Last week we asked you what image format you mostly used on your digital SLR camera. It was interesting to see that most visitors have made the transition to taking their photos in RAW format rather than compressed JPG files.
7% of users didn’t know what the RAW format is and 11% stated they never took photos in the RAW format. RAW images are basically exactly what the sensors sees with minimal processing by the camera. Sometimes called ‘Digital Negatives’ the files offer the best quality for post production editing and enhancing.
The draw back is massive quality means massive file sizes so shooting RAW will quickly eat up your file storage but in my view it is definitely worth the trade off. If you want to really get in to the nitty gritty of RAW versus JPG then check out this great essay by Bill Pierce.
The Results in Full
I am wondering if the results surprise your or do you have any advice on when to use RAW ? is it better shoot sport in JPG for better burst mode ?
I’ve found that people who tell me they never shoot RAW because of file size are people who don’t know that a 1TB external drive can be attached to their computer for as little as $99.
Looks like I missed the vote, but I primarily shoot RAW. If I need JPG, I’ll shoot RAW+JPG.
Memory cards are cheap these days. Pair of 8GB CF cards and a 16GB SDHC card for the D300s, and four 4GB CF cards for the D200. I’ve yet to run out of space, even on a location shoot lasting several days.
Even an inexpensive 2GB SHDC card can shoot 200 RAW photos at 6 MP. I’m not sure why anyone would shoot JPG only.
I shot in RAW from day 1 of using my DSLR, as i had been shooting jpg for a while on my bridge camera and was eager to try a new image format. The control you have when processing images shot in RAW is unrivalled. I still havent found a situation where i have felt the need to switch to jpg but as previously mentioned i’m sure that jpg has it’s uses, such as in sports for higher burst rates or in situations where 100’s of images need to be shot, processed and sent out to clients within a small time-frame, where image quality is not a high priority and therefore removes the need to spend time converting RAW images. I’m not surprised that a small percent of people don’t shoot RAW at all but i am surprised that there are some people who obviously have an interest in photography and have never heard of RAW. I think 59% seems about right in terms of people who ‘always’ shoot in RAW.
I have never shot RAW, but that is simply because I can’t. My camera doesn’t support it as I haven’t been able to use a DSLR yet. too expensive for me right now. hopefully one day soon
I have shot RAW exclusively for the last 3 years and will never look back. Like Khurt said, drive space is cheap 🙂
Raw always, but i hope one day to be good enough to shoot jpeg…
It’s not really about “being good enough not to have to shoot raw” in my opinion. I’ve shot raw since I picked up a DSLR, and wouldn’t dream of shooting JPEG. If I was taking shots which needed to be processed quickly, I’d just run them through Lightroom. White balance is one of my main reasons for avoiding a JPEG workflow, as auto balance is very easily fooled.
If you’re using raw to save bad photos then your technique needs to be looked at. Raw simply gives such great opportunities for image manipulation (colour etc) which wouldn’t be fully possible with JPEG.
No one prints from a RAW file, so it is a process added to your workflow…
For this weekend’s wedding i left the computer workng over night to do the RAW/ JPEG convesion. As they say time is money. Get it right in camera must be the mantra to aim for.
Time is money, you are correct, but you’re only as good as the pictures you take. If you take the extra 30 seconds and explain to your client that you’re not shooting standard JPGs (to have the highest quality photo possible) and it might take an extra day to process and print, I really don’t think they’ll mind.
guess i will need to try RAW soon…experiment a little more…i do love the ease of jpeg and the commitment to the photo once you fire off the picture…less opportunity to manipulate the photo…but i guess i come from a news background and less of a production background…
UM, I didn’t know there was such an animal as RAW til last year during a photo shoot of my neice by a Pro here in town. My “camera” that I bought 10 yrs ago would only do JPG’s. When I saw the results of just this shoots “drafts” I was amazed and the final product was phenomenal. I just purchased a Z981 as I am slowly building up skills for photos. I made sure it would shoot RAW and save it in that format. My pictures I have to say come out pretty damn good for even the ones that are “bad”. Not going back. There is too much color loss, and flatness added to a JPG that for snapshots could be okay, but for ulitmate control and producing works of Art. RAW is the only option. ** As a note: ALL digital cameras shoot in the RAW, but only save in JPG. So technically you are doing RAW shots, but the manufacturer most likely for space and the electronics of the camera convert them to JPGs. I wish they wouldn’t use such license encumbered formats. PNGs look so much better than JPGs, and modifications can actually be done to them that look good.
Unfortunately, I’m lacking PC power to run decent processing software to be able to manipulate RAW files from my EOS500D so I’m stuck with JPGs for the time being. I have Photoshop Elements sat in an unopened box until a new PC can be bought. Meh.