Alright, I'm coming out of the closet today.

I can't hold back anymore...

After being a diehard RAW evangelist for years, I'm now switching to JPG...

I know, my parents might disown me, people might give me weird looks...

But honestly, I just feel at ease about it inside.

I'm accurate in my exposures (I used to shoot slidefilm... JPG is more forgiving than that....)

The only thing I worry about is white balance. I could see switching to RAW in a select few situations where white balance might be TOTALLY off...

So... who's with me?

Who's against me?

Anyone wanna try to talk some sense into me?

I'll be editting in Lightroom... such an amazing program.

Oh, and yes, this will GREATLY help me with my machine gun style of shooting 3,000+ images per wedding. (mind you, that's 3,000+ with an average wedding day of 12 hours)

Gosh Tim.... it's like..... I can't even look at you any more. But hey at least your not buying a Dell and a D200....

Really, the only reason now adays that I shoot RAW is just for the whitebalance. My exposures are pretty on the mark, at least for JPEG. I just like the color flexibility of RAW. I'm kinda a stikler (sp?!) for good WB.

What's really the issue with shooting RAW though? You've got a computer that can handle it, memory is so cheap now adays both in CF cards and hard drive space that it doesn't make much of a difference (at least in my book).... you just have better flexibility. I don't really see there being a much bigger time difference, unless you're just gonna upload the JPEGs straight out of the camera to Pictage (or your lab of choice). What's the upside to shooting JPEG? (Besides a bit more buffer space...that's really the biggest thing I can see....), but that's not enough of a reason to switch for me, but maybe for your style shooting. I dunno.

All I know is that if you switch we can't be seen in public together anymore....

Doesn't Lightroom give you the same WB flexibility and control now with JPEGS?

That's a good question. I'm not sure if there really is one unless you're not planning on doing any post-processing.

I actually like how the RAW files are not directly editable (apart from in Nikon's Capture NX) so you always have an original around. I can't tell you how many times my nervous CMD+S twitch has caused me to save a file prematurely. With the RAW file around I know that I didn't hack up the source file...

Questions:

• Why let the camera decide on the JPEG conversion technique?
• Why not just have the RAW file and then decide at the computer?
• What's the advantage of shooting JPEG other than file size and buffer (which shouldn't be a concern unless you're using a Fuji)?

Good luck.

I have also switched back to jpeg. I have no problems adjusting WB in Lightroom. I know I'm gonna get flamed by the RAW people here, but I just love jpegs again! I import my jpegs right into LR with a contrast curve and my images need very little adjustment after that.

I have been singing the song " I've got to be me" for the last few weeks, in the closet, after WPPI and saw so many people talk like Raw was the easiest thing to do, against all I know of JPG an Raw.

I am free once again!

I've got to be me!!!!!!!!!!! lol

I recently switched from raw to jpeg as well. I could not be happier.

if you are nailing your exposures and you can learn to manhandle your whitebalance enough in camera why wouldn't you?

i've always shot jpeg. almost went to RAW before i learned how to really work my white balance. (thanks to mike colon) now i have no doubts. there is still enought wiggle room if you are in a really poorly lit situation.

I've never shot raw.

So, you get my vote as a die-hard jpeg shooter.

The biggest positive I see is not having to burn all those DVD backups. That's the biggest headache in my workflow. Otherwise, I love raw.

Every shot needs to be corrected - whether or not you shoot Raw or jpg.

Hmm... I hate to agree with that... but I tend to lean toward not disagreeing...

Here's how I disagree though:
I think digital photographers have made a mistake. They confuse "proofing" with "final image adjustment"....

I don't need to adjust all of my pictures. I adjust the ones that are off from what I find acceptable. Yes, I probably have sub-standard standards and I must give my clients crap work because of this... (j/k j/k j/k)

Honestly, a large portion of my files from the camera are good enough to use for proofing purposes. Sure, if they wanted to order a print of any of those files, they'd all need to be corrected. Thankfully, I've never had an order for every image as a final print... (but then again, that'd be good money huh... specially shooting 3,000+ images) ;-)

If you're using Lightroom to edit JPEG, then you're taking a lossy-compressed format (JPEG), making changes to it and exporting as another lossy-compressed format. In essence, you're compressing, uncompressing, editing, and re compressing in your final save. Personally, the JPEG artifacting that is inevitable would be reason enough for me.

I guess if you're editing in LR anyway, why NOT shoot raw? Is it because you don't have the cards and harddrive space to handle it? That stuff is crazy cheap right now...

Ultimately, it's not that big of a deal, imho.

Do what you like!

