Author Topic: Do you shoot RAW, JPEG or both for Microstock? (Read 10579 times)

Daneel · « **on:** February 21, 2007, 08:01 »

Hi!

Do you shoot RAW, JPEG or both for Microstock?

Please vote! You can also reply to this if you have something additional to say.

All the best,
Michael

CJPhoto · « **Reply #1 on:** February 21, 2007, 08:24 »

I shoot raw. If nothing else, I can convert in DPP to have the exact out of the camera look, but with the option now or in the future to do more.

eendicott · « **Reply #2 on:** February 21, 2007, 08:48 »

I shoot RAW and JPG simultaneously in the camera (with 4 gig cards on a 20d you get close to 400 images). If the JPG isn't good enough, then I go back to the RAW file to fix it (if it's fixable).

stokfoto · « **Reply #3 on:** February 21, 2007, 09:11 »

I always shoot raw plus jpegand use the jpegs just for quick preview

sharply_done · « **Reply #4 on:** February 21, 2007, 11:16 »

I used to shoot in JPG only until about a year ago, when I was unhappy with one of my large gallery prints. I made the switch to shooting RAW and haven't looked back since.

Just out of curiosity, I shot in combined RAW/JPG on a recent alpine outing - I was surprised by the amount of banding and discolouration in the sky (clear blue and graduated) on the JPGs, as well as the loss of detail in the background (forest-covered mountainside, far-off peaks).

Would I switch back to shooting in JPG? Probably not. I use DxO Optics to convert from RAW, which I also used before making the change, so shooting in RAW doesn't change my workflow. It takes a little longer to batch my shots through DxO (1.1/2 minutes per image), but I do other stuff while my computer plugs away at things. I've been thinking lately that I should dedicate my old server to doing batch jobs, but I don't have the time nor energy to put into this.

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #5 on:** February 21, 2007, 16:44 »

both

-tom

madelaide · « **Reply #6 on:** February 21, 2007, 17:13 »

I only shoot JPG because my camera doesn't have RAW. Therefore I can't vote.

Regards,
Adelaide

Opla · « **Reply #7 on:** February 21, 2007, 17:25 »

Only raw.
Once you get the hang of it, it's a breeze to apply corrections and convert to jpeg.

rinderart · « **Reply #8 on:** February 21, 2007, 20:27 »

I shoot Jpeg for stock and raw for clients. I also shoot like photoshop doesn't exist. You know, like the old days. sure is easier. For stock it's just not cost effective any other way. Unless of course you just love to twiddle on that machine.

epixx · « **Reply #9 on:** February 21, 2007, 20:34 »

I agree wholeheartedly. I also shoot as if there's film in the camera, and I have to pay for each frame. Makes me concentrate real hard every time I push the shutter release.

MiguelAngelo · « **Reply #10 on:** February 21, 2007, 20:41 »

I shoot RAW+Jpeg but rarely use the jpeg.
Most of the times I don't do much with the RAW but always extract my images from there on Capture NX.

Bateleur · « **Reply #11 on:** February 22, 2007, 01:16 »

Quote from: stokfoto on February 21, 2007, 09:11

I always shoot raw plus jpegand use the jpegs just for quick preview

Same here. I don't enjoy post-processing, but with RAW you've always got the original image that can be tweaked.

Has saved my skin on a number of occasions, like when I've forgotten to switch white balance. Now, hand's up who's done that? (Looks around ... What? Is it only me?

)

hymowitzer · « **Reply #12 on:** February 22, 2007, 03:27 »

RAW is the the Mother of all JPG's

epixx · « **Reply #13 on:** February 22, 2007, 03:37 »

Quote from: Bateleur on February 22, 2007, 01:16

Has saved my skin on a number of occasions, like when I've forgotten to switch white balance. Now, hand's up who's done that? (Looks around ... What? Is it only me? )

Ummm... one complete day, a major event, thousands of people at a bridge opening, all wearing yellow t-shirts (converted to yellowish green by me), and some unique shots of the bridge, taken from locations that have now been taken over by Bangkok's never ending traffic jams. All jpeg's of course

Grizzlybear · « **Reply #14 on:** February 22, 2007, 05:44 »

Jpeg for stock, raw is too time-consuming,and you can change white balance , and just about anything else with jpeg, just as easily as with raw-if you need to. If your exposure is "spot-on",and your white balance matches the degees Kelvin, at the time of the shoot,why would you need to play with massive files that take so long to download-get it right in the camera, it's not that hard-Don't just read your manual-Read and understand your manual. Raw for fine-art, where the compensation (Dollar Value) makes a difference! " Shoot like Thomas Knoll isn't born yet!"

epixx · « **Reply #15 on:** February 22, 2007, 06:28 »

Quote from: Grizzlybear on February 22, 2007, 05:44

Jpeg for stock, raw is too time-consuming,and you can change white balance , and just about anything else with jpeg, just as easily as with raw-if you need to. If your exposure is "spot-on",and your white balance matches the degees Kelvin, at the time of the shoot,why would you need to play with massive files that take so long to download-get it right in the camera, it's not that hard-Don't just read your manual-Read and understand your manual. Raw for fine-art, where the compensation (Dollar Value) makes a difference! " Shoot like Thomas Knoll isn't born yet!"

It's possible, but there's extra work involved, and the change sometimes brings out noise, particularly in the blues. Still, I do mostly shoot jpegs. This is after all microstock.

