Are you doing Post processing or using your images straight out of your camera?

[Jeff A]

I'm curious about how many folks here use their photos SOOC verses Post Processing RAW photos and converting them to JPG's.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

I only shoot in Raw, sort/discard on my PC using photo mechanic generally, and process where necessary before saving in JPG or other required format.

Raw files provide more data and retain more of the shadow and highlight data....jpg do not and if you blow highlights especially or under expose shadows 2-3 stops under you will have great difficulty pulling the details back. RAW provides you with that flexability and for further more advanced processing should you elect to do so.

Under certain limited circumstances wherein i need the shot files ASAP to send on in their raw form, I will shoot in raw and jpg.......

 

[spudhead]

I'm curious about how many folks here use their photos SOOC verses Post Processing RAW photos and converting them to JPG's.

I only shoot raw Jeff and have done for 6-7 years now

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

I voted for #2, because I only post here or to Insta/Facebook what was an edited RAW.

But the truth is I have been doing JPG + Raw for a few months now so that I can dump a folder of jpegs into a google drive folder to share more quickly with family members. I always tell them "pick a dozen you like and I will edit them" but nobody seems to take me up on it though. I may be doing myself a disservice because perhaps they don't realize how much better they would turn out? I just have a difficulty finding the time to edit all the photos I take, and they're not all worth the effort.

 

[JaviM]

I voted for #2, because I only post here or to Insta/Facebook what was an edited RAW.

But the truth is I have been doing JPG + Raw for a few months now so that I can dump a folder of jpegs into a google drive folder to share more quickly with family members. I always tell them "pick a dozen you like and I will edit them" but nobody seems to take me up on it though. I may be doing myself a disservice because perhaps they don't realize how much better they would turn out? I just have a difficulty finding the time to edit all the photos I take, and they're not all worth the effort.

I do the same. I'll occassionaly take pics for friends and tell them to let me know which ones they really like to I can mess with them in post but I never hear back. Camera phones have lowered expectations and people are now content with most images SOOC. They'll also say " i hate your camera because you can see all my pores and lines!"

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

RAW always now, I haven't shot in jpeg for years. Why sacrifice all that detail!

 

[Reciprocum]

RAW only , even stopped doing RAW+JPEG to gain some batery life. would only do RAW+JPEG if I was required to give some images immediately after the session. Even for wedding I would do RAW+RAW for redundancy/backup.

 

[AlphaWorld]

I shoot RAW only.

I did take a JPEG shot late last year when I had to photograph a receipt for a rebate claim - first time in many years, and it took me a few minutes to get the settings right :-D

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

They'll also say " i hate your camera because you can see all my pores and lines!"

Lol! The last thing anyone would want these days is a true representation of themselves. So much better to have the JPEG engine in their iPhone hide all their imperfections for their Instagram page so they can maintain their perfect cyber persona...

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

I shot JPEG for about three days when I first started out. Probably should have just given up after that, but instead I went RAW.

What about you Jeff?

 

[Jeff A]

I shot JPEG for about three days when I first started out. Probably should have just given up after that, but instead I went RAW.

What about you Jeff?

RAW. The problem we have here is 6 people chose an answer to the basic question but 11 have typed an answer. If you typed an explanation, thats fine but there should have been 11 responses, but only 6 people answered the Poll.

 

[AlphaWorld]

RAW. The problem we have here is 6 people chose an answer to the basic question but 11 have typed an answer. If you typed an explanation, thats fine but there should have been 11 responses, but only 6 people answered the Poll.

Sorry - I didn’t see the poll - I just saw the opening post and replied. Oh, and now you get another reply - oops. At least I answered the poll this time.

 

[AlphaWorld]

I shoot both. The main reason is that it's easier (for me) to review and cull using the jpegs. The camera's jpeg efforts are typically trashed once I'm done processing. Once in a great while I'll post a jpeg, but even then, it's had some minimum amount of processing.

Another question is, who is using HEIF? I've thought about looking for a free HEIF editor just to compare to jpegs and see if there's any magic, but I've never gotten around to it.

I think it will catch on, but it will take time - you can display a JPEG pretty much anywhere, but there are still lots of places that don’t support HEIF. I would still use it as only an output format, though - I saw someone suggest they would shoot HEIF, and edit that, but I get the impression that may lose image quality fairly quickly if you scale images.

 

[Slug]

Mostly processed JPEGS. RAW + JPEG if I really need the detail.

 

[Hank]

Compressed RAW. It depends on whether I have only taken only a few shots or hunndreds as to whether I use PhotoMechanic or not to cull.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Hi Hank,
chance would be a good thing.....as an avid BIF shooter my typical shooting day will generate anywhere between 1000 and 2000 Raw files
and to sort these at 50mb each via lightroom would take forever and a day.