$.02

Totally understand about the lossy end of things (I actually didn't get hired at a camera store one time, cause the owner asked me if I knew the difference between jpg and tif... I said that jpg was lossy and tif wasn't... he said, no, jpgs are smaller and take up less space.... YIKES! I think he just wanted me to sell stuff and not give answers...)

I'm not too worried about the lossy side of things, there's not a noticeable enough difference for me to worry. (Honestly, you lose more when uploading to Pictage... Ever download your files back from Pictage... check out the size difference... if you're with Pictage, you shoot raw, then save to jpg, then upload to pictage, then I think we'd be side by side for amount of info lost... That's why it takes a while for your files to actually be released to you on Pictage... their system is sizing down/compressing your files more)

I am curious to see what I'll be doing a month from now...

I'll be the first to admit, this is a trial basis. If it works for me, I'll stick with it, if it doesn't save enough over raw... I'll switch back.

My biggest concern is actually slideshows at weddings... shooting Ljpg, I'll be required to download all of my large files to create a slideshow, vs. before I was able to just download the small jpgs....

I will admit... partly I'm just too cheap to buy more CF cards... though I am about to setup a nice 4TB raid...

Yeah, I don't make sense sometimes...

Keep talking sense into me...

Jpeg rocks

Just turn down the contrast setting and use white balance presets and you'll be fine.

You won't see any artifacts if you take a jpg fine from your camera, make adjustments in PS, and save it as a jpg level 10 for the lab. None.

--Shawn

You really don't make any sense! CF cards are too cheap now to not be carrying around 20 GB.

And if you're building a 4TB server I highly recommend NOT going with RAID unless you're building another 4TB RAID to sit behind it and take daily snapshots. JBOD is a lot cleaner, more fault tolerant, and doesn't require the hardware overhead. In a RAID 5 if two drives go down then you're toast. If you're running JBOD and have a failure then you pull the offending drives out and replace them with their backups...

The Digital Storage Thread (that you posted on)

This thread reminded me I need to buy some more 4GB cards!

I experimented with JPEG again recently, once I determined that Lightroom was equally fast between the two formats. The reason I went back to raw was the amount of play I had in the raw format. I could jack around color, hyper saturate, switch to all blue, whatever and go pretty far before seeing any banding. The 16-bit format of raw is undeniably more flexible than the 8-bit format of a JPEG. But, if I didn't play with my images so much, I wouldn't care.

Shawn, who makes adjustments in Photoshop any more? Who has that kind of time?

K

Yeah... I just want a RAID 1... mirror.



At what point do you start to see a difference between 8-bit and 16-bit?

I'm very good at what I do, that's how I can easily equal the workflow speeds mentioned here by the raw shooters. Lots of actions, batches, and maybe batches of batches....

Batches? We ain't got no batches...

--Shawn

Well, you must be better than anyone I've ever seen. I'm a developer for Adobe, I've worked with them for 11 years, and I consider myself pretty good in Photoshop (I've been on the alpha/beta testing teams since before CS1), but there is abso. lutely. no. way. I can equal my processing time in Lightroom--I don't care HOW many batches of actions I run.

There's just no comparison. I suspect, rather than having spent a good deal of time in LR (or watching someone who's expert in it), you're just comfy in PS--which is fine, mang. Just don't say you can easily equal the workflow speeds. It has nothing to do with raw vs. JPEG. It's about an application that's designed to work on a single image at a time vs. an application built for mass manipulation.

$.02



Any time I was doing heavy adjustments (usually stylized effects, hyper color, wide contrast or exposure adjustment, etc.). You would start seeing the banding effect of the 8-bit.

Take a jpeg shot at jpeg-fine or whatever your highest quality jpeg is on your camera. Then export the highest quality jpeg. Then do it again... a hundred times. each to the jpeg that you just created, that way you're slowly running the algorithm over the file you just created. Then take a look at the Final compared to the original. I think you'll be suprised at how minimal the difference is.

Maybe I'm not using Photoshop correctly, but I have no problem getting through a wedding (1000 images or whatever) in the 3 or 4 hours that DJ has talked about.

It works for me, and my clients love their proofs...

this is the key to making the most of jpg in my opinion. i shoot all fine, less contrast and auto or preset balances and they rock!

tim you asked how my editing software would work with your flow, well instead of giving them the so, so jpg proofs you could give them all partially edite files with custom actions that you run on your less contrast files, then when they order something you can do your anal edits. make sense? anyway, i'm proud to call you a jpg brother and i'm excited to see your class of a photog coming out! it's this very thing that caused me to pursue my own flow and make a jpg flow work for me vs all the pump and pimp outs for the raw flow.

btw, everytime i see someone do a stunt on a bike i think of you and your so much better!

