PFRE is the original online resource for real estate and interior photographers. Since 2006, it has been a community hub where like-minded professionals from around the world gather to share information with a common goal of improving their work and advancing their business. With thousands of articles, covering hundreds of topics, PFRE offers the most robust collection of educational material in our field. The history of real estate photography has been documented within these pages.
All Articles


Image banner for the November 2023 PFRE Photographer of the Month Winner Javier Sotomayor, with a featured image of his winning photo titled "Open"

Congratulations to Javier Sotomayor, November 2023 PFRE Photographer of the Month! The theme this month was "Open." Javier Sotomayor - Entry #879 Dave Koch - Entry #877 Peter Wingfield - Entry #874 Here's what Javier has to say: Hello First of all I wa ...



For over a decade, photographers from around the world have participated in PFRE’s monthly photography contests, culminating in the year-end crowning of PFRE’s Photographer of the Year. With a new theme each month and commentary offered by some of the finest real estate & interior photographers anywhere, these contests offer a fun, competitive environment with rich learning opportunities. 

Contest Rules


View / Submit


View Archive


PFRE prides itself on the depth and breadth of the information and professional development resources it makes available to our community. Our goal is to help real estate and interior photographers be successful while bringing the community together and elevating the industry as a whole.

Conference News

No items found

Real Estate Photographers - Always Shoot RAW!

Published: 06/01/2015
Digital Photography RAW vs JPEG Part 1

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

the holidays, Willie asked:

"Why shoot in RAW instead of jpeg?.

This reminded me of the days years ago when I used to have heated discussions here on PFRE about whether or not you should shoot RAW. The video to the right by Jared Polin is a funny argument from that era. Nowadays there's no discussion. Always shoot RAW, no exceptions! Here is my response to Willie:

The reason to always use RAW is that when you shoot JPG the camera makes all the exposure, color, saturation, sharpness, etc decisions and bakes them all into the file before you even get your hands on it. On the other hand with a RAW file you get all the data directly off the sensor and you get to make all these decisions about finishing the photo yourself.

You can see this at work when you work with a JPG vs RAW file in Lightroom. With a RAW file you can adjust the exposure or white balance in either direction by a large amount and you can move the highlights and/or shadows + or - by a huge amount. However, try the same thing with a JPG file and you can't change the look of the image that much.

The important reason real estate shooters should shoot RAW is that you can take one shot and then move the typically overexposed windows with the Highlights slider so you can ssometimes even see the view out the window and then move the underexposed interior with the Shadows slider so it looks brighter. This is a huge benefit and time saver that makes the larger file size of RAW files well worth it.

Is there anyone left that will take Ken Rockwell's side of this argument?

Larry Lohrman

52 comments on “Real Estate Photographers - Always Shoot RAW!”

  1. I completely agree! I unfortunently realized this much later then I should have, take this info and run with it! Even if you think there is no difference, trust me and the PFRE team it is TRUE! You can do so much more with manipulating the image in editing. My stubborn eyes took months to see it! Now I know better!

  2. I always photograph with the camera set to RAW only. I've noticed if I do RAW + JPG, somehow in my rush, I end up with a setting that switches the camera to JPG. So it's RAW only for me, none of that cooked stuff!

    One other thing I've noticed is if I set my two latest Sony cameras, A65 and A6000, to Auto White Balance, I get much more natural color than if I try setting it manually, especially with the 6000 (which I'm still learning to use) with it's new color engine, the color is very near perfect even with mixed lighting.

  3. Funny, I used to shoot and process only raw for RE, but a couple of years ago I found that my batches and other editing go waaay faster with "medium" jpgs, and was surprised that the results aren't far off from what I need. Now I shoot raw+med jpg, so I do have a raw file to fall back on, should the camera get it too far off the mark. I delete the raw files when I'm done. Medium jpg files are more than large enough for 95% of RE print needs, and also take up less space in storage. For architectural work, however, I still shoot raw only, because everything counts (and it pays for it).

  4. I shoot RAW and could never even consider switching back to JPEG now. The flexibility you get with a RAW file is amazing.