Photo mechanic is my staple for sorting/culling and then going to light room with a very small number of the very best images as i apply very rigorous criteria for post processing etc.....

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

I do pretty much the same thing with MS photo viewer, which is why I shoot RAW/jpeg.

• Create folder for the event or date
• Open the card and select all
• Drag to the new folder

Once the files are transferred I can scroll through the shots and decide what I want to keep, the rest get culled. I don't even open the processing program until that's done.

Hi Tim,
I haven't used MS photo viewer ....On photo mechanic you can pull up a complete set of icons for your folder images.
Subsequently you can enlarge the images then quickly scan through the enlarged files and quickly delete an image from
your folder or rank your images.

I use 5 for a keeper and consideration of post processing, and once having gone through all my images filter the keepers
and transfer them to a keepers folder for transfer into Lightroom and process as necessary......if i consider some of the
nonkeeper images are still worthy of holding on to i will give them a 3 ranking ,filter and archive...the balance images i dump.

Have you got this sort of functionality in MS photoviewer?.....if not and dependant on the number of images you are processing
it might be worth looking at Photo Mechanic....it is used quite widely in the photography industry.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

See above in Orange.

I will check it out, out of interest......

 

[Tim Mayo]

I shoot raw + jpeg but probably use the jpeg 95% of the time as I'm lazy when it comes to post processing. Occasionally I'll process the raw file if I've messed up the exposure in-camera or feel that the jpeg didn't quite capture the shot as I remember it. Or if I really really like a shot and think it deserves being framed for the wall then I'll process the raw file. Seems like I'm in the minority

 

[AlphaWorld]

For whatever it’s worth, I use Adobe Bridge for culling / selecting what to process, then PhotoShop (mostly) for processing - I tried LightRoom briefly, but it takes way too long to get started. Bridge starts showing thumbnails immediately (sounds like what we are all after). The new Mac shows thumbnails possibly twice as fast, which is pleasant.

Bridge gives me ranking from one to five stars, plus coloured labels. After a first pass I can filter to be more particular - show me just the 3 and 4 star red images, for example. I imagine you get the same kind of facilities in the tools you use, too.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Hi Tony, Iooked at Adobe Bridge and as an overall photo management tool it looks good. I think most on this site
of the high image shoot rate photographers are looking for a simple and fast/easy culling tool to get their small number
(generally) of keeper images either ready to publish or transfer into lightroom or photoshop(capture) for post processing.

As far as I can tell photo mechanic is very simply not much more than this tool, even though i do have Adobe Bridge freely
available under my Abobe creative cloud subscription.

Also , I cannot tell in Abobe Bridge, but Photo Mechanic does not import RAW files but the JPEG extract from the raw files and so
for raw file shooters is a much quicker loading process whilst Lightroom for example has to import the RAW files and render
them for eventual edit........A much slower process, particularily if you are dealing with 1500-2000 images per day over an extended
period.

FYI.......Ray

 

[AlphaWorld]

I don’t know if Bridge is creating full-size JPEGs from the RAW or grabbing the embedded one. I might want to test that when I have time.

LightRoom is doing a whole lot more (which is why it takes too long for my taste, and yours too, I gather).

Given I process only a small number of images, I’m happier using PhotoShop - more work per image, but much less waiting If I were a wedding shooter, processing an entire shoot, I imagine I’d feel differently.

 

[MrFotoFool]

I didn't vote in the poll because I do both and the poll choices force you to choose one or the other. I shoot JPEG plus RAW. Some I don't bother to edit but save (in both formats) in case I have need of them in the future. I sort and delete photos after a shoot using the JPEG images in folders on my PC. I do not use software to sort, unless I have two or more of essentially the same thing I may blow them up to actual pixels in Photoshop Elements to choose the sharpest one. When I do edit photos I use Photoshop Elements, often with the NIK plugins. If it's a low contrast scene with good detail I work straight from the JPEG but if the range is too severe and I need more detail (or to change the color balance) I will work from the RAW. I save the edited files in TIFF.

 

[Jeff A]

I didn't vote in the poll because I do both and the poll choices force you to choose one or the other. I shoot JPEG plus RAW. Some I don't bother to edit but save (in both formats) in case I have need of them in the future. I sort and delete photos after a shoot using the JPEG images in folders on my PC. I do not use software to sort, unless I have two or more of essentially the same thing I may blow them up to actual pixels in Photoshop Elements to choose the sharpest one. When I do edit photos I use Photoshop Elements, often with the NIK plugins. If it's a low contrast scene with good detail I work straight from the JPEG but if the range is too severe and I need more detail (or to change the color balance) I will work from the RAW. I save the edited files in TIFF.

