* My Profile My Galleries My Networks


I’m completely new to the photojournalism side of photography. When I shoot portraits and landscape, I shoot in RAW for the post-process benefits. For journalism, I don’t expect to do much retouching, and wonder if shooting in RAW is overkill.

What do you guys and gals shoot? And if it’s JPG, what quality?

by Michel Hulsey at 2007-09-21 01:29:52 UTC (ed. Mar 12 2008 ) Okinawa , Japan | Bookmark | | Report spam→

Jpeg fine. Anything less is suicide.

I’m now a raw shooter almost exclusively.

by Paul Treacy | 21 Sep 2007 01:09 | New York City, United States | | Report spam→
If you have the space, this shouldn’t really be a question.

I’ve had times where I didn’t expect to have a “keeper” and shot something very worthwhile and was wise enough to be shooting in RAW.

by [former member] | 21 Sep 2007 01:09 | Philadelphia, United States | | Report spam→
I’ve got 14 gigs for two weeks in India. I’m bringing an external, but wanted to leave the pics on my cf cards, for an extra back up. So far, it sounds like RAW is the way to go. Anyone care to argue jpg’s side?

by Michel Hulsey | 21 Sep 2007 01:09 | Okinawa, Japan | | Report spam→
It’s smaller.

by [former member] | 21 Sep 2007 01:09 | Philadelphia, United States | | Report spam→
There realy is no argue. It is like polaroid v film. Which do you want?

by Kristjan Logason | 21 Sep 2007 02:09 | San Cristobal de las casas, Mexico | | Report spam→
Michael, I shoot raw and small jpeg at the same time, the jpeg is only for quick edit.
For best quality I use raw only for pics that I will use or archive.
Take Care, Pete

by Pete Woronowski | 21 Sep 2007 02:09 | Saskatchewan, Canada | | Report spam→
Shoot RAW. You have more and more options as RAW converters and programs like Lightroom continue to improve.

by [former member] | 21 Sep 2007 02:09 | New York, United States | | Report spam→
Anything for print … Shoot it in RAW !!!

by [former member] | 21 Sep 2007 03:09 | Hong Kong, Hong Kong | | Report spam→
hahha… that was well said and funny Kristjan!!

by | 21 Sep 2007 04:09 | Santa Clara, United States | | Report spam→
I shoot everything in RAW. My workflow is down so speed isn’t an issue. Jpeg is a processed file meaning you can’t really undo anything done to the file. RAW gives you the best quality, flexabilty and future use possibilities.

by Jonathan Castner | 21 Sep 2007 04:09 | Denver, United States | | Report spam→
If you’re shooting fast to get something out in a hurry, shoot both. Otherwise, RAW only In the past I caught myself out using jpg only, e.g. in an indoor situation where I didn’t have time to account for confused lighting situations, and wished I had been able to muck with the white balance after the fact.

by Dave Walsh | 21 Sep 2007 09:09 | Dublin, Ireland | | Report spam→
We use D2X’s and none of us shoot RAW either. Everything we transmit from overseas to our photo editor and wire services is JPEG. What is printed in newspapers and magazines is the transmitted JPEG image. RAW has it’s advantages in tricky lighting situations, but it also increases your workflow in the field, and it decreases your CF card and hard disk space. I suppose if you have the time and the space then shoot RAW if you require the extra control it gives you.

Sgt Frank Hudec
Photographer/Canadian Forces Combat Camera Reserve Team

by [former member] | 21 Sep 2007 13:09 | Ottawa, Canada | | Report spam→
I’m a full time photojournalist and I shot RAW about 90% of the time except when shooting fast action like sports.

I recently went back to edit some digital photos I took with a Canon D2000 in 1999 and it is SOOOOOOO nice to work with the RAW from that time. I think RAW= Your Negative and JPEG=your print. You can only fix your Jpeg so many times, while your RAW image is always going to be a RAW negative.


by Mikael Kjellstrom | 21 Sep 2007 13:09 | Calgary, Canada | | Report spam→
Likewise, there’s been times I’ve gone back to re-edit an image when it’s requested for something, and almost sobbed cos I didn’t have the RAW, and was no longer happy with the jpg!

by Dave Walsh | 21 Sep 2007 14:09 | Dublin, Ireland | | Report spam→
In the past I was concerned with the same question and the argument that I found was that shooting RAW, as I do, gives you the flexibility and security to recover an image if for some reason things went wrong with the exposure. But as others have indicated it adds more steps to your workflow. And as Preston pointed out the technology of apps, like Lightroom, improve I can imagine that this is the way to go especially if you consider that laptop power and speed will improve as well.

And I’ve noticed that as my moods change so do my perception of how I want the image to look so having a RAW allows you to go back to the original shot and start over.

On the JPEG side you will have to be more precise in your shooting to get technically accurate images, plus you remove steps in your workflow and perhaps save space. And if time to transmit images is of importance then you will save some additional time. But this last point I’m not convinced as you will have to take your High Res JPEG file and possibly save it as something smaller for quicker sending.

And your concern about JPEG quality, well as high as possible


by Peter Harris | 23 Sep 2007 10:09 | Rome, Italy | | Report spam→
Raw for personal work. Jpeg High for quicker workflow yeah. Sometimes resizeing directly from photomeachnic to about 5mb size keeping the largest file stored at home.

Best, Alex

by [former member] | 23 Sep 2007 10:09 | London, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
Shoot both at the same time if your equipment will download it quickly (which most pro-level DSLRs will). There is very little downside to doing this except the time spent transferring RAW files to your computer. And when the Nikon D-3 arrives, which will have slots for two CF cards, you will be able to shoot all the JPEGs on one card (and RAWS ro the other). Download the JPG card first if you are on a fast deadline.

I agree with Mustafah. With a few tweaks I have often resurrected from RAW files shots that would never have seen the light of day if I had shot in JPEG only.

by [former member] | 23 Sep 2007 16:09 | Orvieto, Italy | | Report spam→

Get notified when someone replies to this thread:
Feed-icon-10x10 via RSS
Icon_email via email
You can unsubscribe later.

More about sponsorship→


Michel Hulsey, Photographer Michel Hulsey
New York , United States
Paul  Treacy, Photographer Paul Treacy
London , United Kingdom ( LGW )
Kristjan Logason, Photographer Kristjan Logason
(editorial and advertising)
Leikanger , Norway
Pete Woronowski, Photographer Pete Woronowski
Saskatchewan , Canada
Milpitas, Ca , United States ( SJC )
Jonathan Castner, Photojournalist Jonathan Castner
Denver , United States
Dave Walsh, Writer, photographer Dave Walsh
Writer, photographer
(Energy and Environment)
Wexford , Ireland
Mikael Kjellstrom, Editorial Photographer Mikael Kjellstrom
Editorial Photographer
Stromstad , Sweden ( GOT )
Peter Harris, photographer Peter Harris
New York , United States


Top↑ | RSS/XML | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | support@lightstalkers.org / ©2004-2015 November Eleven