  5. Simple. Set up your tripod, shoot a room in jpeg then shoot it in raw. Take them both into lightroom. In less than a minute you will see why most everyone shoots raw. No comparison. Then just for giggles, shoot a room in raw then mraw or sraw and take them into lightroom. No comparison.

  6. I have shot both ways but I found that there was very little difference. This past year I shot over 600 properties. The wasted time converting RAW files, maintaining extra storage, transferring them from one drive to another when space is needed, etc. is just not worth any small benefit to me. I have no problem getting great window views using jpegs and window views are crucial in my market. Do whatever works for you. For me, RAW is a huge waste of time.

  7. I would have said that this subject did not deserve the dignity of a blog post...but apparently there are still those who would make a virtue of their ignorance.
    I can be stubborn and old-fashioned about some things myself, but this is one area where clinging to a bad practice is truly comical.

  8. Perhaps the difference is minimized by the method of ones processing techniques but I decline to respond to arrogance except with a chuckle. You people always amuse me.

  9. I've always believed that there is RAW, and nothing else!!!!, end of story! but I've found for real estate photography, the jpgs have been fine, except for any night and twilight shots, that I've always been shot in RAW.
    One weekend I shot a wedding and set my camera to RAW. Monday I had a home to shoot and forgot my camera was still set to RAW. This was a lucky break as the home was the beach and very contrasty lighting. The RAW files allowed me to pull extra detail out of the sky and windows, which would have been lost in JPG.

    I have slowly been switching from my Nikon system, to my Fuji Pro mirrorless system, as the camera is lighter, sharper and I can view and compose on the LCD screen, just like shooting on a view camera. With Nikons I shot both raw and JPG as a back-up, and found the JPGs worked fine. (Yes, RAW is definitely superior, and saved my butt many times, so don't yell at me for using jpg). But I can edit quicker in jpg.

    The Fuji JPGs are so much better than almost every other camera company jpgs. I use Lightroom and ACDsee Pro 8 to finish my edits (ACDsee is incredible and has some features not available in Lightroom). unfortunately, ACDsee does not read the Fuji RAW files at this time, but the company said it might later.

    Almost everything important I shoot, weddings, portraits, commercial products and architectural are all shot in RAW, as I relate that to shooting a film Negative. but after shooting some fine art work on the Fuji, in both RAW and JPG, and all the write ups on the Fuji X- system, I see almost no difference.

    So, to answer the question weather to shoot RAW or JPG.............................Shoot both. Then, after doing your own testing, you decide on what works best for you. Bottom line, if you shoot in RAW, you cant go wrong.

  10. "I would have said that this subject did not deserve the dignity of a blog post…but apparently there are still those who would make a virtue of their ignorance."
    Ignorance? Both Peggy and I stated that we have used both. I shot raw for 8 years before switching to jpg for RE work, and I continue use raw for everything else. I don't know about other markets, but when our MLS started allowing 40 images in a listing and giving listings that use the full 40 search priority, suddenly my workload and storage requirement doubled, and agents still expected the same turn-around. Something had to give, so I experimented with jpg and found that I could make it work fine for RE needs. If an agent wants to pay my architectural fees and is willing to wait an extra day, I'll be glad to treat it as such... but they don't. Meanwhile, I still use raw for my other work that pays 4-5 times as much and only requires 8-15 images.
    "I can be stubborn and old-fashioned about some things myself, but this is one area where clinging to a bad practice is truly comical."
    I supposed "bad practice" is subjective, but in my case, not changing my old standards processes in favor of popular, generic, one-size-fits-all laws of the internet experts would have been a bad practice. Meanwhile, others might find ego and condescension to be comical... I simply shared my experience just in case there is someone in a similar boat that might be considering alternatives.

  11. Let's be fair here - if you were shooting over 600 properties a year like Peggy, you'd be foolish to spend the time processing in raw. Maybe a few of those shoots would be important/difficult/pay enough to warrant the safety of raw, but I doubt that most of that work is paying to support doing much of anything in post.

  12. Count me in the lot of "ignorant". I've tested RAW versus JPEG and found the difference to be minute versus the time it takes to process RAW and space that's required to keep those files. My "ignorant" company photographed over 1000 homes last year though. And we aren't the run and gun $100 a shoot guys either...

    I'm sure I could say more but I don't have a need to name call on a real estate photography blog.

  13. They Amuse me too Peggy. Thank the Lord for a Few "Non Arrogant, Know it All" RE photographers out there like Peggy, Phil, and Casey. I stated 5 years ago with my D70 in Myrtle Beach. My Wife and I moved up to a D7100, exceptional camera. I will never shoot Raw, I will never use a strobe for RE, I will never shoot full frame, finally got that out of my system for the few struggling RE guys and gals out there. has only 1 objective, "To Help Our Agents Sell Homes Faster and for More Money".

    Our shoot today, we will deliver 40 downsized MLS images, 40 HD images, a Pro Virtual Tour, Open House Flyers, Tomorrow. Our Agents Love Us here along the Grand Strand in Myrtle Beach. My $ 1,000,000 computer in my Nikon is smarter than me, poor Me. Some RE photographers care more about their Agents than their Self Importance, Bye.

  14. First off - Jared Polin is about as much of a "professional photographer" as Ken Rockwell is.

    I've found that for real estate purposes there's not much difference between processing a jpeg and a raw file with regards to final image quality. If you really push it you'll definitely see the jpeg break down quicker - especially in highlights and deep shadows where there's little information to begin with.

    The primary reason I shoot in raw when shooting real estate (or any subject) is for the ability to match color temperature between images. A batch of raw images can all be synched to a specific Kelvin and tint value which I have found very useful when shooting a room under changing lighting conditions, or even from different angles. Now load a bunch of jpegs taken under different lighting conditions in to ACR or Lightroom and you'll see that they all have the same Temp and Tint values - ZERO! Further WB adjustments are only relative to that specific jpeg image and cannot be copied or synched across a batch of images.

  15. There are plenty of "professional photographers" (and by professional I mean, photography is what puts bread on the table for them) that only shoot in jpeg. Studio shooters, sports shooters (jpegs allow for more burst mode images in the buffer) etc. who for different reasons need or want to shoot jpeg. I currently always shoot in raw, but I will play with jpegs in the future, to see if there are situations where it works. I don't do HDR, or Fusion, or any of the other hybrid processing where RAW would most certainly be a huge benefit. You can recover close to 2 stops in today's high resolution jpegs....if you have your lighting down, are you really going to be consistently off more than that. (Window pulls in strong light easily the exception)

    There is a piece of paper that sits above me at my desk...when ever I am becoming close minded I look at it

    Tell me again, the reasons why progress is bad


    Just because doing something a certain way was great 5-10 years ago (always shoot in raw every time for example), does not necessarily mean it's still the best way to do it today, for everyone, in every situation....

  16. Ultimately go with what you feel comfortable with especially if it's providing you with a successful business.
    Although I have to say there's nothing more exhilarating than going back to basics stripping everything down by going au natural and doing it RAW. Sure I understand how you can feel abit exposed but the feedback can be spectacular.

  17. RAW is like having an original negative to work with, and JPG is having a print from a negative that has since been destroyed. I'm not brave enough to destroy my negs, so I'll stick with RAW.

  18. Peggy and Casey I said it many times already,Scott is a very talented young men and his work in my opinion is very good,the problem is that he things that his CACA does not stink and he is so far from the truth,but then again his young .On the subject of RAW vs Jpeg......Count me in the lot of “ignorant”. I’ve tested RAW versus JPEG and found the difference to be minute versus the time it takes to process RAW and space that’s required to keep those files. My “ignorant” company photographed over 1000 homes last year though. And we aren’t the run and gun $100 a shoot guys either…

    I’m sure I could say more but I don’t have a need to name call on a real estate photography blog........nothing else for now,good night from sunny Florida

  19. Wow, this has been quite an emotional discussion amongst fellow real-estate photographers.
    I am not sure how many in the group are starting in the photography field and how many are seasoned pros.
    But I can tell you what I have learned in the 45 years I have been doing photography in the very demanding and specialized field I have been working in, The industrial, aerospace defense industry. I started in the Navy, then Sperry Gyroscope, and Lockheed Martin. Quality was (is) always #1. make sure what ever you do is done well and something you can be proud of.............your name is on the final results and your clients are aware.

    In 2002 when I went from shooting 4x5, and 8x10 film to Digital 35mm, I felt like a complete idiot. I had to learn a new way of shooting, lighting and especially processing (and still learning new things from you guys and these blogs).

    Photography and Real estate photography can be approached in different ways. You can either look at it as low end shooting, go in, shoot quick and get out. Or treat it as a real photographic assignment and put your soul and dedication into it and produce images that you can be proud of and that agents will seek you out for your quality and dedication.
    If you learn your craft well, you can (as I have seen and learned on Larry's blog) get in, light and get out quite quickly and still give hi-quality images.

    So, do you need to shoot full frame and RAW, no. Can you shoot cropped sensor,yes. Can you shoot mirrorless cameras and give hi-quality results from jpgs, yes.

    But only you can decide what quality product you want to give your clients. Is it is something you can be happy with and proud of, or if real estate photography is just a way to make side money.

    Many of the photographers on this site want to (and do) produce some of the highest quality real estate photography I have seen, and I admire their images.

    So, again, do you have to shoot RAW? NO, it just gives you the ability to pull more detail out of an image than a JPG. If your camera has two cards as my D-7000, then shoot both. If you don't need the RAW, dump it and don't even upload it to your computer. But, the RAW has saved me more than a few times.

    For me, I have to give a product to a client that I know they will be happy with. But more than that, I need to know that I am happy with it also.

  20. I've not noticed any time difference between processing RAW files and .jpg's. There have been plenty of times where the extra data of a RAW file has pulled my bacon out of the fire or at least saved me from having to reshoot something. Disk space is stupid cheap these days and I only hang on to RE shoots for one year aside from any images I have put in my "Selected/Portfolio" folder and that's not very many. Most homes I shoot are not all that special and I can get more boring middle-class home interior photos every week if I need some.

    I only shoot .jpg's when I need the buffer depth for sports/rockets. Sometimes it's convenient to shoot RAW+jpg to hand off a low res set to the art director so they can start selecting out. The rest of the time I'm shooting RAW and converting to DNG on ingest. I've recently started going with DNG after having a small LR catalog go belly up. DNG keeps the edits in the file so it's no problem to recover.

  21. Not picking a side here, just wondering the following:

    From what I was taught JPG is a compressed format that looses quality each time you save. Wouldn't saving to JPG in camera be starting right out of the gate with less than 100% quality? If the initial save in camera counts as 1 and AT LEAST 1 other save after editing wouldnt you looking at at minimum 2x compression quality loss?

    I dont understand why anyone would not shoot in raw and start out with 100% quality (no compression) and only save to JPG at the very last stage (final image to go to client)?

    Im confused as to where the extra time is in processing in RAW?

  22. The only time I shoot in jpg is with that I call "quick shot throwaways". Today is a good example. Bank's new foreclosure property, at lock change and first entry. They just want documentation of condition and content left behind for their records. I know the Realtor is going to have me do a solid shoot for listing after the bank fixes it up paying regular rates...and some of these homes I haven't recognized them when I went back. Sure they pay me a small amount for today's work, but 1) the photos cannot double for MLS later, and 2) super quickie, shoot the angles, hand held on camera flash, no post and drop to 800 pixels to email. The only time I shoot RAW + jpg is on non-professional personal travels when visiting daughter in Europe. Usually travel light with iPad only and segregate RAW + jpg to SD card 1 and 2...transferring select jpg to the iPad for posting on FB, then work on RAW files when return home. With daughter's wedding in Oct, didn't want to carry the Nikon and borrowed a friend's Sony A7 which only had 1 SD card recording both RAW and jpg. Didn't know til I returned home that the iPad that it imported the RAW files and it wasn't a "poor internet connection" but the monster file that was causing FB to stall.

    In terms of RE and other professional jobs...RAW only. Clients deserve it with the flexibility it gives the photographer for the final produce.

  23. jeez, who knew this would turn into a rant-fest?

    Guess I'd better toss in my vote, having supported those who choose to shoot jpeg. I'd personally never shoot anything other than raw.

    (that's raw NOT RAW - it's not an acronym or a's just raw as in "raw data" without processing).

  24. I'm truly amazed! This is just as controversial a subject as it was back in 2007... maybe even more controversial. I didn't expect this much disagreement. Very insightful!

  25. Its a little odd that people would justify offering a lower quality product (even if only slightly), the busier they get? Seems a strange way to run a business to be honest! Especially when editing in raw takes up very little time compared than jpg.

    This blog can be tied in with Tony Colangelo's guest blog from last week referring to "creating your brand"

    Every photo you take is considered "your work" or "your brand" with your name behind it, why on earth would you give anybody anything less than the best you can possible provide and risk damaging "your brand"?

  26. Is this an argument of the merits of RAW v JPG, or is this about defending your turf? Insecurities abound in the world of art, which helps explain why the argument is nearing its 10 year mark. Something Mr. comical ignorance has said in more than one of his posts was "to learn your craft." Good advice. Learn to use well all the tools available and then choose which works best for you. Then you can smile and ignore the noise, and, you won't feel the need to defend your best practices.

  27. Ego People, unless your images are going on a billboard somewhere instead of on the MLS where mine will be shown (and the target audience of this page,) I cannot see how the very minor differences in RAW vs JPEG would be worth the extra time---certainly not to me because I have a VERY BUSY SCHEDULE. Maybe you don't. Do what you like but please don't be condescending and arrogant by assuming that you are so much better at your craft and that those of us who disagree are clueless. This is real estate photography, not fine art, not architectural, not portraiture. I shoot RAW when the occasion calls for it but it rarely comes up in real estate shoots. These images are temporary in nature--not images for a lifetime.

    If you are shooting fine art, architectural or portrait photography, then respectfully, this is not the place for your discussion.

  28. I apologize for using the term Ego People. It was only directed at one person. Now I have lowered myself to his level. Sigh.

  29. Any person or business that isn't willing to periodically go back and re-evaluate their processes (and the reason why they chose that process) to make sure they are still getting what they expect in terms of time savings, quality setting themselves up...
    Look at is this way...when a company is in trouble, and they hire someone to come in and help them...what is the first thing they generally do...they evaluate the current processes..why...because a lot of companies have the "set it and forget it" mentality...or "it worked for us back then"...or take your pick..

    Let's not become so set in our ways that we dismiss something without even bothering to check if it may work for us...
    If you already have, and it doesn't work for you...then know...but don't summarily dismiss someone else's process simply because it doesn't work for you...(Canon v's Nikon anyone)

    And Christian, a first generation hi-rez jpeg from the camera, is virtually identical to a hi-rez tiff or other end files (raw not included for obvious reasons).. and since we generally are not doing multiple edit and saving on a file, the quality loss is going to be negligible for the general uses of the files. (MLS & flyer). And I dare say. none of you can tell from what a MLS file originated from (raw or jpeg).
    And as long as you are meeting and hopefully exceeding your clients expectations, then what's the issue..

    Yes, I know storage is cheap...but it also can make us lazy in our thinking...

  30. The question that really hasn't been answered yet is...what time is saved processing a JPEG image versus RAW?

  31. I too am very curious about the time savings touted here. How much time are we talking about? I would imagine the time savings are directly related to the overall specs of the computer used in processing. Personally, if my computer was slow enough to force me to use JPGs because it takes too long, I'd be upgrading in a heart beat.

  32. For the kind of photos I want to deliver for real estate marketing, using jpegs would make it quite a bit harder to achieve the kind of quality I need. The biggest issue for me is that jpegs have a much narrower tonal range and do not offer nearly as much flexibility as RAW files for manipulating the tonal range and color balance to compensate for the kind of very high contrast, uneven lighting and mixed lighting situations that we often encounter when shooting buildings.

