Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > Newbie Help

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 15, 2005, 10:35 AM   #11
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 118

Photojournalists use JPEG. Why? Because we get the shot right the first time.

Okay, that was a half joke. In a chat I had recently with a photog for Agence France Presse, I learned his workflow doesn't involve RAW at all - he shoots at highest quality JPEG. I do the same.

If you've got a camera that can do it, a memory card that can store it, and the software to manipulate it, no harm in shooting in RAW - if anything, it could prove to be instructive as to what needs to be done differently in the field.
Red Viper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 20, 2005, 9:01 PM   #12
Senior Member
Steven R's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 5,830

Hi Serrander: I agree with the comments of JimC and Red Viper. A great many pros, especially working photojournalists, only shoot in the highest quality jpeg, and it gives excellent full page blowups. I've attached a link for you to read; it's a pro photographer's very good explanation of the real world difference in raw and jpeg. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

Steven R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 21, 2005, 12:32 AM   #13
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803

But one reason why photojournalists can use JPG is that the method of printing their results is newprint. Not exactly the highest quality printing method. And often in journalism it isn't about the high quality amazing shot, it's what is in the image that matters. I will never forget the image of the man standing in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square. For those too young to know what I'm talking about, look here:

This is not high art. But it's an amazing picture that I wish I took. One of the most famous pictures of the last 20 years.

The discussion about JPG vs RAW (or any format, really) is about what it offers you and if you need it. With the right photoshop plugin and a well exposed picture I bet you can do basically the same thing with either format. There are cases where RAW would win, but they are few and far between.

But I don't have all those fancy photoshop plugins. I can say that fixing white balance with RAW is trivial for me. I shoot outdoors and the white balance is close but rarely right. I can't always use the eye-droppers so that isn't the answer. But using the slider on RAW conversion is easy and effective.

The other reality is that often, in the ever changing world of wildlife photography (which I do), you can't always get the exposure right. The sun comes out just as I shoot and the whites are blown out on the bird I'm shooting. I can't "get the exposure right" 'cause if I did take the time to fix it I'd miss the shot. With raw, I have more latitude to fix it.

Does everyone need raw? Very few, if any, really require it. But I find it makes many things much easier for me. And with the Canon 20D (the camera I have) the downsides in the field (larger file, fewer pictures on a card, fills the buffer faster) are manageable. I clearly recover more shots 'cause of RAW than I miss because of RAW. So for me, it is the right way to shoot.

eric s is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:50 PM.