.

Regarding the shutter life, I'm not sure what you mean about it and the use of RAW?

Victor

victor that.s exactly the reason why I moved to raw - more opportunities to recover a photo. but you make a very excellent point about integrity. really excellent point.

I find it *faster* to shoot in RAW! I upload the RAW to lightroom. caption and keyword in LR (it is *VERY quick in LR with a structured keyword set.) and then export to Demotix using the LR plugin... It all goes in one upload: images, keywords and captions. Then add to a story with the minimum other data and publish.

When it is published I then go back to add the the additional story material.

I would not save any time shooting JPG. Also I would not have the RAW files if I want to do anything else with the images.

I also use LR3 and don't think it impacts my workflow at all. It may slow down exporting a bit, but other than that, I can't think of a step that I would do differently in LR.

Victor

LR speeds up the work flow! I can't think of a faster way of working. Though some like Aperture and Photo Mechanic. This is not surprising as it was designed for this sort of work.

It is a much slower workflow to constantly process RAW files as opposed to JPGs. Just the file size by itself slows down the process, then every RAW file has to be processed, where as all JPGs do not. If your exposure was correct in camera, and you payed attention to your framing JPGs can require virtually no editing, other than the tagging. All RAW files have to be edited, you do not submit RAW files to any buyer, or publisher, unless they want them for original picture confirmation, you have to process them.

RAW files do not have to be edited. Process to JPG yes but edited no. The time taken to do it is minimal (seconds) and in fact the upload time is more of a limiting factor.

Steve, under normal conditions RAW are not more complicated to process as Chris says. It is true that RAW files are huge as you point out, which means that it is down to whether your computer can handle the size. On Nikon cameras, at least (presumably also on Canon) you can save a RAW file in camera as JPEG and even make some corrections on the camera itself.

RAW does not have to be edited?
When you look at your LCD, you see a JPG rendered with whatever settings you apply on camera. in my Nikons, if I use Capture NX, it reads that info and shows me the same picture I see on my camera (not taking into account monitor calibration issues). If I just convert that NEF files to JPG without further editing, it would be the same as shooting JPG, excepto for the archival advantage of RAW.
When I use Lightroom, the program does NOT read the camera settings, and apply whatever preset Adobe had on mind for my camera, or the preset of my choice (I have one that mimmicks my D300 settings as much as possible). If you just convert to JPG that files, you'll have JPGs rendered according to some Adobe engineer's taste. Much like sending your film to a minilab.
RAWs demand edition. A RAW file has no sharpening applied, no contrast, no nothing. You don't see a RAW file,. you can't, but a JPG interpretation of that data.
To summarize: if you won't edit, shoot RAW+JPG and skip completely the conversion, download and use the JPGs as they come off the camer and save the RAWs so you have another editing options in the future.
Unless you prefer to apply some preset of your choice (different to the camera settings, of course) to your RAW files, in which case you should by all means shoot RAW.
The RAW advantage is editing options, so if you won't edit, just be happy with JPGs. To me, other than slowing the buffer in burst shooting, nothing beats having the two formats, I can deliver the JPGs straight from location without losing time in conversion. Besides, I have my camera set up to give me a file I like, and no matter what program I use later for edition, when working news I just apply a preset that mimmicks those settings, so the conversion time is usually a waste of time. If I see a JPG that I don't like, I still have the RAW to edit.
RAW in news photography, for me, is just a backup. in other type of shoots I go with RAW, no doubt, but the fact is that if RAW conversion doesn't take time off your workflow is beacuse you're just not taking advantage of the format, which is in editing options.

A previous answer explaining why RAW do need edition apparently went to moderation... I will just add that I've seen people delivering RAW files to their agencies, but that doesn't mean no edition, but rather than someone else will do the editing for you...

My reply also went to moderation Most seem to

I never send RAW images in and the RAW to JPG conversion in LR when exporting slows the FIRST image by 5 seconds after that the upload speed is slower than the conversions

The RAW+JPG allows me to send just the JPG from location. If I'm downloading the pictures to the computer at home, I'm already late to compete with the agencies' staffers, so I just download the RAW files at home and don't bother with the JPGs or, if I don't plan to do any editing, download both but deliver the JPGs as they come with no further retouching, cropping or anything.

How do you upload in the field?
I have a laptop running Lightroom. slot the card from the camera into the laptop. Import to LR, ad captions and keywords. Upload using the Demotix-LR plugin. That converts them to JPEG. IT slows up the first one by 5 seconds. After that it is the upload link that is the slow part.

Get home and export the images with meta data to my main system.