HughStoneIan · « **Reply #16 on:** February 22, 2007, 10:47 »

RAW. I experimented with JPG, but the quality viewed at 100% was clearly not equal to RAW, at least not from my camera. And supposedly the more important microstocks view our submissions at 100%, n'est pas?

epixx · « **Reply #17 on:** February 22, 2007, 11:56 »

Quote from: HughStoneIan on February 22, 2007, 10:47

RAW. I experimented with JPG, but the quality viewed at 100% was clearly not equal to RAW, at least not from my camera. And supposedly the more important microstocks view our submissions at 100%, n'est pas?

It depends a lot on the camera. I use a Fuji S3 and an Olympus E-1. Both of them produces very good jpegs from the camera. I've understood that this isn't always the case with all camera though. the Fuji is actually preferred by many wedding photographers, partly because of its dynamic range, and partly because the jpegs give a faster work-flow. That probably makes sense for people who makes thousands of shots a couple of times per week.

Bateleur · « **Reply #18 on:** February 22, 2007, 17:30 »

Quote from: Grizzlybear on February 22, 2007, 05:44

... If your exposure is "spot-on",and your white balance matches the degees Kelvin, at the time of the shoot,why would you need to play with massive files that take so long to download ...

What are you talking about? RAW files aren't particularly 'massive' and don't take 'so long' to download. At least, not on my computer they don't. A fraction of a second a file I'd guess. Never had time to measure it

And, as for your statement "If your exposure is "spot-on"" ... my whole point was that if you should make a mistake and forget to change the WB you can save the situation much more effectively in RAW than you can in JPEG.

But maybe you never make that mistake.

Grizzlybear · « **Reply #19 on:** February 23, 2007, 00:58 »

quote] And, as for your statement "If your exposure is "spot-on"" ... my whole point was that if you should make a mistake and forget to change the WB you can save the situation much more effectively in RAW than you can in JPEG.

But maybe you never make that mistake.

Quote

Of course I make that mistake, and I can fix it in seconds with color balance-Cyan/magenta slider one way-.yellow/blue slider opposite direction,same amount-dead simple, works every time! much faster than Raw processing, regards, Ken

Bateleur · « **Reply #20 on:** February 23, 2007, 01:47 »

Quote from: Grizzlybear on February 23, 2007, 00:58

... I can fix it in seconds with color balance-Cyan/magenta slider one way-.yellow/blue slider opposite direction,same amount-dead simple, works every time! much faster than Raw processing, regards, Ken

Sounds like you're not familiar with RAW processing. In my workflow it's a whole load quicker and more accurate than that.

I select the correct WB I want from the list and "pow!"

Then, if I really want to fine tune by a few degrees, there's a colour temperature slider.

Grizzlybear · « **Reply #21 on:** February 23, 2007, 10:56 »

Yes, I have used Pixmantex Raw Shooter Pro before Adobe took them over, and I feel Raw is just a waste of time for $0.25 a download. I would rather be out shooting that stuck at a computer, regards, Ken

Greg Boiarsky · « **Reply #22 on:** February 23, 2007, 11:02 »

While I shoot RAW, I agree that spending a lot of time at the computer is time wasted for such a low payout per image.

However, if I can spend a minute or two to tweak an image, and then that image sells better, I feel it's time well spent.

I shoot RAW for two reasons:

1. I don't trust myself not to screw up a photo

.
2. Shooting RAW gives me a whole lot more headroom to adjust color. JPEG only offers 8 bit color and clips pretty easily.

Good discussion in this thread, I think.

Quote from: Grizzlybear on February 23, 2007, 10:56

Yes, I have used Pixmantex Raw Shooter Pro before Adobe took them over, and I feel Raw is just a waste of time for $0.25 a download. I would rather be out shooting that stuck at a computer, regards, Ken

Eco · « **Reply #23 on:** February 23, 2007, 11:37 »

I shoot RAW and occasionally when I feel like shooting Jpeg I will take I nap on the bed until I feel better.

You pay all that money for your DSLR and all that money for that L lenses. Why? You want the best quality possible. The camera can capture 12 bits of data (the new Canon 1D MK III can capture 14 bit of data). Then you shoot Jpeg which only captures 8 bits of data - throwing away half the data the camera is capable of capturing. Does that make sense? Not to me.

Bateleur · « **Reply #24 on:** February 23, 2007, 12:06 »

Quote from: Grizzlybear on February 23, 2007, 10:56

... I feel Raw is just a waste of time for $0.25 a download. ...

Is that all you get?

Then I guess you're only with Shutterstock, and it probably is a waste of your time.

I get anything from 25c to several hundred dollars for a stock image, depending on the agency I submit to. When photographing I never know what's going to go where so I work in RAW all the time.

And I'm mystified why you think RAW so much work. I mean ... that technique of yours for correcting WB seems horribly ad hoc (to put it politely). How do you know how far to move the cyan/magenta slider at first? A random amount? All the way?

I suppose you can take a guess at it, but to correct WB really accurately in JPEG, you don't do it that way. And the proper way is a heck of a fiddle.

Yeah. Not worth 25c.

But ... hang on ... cyan/magenta slider? What program are you using???

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Poll

Do you shoot RAW, JPEG or both for Microstock?

Author Topic: Do you shoot RAW, JPEG or both for Microstock? (Read 10579 times)

Daneel

CJPhoto

eendicott

stokfoto

sharply_done

a.k.a.-tom

madelaide

Opla

rinderart

epixx

MiguelAngelo

Bateleur

hymowitzer

epixx

Grizzlybear

epixx

HughStoneIan

epixx

Bateleur

Grizzlybear

Bateleur

Grizzlybear

Greg Boiarsky

Eco

Bateleur

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors