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

[Sorefined]

See above in Orange.

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

 

[Timothy 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.

 

[Brownie]

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.

I missed this before. My thinking is that if HEIF really does provide that much more detail, you could still capture it as such in the camera and convert to a high quality jpeg for posting. It may eliminate the need to process casual shots.

 

[Sorefined]

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.

 

[Sorefined]

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.

 

[Sorefined]

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..........

 

[Brownie]

From the Old Dog/New Tricks Department:

I just had an epiphany. This thread (and the need for some new cards) got me to thinking. The ONLY reason I shoot RAW/jpeg is so I can view the shots on Windows Photo Viewer right away for culling. Of course this adds to storage and upload time. I recalled from a long time ago my old Sony SLT-65A images showed up in both RAW and jpeg as viewable photos, not just a RAW file.

If you try to open a RAW file in MS Windows it says it can't. There's a link on that screen to download an app from the store. I'm at work but I have some shots from the MKIV on my drive, so I downloaded the app and it works. Not only does it allow immediate viewing of the AWR files, but I can do simple processing in their cheesy little program and it'll save to a new file as a jpeg, so it's nondestructive and the RAW file stays intact.

This is huge. I can now stop shooting RAW/jpeg and shoot RAW only. It will save card space, storage space, write time, and read time. With my chosen cards and using the chart in Tim's table for the A7IV it will go from:

• 14 shots to hit buffer and 7.23 seconds to clear to
• 19 shots and 6.36 seconds.

To be honest, with the style shooting I do either one works 99% of the time from a buffer and write time standpoint, but the added advantage of additional card space and not having to upload/delete the jpegs when I'm done will be a big time saver.

Of course the RAW being unprocessed doesn't look as pretty as the camera-processed jpeg, but they still look to be usable. I'm going to do some experimenting before I do any critical or important shoots just to see how well it works in real time.

 

[charlyee]

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 see that I am in good company with the jpeg shooting. I shoot in jpeg only and do minimal post processing, mostly cropping in my MAC photos.

 

[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.

 

[charlyee]

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.

I am glad to see someone shoot jpg and do minimal post processing. I am the same way, crop and straightening up mostly and exposure occasionally.

 

[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.

 

[MeowZzz]

If it is wildlife, and in color, then generally a jpeg + raw.
For the rest, I'll often just go with jpeg.
The A9 jpegs in monochrome I really dig. They're so much nicer than my other cameras, and I have no idea why, like, even at ISO 25,600 they look acceptable (to me).
I don't like the A7iv jpegs all that much, and so shoot raw nearly exclusively, and then edit later in C1.