When RAW is not enough
One of the first pieces advice I give to people who wonder where to start getting their photos to become better, is to shoot in RAW. There’s many obvious reasons for why this is a good idea.
With RAW, the final result can be sharper, you have better control over white balance, you get wider dynamic range, you can do HDR photography, and, well, it’s what all the cool kids done. Recently, however, I have moved away from shooting in RAW for several reasons. Or, to be precise, I have started shooting in RAW+JPG.
Here are some compelling arguments for why you should do the same…
Becoming a better photographer
Holding a bunny to your face while wearing full Motorcycle protective gear is a great way to become a better photographer. Aw, c'mon, give me a break, what would YOU use to illustrate this article? (clicky for bigger)
RAW is great because it is lenient – you can over-expose a photo quite significantly, and still rescue the highlights, because you have significantly higher bit-depth (and more information) than you would do with JPGs.
This is a life-saver for press, event, and action photographers: The fact that you aren’t completely buggered even if you’ve screwed up the exposure a fraction is a godsent!
The problem is that I’ve recently talked to a lot of photographer of the ‘new garde’. People who have rarely – or never – shot on film, and are unaware of how often RAW is helping them out of a hole. There’s two ways of looking at this: Either, use the extra flexibility RAW gives you on a regular basis, and accept that we’re now in the digital age. Or shoot as if you’re still shooting on film, and use the extra flexibility as a safety buffer.
Bunny is sad because his compact camera doesn't take photos in RAW. (clicky for bigger)
I’m a strong believer in the latter: Ultimately, when you present your photos, you have to save them as 8-bit colour anyway, so you’re in fact re-compressing the image back into a lower bit depth. This isn’t a bad thing: the human eye can’t really cope with more than 8 bits anyway.
The problem is that it’s difficult to estimate how much of the photo is over-exposed when you’re relying on RAW to save you – and there will come a day where you are relying on it, and you’re off. There’s only so much recovery you can do of a photograph, and if you miscalculate, you don’t have a safety buffer anymore.
Personally, I’ve become a huge fan of trying to take perfect exposures out of the camera: Shoot as if the JPEG is your film. Get the white balance right. Get the exposure right. Sharpen the JPG in-camera. Set the saturation and contrast you like. In short; Make your JPEGs be as perfect straight out of the camera as possible. In addition to making you a much better and more conscious photographer, this has several benefits. To wit:
Better previews
Getting the white balance right on shots like this is challenging, but hellasatisfying. It's good to know you can fall back on RAW if you did make a hash of it after all (clicky for bigger)
RAW photos are unsharpened out of the camera. This is a blessing, because as we discussed in the article on how you can sharpen your photos, you should never sharpen your photos twice. Your JPGs are sharpened in-camera, which means that if you sharpen them on your computer, you’re not getting as high quality as you could. Not a good thing.
In situations where you're taking lots of photos (like when snapping gigs), it's a relief to have JPG preview - it saves you from opening hundreds (or even thousands) of RAW files to find out which ones turned out well.
The flopside of this, however, is that RAW photos can look flat and lack energy. The photos that really zing are the ones that are tack-sharp – and if you’re only looking at RAW photos, you may actually miss the photo that is sharpest, because it hasn’t been sharpened to its full potential.
When you shoot RAW+JPG and your JPEGs are perfectly exposed and whitebalanced, they are the ultimate previewing tool: Full resolution previews, beautifully sharp, which your computer can deal with very quickly. Even better, if you need to e-mail or upload previews of a shoot anywhere, it’s an order of magnitude faster to resize and compress JPGs than RAW files.
So, Shoot with JPG, keep them, and use them for previewing purposes. If you decide to edit any of ‘em, use the RAW files, but at least you’ll have a much better picture (har har) of the potential of your photos
Submitting photos to magazines
Enough with the useful captions already. Here's a picture of a guy in Vietnam with 10 (yes! Ten!) cases of beer on his motorbike. (clicky for bigger)
So you occasionally shoot paperazzi stuff? You do events? You shoot news? Honestly, you don’t want to piss off the picture editors: if you send them a photo they’ll have to do a lot of work on, you’ll need to have a damn fine explanation… And find yourself some other customers, because they won’t use you again.
They’re on extremely tight deadlines, and they prefer photos they can just drop into their page layouts without fiddling with them too much. Shoot perfect JPGs, and that’s usually good enough for magazine use.