  33. Good grief, people...calm down. Shooting JPEGs is not inherently ignorant, and I didn't say it was. If you've got practical reasons for doing what you're doing, then it's the right decision (I ran a time-lapse project for most of this year that's pushing 140,000 images -- and they're all JPEGs. That made sense to me for several reasons, beginning with the need to fit a hell of a lot of images on a CF card.) And there's a case to be made that modern cameras produce pretty darned good-looking JPEGs, and certain genres of photography, such as those that require more or less instant delivery of a CF card to the client, can be done that way. That would make total sense. That's not ignorant, it's smart.

    But that's not this discussion. This discussion (following Larry's post) is about the technical merits of RAW vs. JPEG format -- and the contrast is such that there's really no comparison. If you're looking to make really good photos, RAW is better. RAW files are demonstrably better than JPEGs -- period. To deny this is akin to insisting that the world is flat (it's not). Again, there may be good, sound reasons to use an inferior file format (and in my opinion RE photography is not one of them) but to claim that "there's no difference" is, literally, ignorant.

    But there are people clinging to utterly specious or outdated arguments to justify their practices, and yeah, that's a kind of willful ignorance. RAW files are not actually any more time-consuming to process than JPEGs. There is no scary "RAW Conversion" that has to be done as a separate step. Storage is cheaper than water these days. Image files flow into your application of choice from the card (Lightroom, Bridge, Aperture, Picasso, iPhoto, etc.) completely seamlessly. My Apple operating system can display a RAW file as a preview just as quickly as it does a JPEG or TIFF. From the computer's perspective the difference between these formats is meaningless. Make your adjustments, save (or export) your deliverable....move on.

    There was a legitimate debate to be had over this topic about 12 years ago -- when digital photography was still in transition, RAW processors were clunkier, computers were slower, and storage expensive and less reliable. Much has changed since then. If you are still using very dated software, or very old hardware, then you ought to realize that you are an outlier and that your experience is far outside the parameters of a "general" discussion. Likewise, if you are just deeply committed to a workflow you're comfortable with and you are unwilling to change for any reason whatsoever, then that's your choice and you should be proud to say so. But that's also irrelevant to the discussion at hand -- facts are facts, and asserting otherwise ultimately undermines anyone's position.

  34. Scott, your points may be sound, but I find your opening offensive and condescending. Labeling someone with a different preference and point of view "an outlier" doesn't help either.

  35. @Tim,

    A TIFF file can also have zero compression. Dont get me wrong, Im in no way saying I can see the difference (have never compared) but there is a difference, thats a fact.

    I can tell you from experience that there is very little more time involved in editing with raw, and i am very busy! (edited 1200+ listings last year). We shoot for HDR and save multiple times, pre hdr edit in raw (white balance, shadows etc) saved 1x to uncompressed TIFF, then HDR process, merging photos and saving 1x to uncompressed TIFF and finally a post HDR edit in lightroom (final touches/fixes, verticals etc) saved to JPG for client. For me (and most HDR shooters) shooting in JPG would result in 3 times compression saves vs 1. The raw process (edit and exporting to a format) maybe adds an extra 5 mins to my workload (at most).

  36. What you think I said: "Labeling someone with a different preference and point of view “an outlier” doesn’t help either."

    What I actually said: "If you are still using very dated software, or very old hardware, then you ought to realize that you are an outlier and that your experience is far outside the parameters of a “general” discussion."

    Using a very old computer or outdated software might possibly be considered a "preference", but it's certainly not a "point of view". Either way, it's still a pretty useless perspective from which to discuss the relative merits of RAW vs. JPEG, since only a tiny fraction of readers are likely to be using extremely old hardware and software. Likewise, someone using a super-fast, prototype computer, or advanced version of software that's not generally available to the public, should realize that their experience is irrelevant to everyone else. My comments are aimed at the broad middle of photography, not the extremes at either end.

  37. It probably depends on your background as well. I'm a commercial shooter, so I don't change styles to suit RE photography. I have one quality, and that's all I offer, regardless of whether the only intended destination might be MLS. And that quality demands RAW originals.

    And in fact, many of my RE photos end up in well-printed magazines, which have a higher quality requirement then a billboard, (which is a low down dirty sort of medium like newsprint).