I can speak to the Spirit of the Poll, because it's my Poll. I too take RAW & JPG's simultaneously. I do that so that when I get back from a shoot, I can see how well I did, as a photographer, immediately, while the scene is fresh in my mind. I then process all of the RAW files and that's what I would post here and to my Albums on Flickr. So my answer to this Poll was that I shoot RAW and Post Process, because those are the photos I display, publicity.

All that I am trying to do is get an idea which group the general population here belongs to. As to why I shoot RAW, that is the method that has the best possibility of showing a photo that is technically outstanding. In addition, if I didn't use Lightroom Classic (my weapon of choice) all of the time, I would not be able to develop the skills to use it.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

I don’t know if Bridge is creating full-size JPEGs from the RAW or grabbing the embedded one. I might want to test that when I have time.

LightRoom is doing a whole lot more (which is why it takes too long for my taste, and yours too, I gather).

Given I process only a small number of images, I’m happier using PhotoShop - more work per image, but much less waiting If I were a wedding shooter, processing an entire shoot, I imagine I’d feel differently.

Absolutely if you are only processing a small amount of images you have other more efficient options.....!

 

[pmenear]

Be aware. If you enter, or intend to enter in the future,' National/International Wildlife Competitions'. You will need to provide the original RAW files if you get short listed for the awards/publication to prove the image submitted conforms to the rules and has not been photoshoped/faked.
I shoot only RAW, processing an image to wildlife competition rules takes no more than 10/15mins and I only process the occasional one that is good/special enough for competition or print out of the thousands I take each year.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

If everyone is on the same level playing field it doesn't make a big difference except for those who have
a tendency/need to process excessively.........

I think in general most competitions have such rules concerning the degree of post processing but
have only checked through visual inspection as opposed to inspecting the original image files..........

 

[Unframed Dave]

Currently, jpeg only. I spent years trying to enjoy processing photos, but never really did. I enjoy being out there, getting the shot, but hate being sat at a computer.

I will crop and straighten up, I may very rarely move a few sliders to adjust exposure, but that's it.

 

[Slug]

I shoot raw + jpeg but probably use the jpeg 95% of the time as I'm lazy when it comes to post processing. Occasionally I'll process the raw file if I've messed up the exposure in-camera or feel that the jpeg didn't quite capture the shot as I remember it. Or if I really really like a shot and think it deserves being framed for the wall then I'll process the raw file. Seems like I'm in the minority

I'm with you. The cameras set up properly do a great job these days and there's a lot of latitude left in a 50 Mp Jpeg.

 

[Clix Pix]

I shoot RAW (Uncompressed) and edit my images afterwards. Some need minimal editing, others may need a little more time and attention, and I have much, much more control over the process than I would if I simply shot JPG only. In simply going with whatever the camera has chosen to do, one loses the ability to work with an image to make it really shine, make it outstanding rather than just "a nice image.". I also find that shooting in RAW gives me more flexibility to correct what could have been a serious error or to have fun and get creative during the editing process, too.

In some situations, such as shooting wildlife, it is important to ensure that one has a lot of details right, such as feathers and fur, and sometimes simply adjusting the exposure isn't enough. Occasionally, shooting in JPG can result in oversharpened or insufficiently sharp images. Another example would be in dealing with an animal or a bird with dark eyes. Since it is particularly important to have them in focus and (when possible) also visible to the viewer, at times it is necessary to do a bit of lightening of the eyes during the editing phase, either by working with the shadows and highlights, lifting the shadows or by "dodging" (lightening) the area to bring the eye into greater visibility. I find that I need to do that from time to time when shooting Canada Geese, who have dark eyes and dark feathers surrounding them, which can create a dark void, depending upon the lighting situation and the angle at which I capture the bird's head and face. Ideally I get a catchlight in the eye, which solves the problem, but I'm not always that lucky.

Shooting in RAW also makes it much easier to deal with problematic exposure or white balance. This used to be an issue more with shooting on a DSLR with OVF because it would not become immediately apparent that one needed to adjust the white balance settings. A friend shot a bunch of images at an outdoor event and in the excitement of everything didn't take time to "chimp" right then, only looked at his images in the computer after he got home.... By then it was too late to do anything about his error of shooting everything using "fluorescent" as the white balance setting, which apparently he had done on his previous shoot at an indoor office setting. Oops!!! Since he shot in RAW, though, no big deal to adjust the white balance setting in the computer during the editing process and his images were saved.

Back quite a few years ago when I first started shooting RAW, under the guidance and encouragement of a friend, I was nervous about the whole idea, but now I can't imagine NOT using this valuable tool in the digital photography bag of resources.