I use a 10" netbook, my 15,4" laptop is too bulky to carry at demonstrations and events. Lightroom runs too slow on that machine, so I go with JPGs and use Photomechanic for captioning and keywording. When I say slow, i mean if I want to do any adjustment. Since I won't do any adjustments in the field, I just don't use the RAW, downloading to the PC 1.5 Mb JPGs beats the hell out of tranferring 10Mb NEF files in terms of time. RAWs are for home use in my workflow.

I shoot RAW, convert to DNG, edit, and export to JPEG (normally). When I need speed, I edit RAW, export to JPEG. For archival purposes I keep DNG.

Patrico you need a better lap top..... but then again don't we all

I am not bothered with DNG. At least not until Nikon move to it as a native format instead of NEF. There is no point.

Chris: Regarding uploading from the field:
I wirelessly tether my laptop or Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet to my phone, use a USB cable to my camera, and then import only the pictures that I want/need to send from the field. The laptop is used when I have the space (in car or coffee shop) to work with it.

The Android tablet can be used almost anywhere, but is very limited in editing captions and virtually useless for IPTC tags. The big plus is that it can store pic on the device, and if I am using a Eye-Fi card there is an app called MoPhotos (http://www.mophotosapp.com/) that is actually very good, and allows IPTC and caption editing before uploading.

iPads have better tools for actually editing and uploading, but are very limited in many other ways. I think that as soon as a developer clues into the opportunity that is represented in building an app comparable to the Filterstorm app for the iPad (http://filterstorm.com/fs3/) then it will become much more popular with photojournalists. The problem with iPads is that, apparently, when you make changes to the image they can't be saved on the device, and must be uploaded. As a result all your tagging will be lost.

BTW, if you only have an iPhone you can also use Filterstorm on it to make quick edits and uploads.

Andre: I am curious why you convert to DNG, rather than keeping it in the original raw format. Doesn't this limit you to Adobe products in the long-term?

Victor

@Victor -- Doesn't this limit you to Adobe products in the long-term? -- Maybe "Canon or Nikon" decides to not support their actual raw files one day I don’t like to think 50 years ahead, today

Why convert to DNG? I feel comfortable and satisfy my job needs.
DNG isn't perfect, but some aspects I have considered:
- Changes to images can be written directly into .DNG files, without having to create separate sidecar .XMP files.
- When JPEG preview enabled, the DNG file can be previewed directly, with any picture viewer.
- DNG files are capable of storing full original RAW files, from which it can be extracted at any time (when embeded) via the DNG converter application.

At the point Nikon and Cannon decide to stop supporting their own RAW files and go DNG I will have the RAW to DNG converter. SO what is the problem?

I can convert the whole lot to DNG should that day ever happen. Even if it does happen so many people have a vested interest in the Nikon/ Cannon RAW format that as now there will be many programs that support the formats. IT is not going to turn off over night and all converter programs disappear.

@Chris - No problem. I don't worry now. "I don’t like to think 50 years ahead, today "

How do I report spam?

Richard,

I have already dropped a note to Tom Barfield, but after I sent it I thought it may be better to send to support at demotix dot com. I think that goes to a group, rather than an individual.

Victor

no! Send it to Tom.. It will give him something to do and I know he loves to hear from us )
Actually it is a good point. Support would be better.

Spam buttons would be a LOT better then we could replace the spam bot. Which would take a lot of work off Tom.
He would only have to check the highlighted messages rather than unblock all of ours.

RAW and large JPEG. Depending on the job sometimes just JPEG...

I think the essence of Patricio's post was right. We should always be talking about great images, not the technical aspects. Although its useful to know. There is of course a way around this debate:

- Prepare the story before in general (and go for the details).
- I then imagine the photo I want and as soon as I have that, I leave.
- Sometimes I'll take my laptop and head to a cafe with wireless to upload the images or use the taxi time to run through the editing process. (If its a gig, then I use the time between band sessions to look through my photos and decide which images I want to keep). i.e. use the time you are not photographing to maximum effect.
- Lest we forget that there are future newspaper articles to be written, magazine and book editors who wish to purchase photos (the Hare and the Tortoise?) I know from studying at University that there are books which have incredibly niche topics (one I read for a course on Industry and Innovation was about power lines. One academic who has taught me wrote something (I think a journal article) on the effect of devolution on Scottish Trade Unions, it might have been more specialist than that.
- Another tip is to research interesting stories, then the time deadline doesn't matter, you might be the only one with that news story.

Like Garry Winogrand said: "Don't worry about the last the photo you took, its already too late. Think about the next one." Just a note to the people pointing out the virtues of the D4... I'm not going to complain about not having a better camera, if I was a better photographer I would probably have one.

Its quality of the concept in your photograph that matters, not the quantity of bytes in your files.