Let them know that you have a RAW file if they need it, of course, but 99 times out of a hundred and twenty two, they won’t want it – they don’t need the hassle.
Workflow speed
My university professor stole a wise saying from someone else once: Work smarter, not harder. This saying really is eminently applicable here.
I don’t care how fast your computer is – RAW will slow you down in one way or another. If you organise your photos so you can preview the JPGs, you’re making your life a lot easier.
If the JPG looks out of focus, the RAW will be too – that’ll save you a few seconds opening the RAW file to check. Multiply that by 300 photos, and you’ve saved yourself 10 minutes. Presto!
There’s no reason not to
This model wants you to shoot RAW+JPG. Just look at how stern she looks. Would you dare not to? Thought so. Grab your camera right now and change your settings. (clicky for bigger)
Set your camera to RAW+JPG, and bring plenty of memory cards. They cost next to nothing these days, and if you do a shoot where you know you don’t need to keep the JPGs, you can always trash them after you’ve downloaded them – sort ‘em by size (the RAW files tend to be 3-4 times bigger than the JPGs) and delete half the smallest files. Or sort ‘em by type and delete all the JPGs. Whatever you prefer.
If you have enough memory cards (and you should. Really. If you don’t, head over to Amazon and be Amazed (groan) at how cheap they are), there really is no reason not to shoot in RAW+JPG.
Go on. Give it a shot. And let me know how much time you’re saving :-)
My day job, if it can be called that, is being a writer. I've got one book out there so far and it's awesome, so go ahead and buy a copy! It's available from 
In front of you, five hyperactive men with guitars, drums, and microphones. Behind you, five thousand fans. In your hands, a camera... You're going to need more than just a little bit of good luck to pull this one off. That's where this book comes in.
Take a Canon EOS 450D. Attach a Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens. Hit the streets of London. See what happens.
Insights, suggestions and comments
there’s another one: you can print directly from the camera to a printer (if the jpgs are good enough, that is).
In most cases you might want to work on your RAW before printing, but if you are traveling and take a great pic of the chap on the market you had a chat with and then walk to your car and print the pic, hey, what an impression you make on the chap ;-)
If you want to improve on avoiding under/overexposure, why not review the histogram or turn on under/overexposure highlighting in your camera? Most DLSRs should support this mode.
This strikes me as a much better tool for reviewing each shot for burnt highlights than trying to look for these artifacts in jpg.
Furthermore, I don’t quite buy the argument for workflow speed. Lightroom is very snappy with RAW and once you’ve imported your photos, there isn’t much of a difference between RAW and JPG.
I always shoot in RAW + JPG (small/LQ). The RAW file is +-10MB, the JPG 250kb (that’s 40 times smaller). This allows me to quickly preview images in picasa (it doesn’t handle raw very well), as well as being able to quickly send them off to interested people. I suppose it’s different when you shoot professional, but during family meetings, the shot is more important than the artistic value ==> Sending a low quality JPG is good enough, just make sure to tell them you’ve got a larger version available on request.
It only costs you +-10 images on a 4GB memory card, which is totally worth it.
I was thinking about this a little and the only real disadvantage I can see is in high speed photography as it will inevitably reduce the frame rate you can achieve. Now, for other stuff, not so much of an issue.
I try to shoot RAW when I’m doing artistic stuff and save the jpegs for the mundane, or family/friends photos. Trouble is, when I go on holiday I come back with 800 RAW shots and then take a year to process them all – nightmare!
This article could have been written using about 25% of the text.
Yes, JPG+RAW is good for several reasons (followed by list).
Why the ranting? Or at least, try to entertain if ranting.
I alsways try to shoot RAW, jpg only when need instatn prints.
Bunny should be featured more. Seriously, thanks for the great RAW tips!
I agree with David; Bunny should be featured much more :)
Also, thanks for the great advice about shooting in RAW and JPEG. It was a valid point made about saving both file types. And true, memory cards are something that should be adundant in your camera bag. This is a great site, I’m happy I found it!
Yet another nice read.
I disagree however with the ability of saving overexposed parts of the image when shooting RAW. White is white, is white. One can be far more successful saving underexposed images. There is a lot more detail in the dark parts of an image then in any overexposed section. That is mostly (more often than not) burned out….
Just my two cents…
M.
A little advice for Bunny: use CHDK, baby. I have exactly the same camera model (Canon Ixus 80 / Sd1100) and it shoots in RAW…
Nice article.
Share your wisdom