Ah.... I think this is where Lightroom shines for me... (and bridge in the past) I'm going through 4,000+ images in 3-4 hours (I shoot 3,000+ and I always have at least one other photog with me, if not two...)

Swan...

I'm getting you... so if I'm looking to make anything drastic of an adjustment, I would definitely want to shoot RAW, but if I'm not really doing too drastic of adjustments, jpg probably will do the job alright?

I guess that depends on what a customer thinks they should get for their $3K - or $10K, and whether they think they've paid enough to inconvenience the photographer so much.

No file should be printed from the camera as is.

I think what Tim was getting at is why spend time adjusting a file that a client will never order?

Maybe you're both right....

1. No file should be printed from the camera as is.
2. No file should be manipulated that's not going to end up being printed anyways.

I am working at about 1000 images per hour. This includes, image selection (e.g., rejection of about 50% typically), wb, cropping, effects, bw, spot removal, cloning, healing, and final exporting to JPEG. Without ever opening a single file in full resolution in Photoshop.

There's just no way Photoshop can do it, I'm sorry. I don't care how good you are at it. It's just not the right tool.



Bryce,

I have no beef with you or this statement (though, if you're at the highest quality JPEG setting on computer and camera, your filesizes will rival raw). I shoot raw simply because I have more flexibility in post. That's it. I simply wanted people to be aware that JPEG s a lossy compression and depending on your settings, you can be damaging the image to a noticeable degree.


That has been my experience, yes.

Kevin, are you saying that you completely process a wedding without ever using Photoshop? You're using Lightroom and Lightroom only?

Greg,

Yes. I may open about 5 or 6 images in PS per 600...

k

I'm loving this thread because I've been thinking of this the last few weeks! I did one shoot recently in Jpeg and there was only two or three images I couldn't save (blown highlights) in Lightroom.

Lightroom is GREAT with jpegs.

Because they paid you a whole lot of money?

It seems to me that there are a lot of photographers who love to shoot weddings - as long as it doesn't interfere with their lifestyle.

OK. That's pretty cool. You mentioned earlier in the thread that you do black and white conversions. Can you get similar quality black and white out of Lightroom as you do Photoshop? (In other words, straight grayscale conversions don't cut if for me....either that, or I need to work more on tweaking contrast and levels in my straight black and white conversions.)

John, I think you're really missing the point. Only so many hours in the day exist. Would a client rather I spend those hours color correcting and tweaking an image that regardless how good a job I show them in a proof (be it on the web or in a proof book) they will have NO intention of ordering or would they rather I spend that time doing other things that would actually effect them, (i.e. spending extra time tweaking the images they do order, or possibly spending more time designing a better looking album rather than either outsourcing it, or rushing through putting together something that just works.)

I wonder what would happen if I asked my clients that.... would you rather I spend time tweaking images you'll never order or spending extra time on the products/images you actually DO order?

Personally, I think that too many photographers spend time on things that THEY think matter to their clients, rather than spending time on the things that actually DO matter to them.

For the record, I think this is one of the downsides (probably the biggest downside) to using Pictage. I don't get a chance to tweak images before they're printed for a client so I do end up color correcting every image that I upload. I've heard that there may be a solution in the works down the road for this problem. We'll just have to see what happens, but that would be great if there was!

That's fair and I understand that. But I'm still getting about 50% compression when I use jpeg on highest settings. But yes I see what you mean. I just wanted to make the counter argument for jpeg because people get so hung up on "lossy" and "artifacts" that they don't ever try it out and see if it affects them. But yes you do make a very valid argument.

$3,000 buys a lot of hours. $10,000 buys a lot more. But I don't care whether the photographer does it himself or outsources it - as long as it gets done.

Tim,

I am also accurrate with the exposures and have like the concept of JPG, but as far as editing and workflow I just ordered a MAC PRO for the storage of RAW. Lightroom doesnt really handle the jpg's to my approval. The shot of Kara I posted earlier today was shot with Jpg amd I love it, but here is the thing. If you overexpose a JPG you really are hurting. In the moment of shooting during a wedding, there may be a couple of times I overexpose, or maybe the sun was just highlighing part of the face. So here is my latest scientific equation.

Weddings = RAW
Lifestyle = JPG

Since I have more time to evaluate exposure I am contemplating shooting JPG for KIds Families and Engagements. I can shoot either but it's all about the workflow.

Sure, but why spend those hours doing that?

Do you woo clients by saying, "I charge a lot of $ so that I can spend lots of hours editing images you don't want to order"? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If I were client I would rather you spend time doing things related to what I DO want, not what I don't want.

That depends on how much you want to get paid per hour...

You're silly and make me smile.