Jonathan the problem with - I then imagine the photo I want and as soon as I have that, I leave.- is that you are not really reporting the event, but snapping a few pictures. my impression of photo journalism is to be a witness to the whole event.

Jonathan,

You make some great points, but I have to take exception with your suggestion " I then imagine the photo I want and as soon as I have that, I leave."

In my view, that is a great way to miss great shots, as well as the shots that look a bit deeper than our preconceptions or prejudices.

If the objective is to tell your story, then by all mean bolt when you think you have those shots, but if you are trying to tell people what happened, then I think it would be better to wait around a bit.

More often than I'd care to admit, I have left the scene of a story after getting the shots I came to get, and then seen someone else's work. Inevitably it has some brilliant occurrence that reveals the key item that all my shots missed. In almost every case it was something that happened after I left.

Every time I curse my impatience and vow that I will not do that again.

This is just my opinion, and you're welcome to yours.

Regarding the hardware discussion, cameras and lenses are tools. Good tools can limit you or set your creativity free. Believe me when I say that there is a noticible difference between cameras, and their applicability to a given type of photography.

Having said that, not a single Pulitzer Prize winning photograph has been taken with a D4 (yet). There are tons of great cameras out there that exceeds the needs of 90% of what we use them for, and all of them are capable of taking a picture that could win a Pulitzer, and that includes your iPhone (sans Instagram).

Victor

In the Good Old Days (tm) Reporters did tend to arrive, get the shots and leave. However this was more due to the process than anything else. The film had to be transported to the office where the darkroom processed it and take it to the picture editors. This took TIME and the profess of typesetting/compositing a newspaper also took much longer than now so deadlines were much earlier in the day. Also of course even with high capacity film rolls the number for frames was comparatively limited and you had to keep changing rolls of film.

Now of course the time from the location to the office is milliseconds by internet and the Reporter has already dome the development, added captions , media summary etc. With modern typesetting the deadline is much later. So the time pressure the old photo journalists had for print deadlines is not there. This has really only changed in the last 10 years so old habits die hard for some.

This means you can stay and cover an event fully and catch things that happen after the initial flurry of images.

As for getting the image you want and leaving. It also suggests you have already decided what the story is and what the image for it is. Rather than going there and reporting on what happens with an open mind, Though this does very much depend on what the story is. For example when Lawrence goes to a fashion shoot he knows who the designer is and that he will want images of the designer, dresses and the celebrities there.

thank you Chris for the background. and victor you are right about things happening after the event.

indeed fashion shows and photocalls are all stage managed and can easily end up being boring and uninteresting as victor explained. however the answer to this is not to leave early, but to be more imaginative. for example with the photocalls i.m trying to experiment with landscape portraits photographing expressions on people.s faces. I'm still learning and experimenting plus building up the courage to deviate from the norm.

but taking a couple of photos and leaving during an event, unless there are pressing needs, is not really photo journalism.

best Lawrence

I stand corrected. I will double my efforts to keep going with a story, until the very end. However, my other points still stand. Lawrence, I also appreciate the tips you have just mentioned. I should be doing more to highlight the expressions and emotions involved with the events I photograph. I like to cover demonstrations and these are often highly emotive (sometimes I've been in awe of the events and found them emotionally overwhelming). I feel I don't convey my feelings, but I feel I should be conveying the emotions of the people involved, not my own.

Whilst I'm glad to "talk" about these things on forums like this, I feel we are diverging away from the initial topic. To bring it back, I photograph in RAW. I'm trying to use the 25 photos limit on the story to my advantage - in that I should be using less photographs to make more impact - rather than blitzing and taking 400 (sometimes average to poor, boring photos) I want to be in a situation where I am taking 40 good and interesting photos. This will also cut down on the post-processing time. However, there are some situations where I need to take many, many more (especially if there is a whole day of "action").

Luckily I can try this out tomorrow and upload them quickly due to the locality being near various bars/cafes where there is free wi-fi. I've pretty much written the story.

Jonathan,

I agree with your point on focus on quality over quantity.

In some of the sports photography forums the launch of the D800 raised a lot of questions about it's applicability for sport. The reason a lot of people gave for it being inappropriate was the frame rate. Other's countered that frame rate was a surrender to "Spray and Pray" rather than properly timing and composing the shot.

Those users that had been shooting for decades, and as a result used cameras with 3 and 4 fps and only 36 exposures, pointed out that they were able to get great sports pictures at that time because it forced them to time and compose their shots.

In many of these threads one or more of the writers would come back a few days later espousing the virtue of changing to single shot or low fps. They cited difficult early going and frustration, but when they reviewed their much smaller catch of shots they had a much larger percentage of usable images. The additional benefit was that their workflow was much shorter due t the need to review fewer pictures.