My clients are amped on what I do for them, they LOVE their pictures and the quality of image adjustment is great.

Granted, if you're spending an hour per image for 1,000 images adjusting stuff... sure... you've probably given them EVER penny's worth of your time for their $10,000 fee (is that really what you're charging these days Kantor?? I need to start my own forum like that so I can get my prices up with you....)

You're a bit over the top on this one. I think you might want to think before typing again suggesting that others on here are riping of their clients by trying to be lazy and not adjust images.

Basically, you've missed the point. You adjust proofs to what they need to be for proofing, you adjust final prints to what they need to be for final prints.

Honestly though, I would definitely hire you if you'd like to go through every single one of my images and adjust it to final print quality pre-proofing... let's see, I shot 5,000+ images at the last wedding... and at your rate of $3,000, that would be just under $.60 a picture... hmm... cheaper than the local lab does for negative processing and printing with adjustments... you've got a deal!

+1.

There we go. Tim said in 1 sentence what I was trying to say in my last couple posts on this thread.

I always thought that people were purchasing the photography: time behind the camera moreso than time behind the computer. $3,000 buys a good photographer, $10,000 buys a great photographer....

Why limit yourself to thinking in hours?

Well, apparently, $3,000 isn't enough to actually get all your images color corrected - but then again neither is $10,000 (because there are plenty of photographers at both levels who don't do it). Just how much does someone have to pay? Why not just delete them if they aren't going to buy them anyway? Just give them the pictures you like.

People hire me to document their entire day - not just hand them an 11x14, four 8x10s, and some wallets in two weeks.

From a purely "how it affects your business" standpoint: I've seen events on Pictage where the photographers have uploaded images straight out their camera. It makes them look like amateurs.

And that's also the same reason why I don't deliver images with blown-out highlights. They deserve the best shot they can get, even if it means more time in post-production.

Wow, I just found this thread.

OK, I'm a JPG shooter. Used to shoot Canon, and now am Nikon. I've been spending the last few days studying up for my Aperture Certification.

What's the point? Delivering great images. 99.99999999% of my clients don't care what I do. they want to see a great image. of that majority, another 99.9999999% don't ever buy prints. It's all on-screen for them. 900x600 at 72 dpi. And frankly I see the trend in that direction continuing. It'll probably get smaller (cell-phone size). Only a handful of images get edited for albums, and single prints are even more rare (I'm selling albums this year more than prints by far).

So for me, (and the future as I see it) is JPG. I don't need all that info in my pics. I'm not a fine art photographer. I'm a documentary wedding shooter.

Eric

PS: I don't know why nobody is talking about the non-destructive nature of photo editing (as Aperture does)

They all do. Aperture, Lightroom, iPhoto, Bridge, Mechanic, whatever. It's not an important thing to note any more. It's standard.

I agree, you shouldn't upload things to Pictage that aren't corrected cause you don't have the chance to correct them before Pictage prints them.

We document their entire day and deliver around 1,000 images to them. (We do happen to color correct every image that's uploaded....because we use Pictage). BUT, want's wrong with someone doing very basic color correction for the proofs and then telling the client let me know which ones you want and we'll correct each one of those indiviually further.

Do you REALLY think clients would come to you pissed that you never corrected an image that they never intended on ordering?

Sorry John, but this discussion really has nothing to do with your obsession with spot meters and blown out highlights.

Kev,

I'll bet a ton of people here don't really understand that fact.

I just started a new topic about this topic (proofing, and how much is too much when it comes to editing what you present to the client) because I think it is a topic worthy of discussion, with alot of different schools of thought. How to manage your time and present a good product is a big struggle for alot of people, and I for one would love to hear how you all approach it! Proofing thread (and poll, cause polls are fun)

But for this thread I switched to RAW last summer and can't imagine going back. I'm just getting my feet wet in Lightroom and I do think it evens the playing field quite a bit, but I love the flexibility of RAW.

The problem is that they don't know what to expect. I give them what they pay for and deserve.

It does because this thread is really about cutting corners.

I agree. I recently switched to raw. I love the fact that I can "fix" and even save stuff more easily, that I would not be able to do in jpg.

I have not shot a wedding yet in raw, but will soon. That will be the test for me if I can wrap my brain around the workflow in an efficient manner using Lightroom and Photoshop. Oh and let us not forget about making slide shows at the reception (I am not sure I want to think about THAT workflow yet - although I have thought it through a little).

I do not have a great workflow yet for raw, so right now it is a pain, but I feel the effort, and learning curve is justified. I can actually see that the quality of my final images are much better. BUT...who knows I may go back to JPGs if the first 1 or 2 weddings are a really big pain.

I just need a ton of cards though.