Victor

Victor the D800 is not a sports camera. The D4 is. the reason for the high frame rate which IS required for sports is that you can not always get the exact right shot in fast moving sports. The ball crossing the line, the hurdler going over a hurdle. The difference in .25 of a second is the expression on the face, the hand in front of the face... The split second look between two competitors. You are not going to have time to react for the exact instant.

Remember the Motor-drive for 35mm film cameras was not developed for amateurs. This would shoot at around 4-6fps Then there was the high capacity back The professionals most certainly were not shooting with rolls of 36.... I have an idea 72, 120 or more frames were more common. You rolled your own cases of film, or at least the office did. So the pro sports photographers would have 120 frames and a motor-drive at 6fps.....

That said you still had to get the composition right to start with and know which second you wanted the burst.

Also that is why the D4 is 16MP not 30MP.... 16MP is what the professionals said was the optimal. Especially if you are uploading on a wireless link. (ie a G3 dongle on the laptop).

As for taking fewer pictures.. that was not the question. You EDIT and post a selection. In the good old days the rolls of (120 frame) film went to the lab and the picture editor looked at the contact sheets. that is the WHOLE FILM and selected the ones to print. That the where the light box came in for viewing lots of slides and negatives: editing down the pictures.

These days the Photographer effectively develops the film and does the first pass editing before uploading to Demotix. You don't take fewer pictures. This is not art photography, you just have to edit the set yourself. Simples.

ah! the good old days when we used to cut our own fp4 under the bed sheets to save a few pennies!

Chris,

I think you missed my point.

Those that are far better photographers - sports or otherwise - than either of us have engaged in a re-evaluation of what it takes to take a great sports photo, and landed on the side of timing and composition, not high frame rate.

http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=39879

That being the case, there is a place for a 36MP camera that shoots at the 4 frames per second in sports photography, just as there is one for an 11 frame per second D4.

The other day I dropped my camera into single shot mode to shoot a professional hockey game:
http://www.demotix.com/news/1150141/toronto-marlies-defeat-hamilton-bulldogs-3-1-final-season-game

I still have a lot to learn about shooting sports, but I think I managed to get a lot of very solid shots, and had to sift through significantly fewer frames after.

In any case, to keep this on topic (RAW vs Jpeg), one advantage to shooting Jpeg is that the buffer seems to fill up a lot slower. Then, if you're not shooting at high fps that isn't nearly as much of an issue.

Victor

Victor I didn't miss the point at all. Composition is important however I note that NIkon having talked in depth to the leading Professional photographers globally thinks differently to you and agrees with me. Hence the D4 is the professional journalists /sports camera and the D800 is aimed at studio and landscape. A friend of mine has a D800 for that reason.

Had you been right the professionals would not have been using motor-drives (that were well out of reach or most amateurs) and high capacity back with AFAIK never entered the non professional market.

Also YOU COMPLETELY missed the point:- the people in the thread you referenced are shooting Local US basketball where the lighting is normally quite poor. As several of them said their flashes don't cycle and 10FPS.... THAT is why the high frame rate is no good to them. Now you go to the high end sports and international events where the lighting is good, where flashes are not needed, you will find they do what the high frame rate.

(actually so would the people in that threads if the Local US basketball courts were better lit!)

the reason why one would want to shoot at a high frame rate is if you are shooting jpgs, you only get one chance with jpgs. anyway one really shoots in bursts for a particular situation. the most important factor is eyes closed, for me that.s the number one photo killer. but to do that kind of shooting you really need a top end camera as Chris says and deep pockets. anything else is an illusion.

Shooting sports is not the only form of photojournalism, and is now getting very specialized at the pro level. At the levels lower than that many people shoot with frame rates less than 5fps, and do a job meeting their needs, be it for local news, or syndication.

During film days 4 fps was considered pro level, and used for sports, with the motor drives, and they weren't that expensive considered the price of the camera. My F4 back was only $270 giving me the blazing 4fps, now almost every new entry level DSLR, and quite a few P&Ss will match or exceed that rate. Shooting RAW is the only bottle neck in maintaining a fast frame rate as it slows to write to the media card.

I'm real interested in the new Nikon D3200 entry level camera shooting at 24.2megs DX with the new Exceed 3 processor, the best at noise reduction (same as the D4, and D800), and with an add-on wifi dongle. With the quiet shooting mode, and at 4 fps this looks to be the best entry level camera on the market at only $700US.

Every new photographer looking to upgrade should seriously consider this camera. Just because it is rated as an entry level camera body doesn't mean it won't meet almost all shooting needs, with the right lenses. The only thing it is lacking is an internal focusing motor (most new lenses have motors), an exceedingly fast frame rate, and weather proofing, but at just $700 it is easy to overlook these.