    But more that that, shooting RAW is about having a very predictable workflow that you can count on every time, and that translates to the highest quality while being able to predict how long any image will take in post. Even though I shoot 4 shots on every view that get painted together, my post-process time per final image is 4 minutes or less. And that's for a completely mastered image. I get the feeling that mastering an image is a foreign concept to some who feel that the lowly MLS is undeserving, but that's not the point. If you're offering a product that any Tom Dick or Harry can provide, your clients will engage in their services. I don't shoot for MLS, I shoot for my client, who then has the advantage of being associated with the highest quality product, which is what his/her buyers perceive is being offered. My work is more an AD for my client, then a way to sell any particular home.

    I was fascinated recently reviewing a portfolio in which the shooter believes in a single frame only, and shoots so that the light fixtures don't blow out. Yeah, he shoots RAW. But what was absolutely amazing was the finesse of his post-processing - what he could actually pull out of the rest of picture, which on the back of the camera and when first opening in PS looked completely black... and yet... in that RAW file, was an unbelievable amount of usable information. I have to admit, his level of skill at the post-process is far beyond what I know how to do, but I do know he couldn't do that with a jpg.

  38. @ Christian
    "We shoot for HDR and save multiple times"

    Then you have done your due diligence on your process and what you need to make it work (raw files)...simple as that.

    If jpegs work for your workflow and there are professionals where it does..why are folks having such a cow over that fact...THEY have taken responsibility for their output....good or bad...leave it at that...

    If raw works for your workflow and there are professionals where it does..why are folks having such a cow over that fact...THEY have taken responsibility for their output....good or bad...leave it at that...

    and we have all seen plenty of bad output from raw files...

    Is it the file...or the

  39. I suppose I can take comfort in the fact that I'm not the only photographer with thin skin. We creative types tend to be overly defensive of our work and methods. We can all learn from each other, and I appreciate everyone's point of view on what has become a surprisingly hot-button topic.

    Except for the jpg people, who are clearly in the wrong.

  40. @Tim,

    Fair enough and good points, I guess in my head I always just saw it kinda like buying a 1080p HD TV but only using it at the lower quality 720p setting.

    But like you said, whatever works best for the individual (and their workflow) is what matters most.

  41. Another good reason to shoot RAW all of the time is to make sure that have the technically best image file possible. I'm going to push secondary licensing this year much more that I have done in the past so I can't say that my RE images are only going to appear on a MLS or an inkjet printed brochure. Granted, the bulk of them will wind up deleted at the end of twelve months time, but I have no way of knowing exactly which ones won't.

    I paid the price for good equipment to make good photos. I could have spent less and put the difference in my pocket last year but that would have made it that much easier for the competition. To not take full advantage of my investment is nuts.

    I want my images to look good on the MLS and on the brochures, but they really have to pop on the agent's laptop or tablet. If I need to push some really hard in post, I'm going to want them in RAW.

    @Scott - I forgot about timelapse sequences. I do mine in .jpg as well. Memory card space becomes an issue for me as well on long captures. At some point when there are 1tb memory cards, I'll probably start shooting timelapses in RAW too.

  42. I feel that Christian got it right with this statement: "Every photo you take is considered “your work” or “your brand” with your name behind it, why on earth would you give anybody anything less than the best you can possible provide and risk damaging “your brand”?"

    I find it interesting that virtually all of the supporters of RAW (myself included) have linked their name to their website/portfolio in this discussion and only one of the supporters of jpg has done so.

  43. I have only ever shot RAW. My priority is to make the best of my limited talent, knowledge and equipment while aiming for continual improvement. It's this aspect of photography that gives me the biggest kick. I want to be a much better photographer than I am now, and I want to shoot bigger and better projects. I'm generally busy these days, and have a good balance of more than enough work to pay the bills while being able to devote more time than strictly necessary on many of my jobs in order to improve my skills, technique and end product. I can certainly see the benefit in cramming as many jobs into a week as possible and tailoring my workflow to suit - perhaps that would mean shooting jpeg - but that is simply not what I'm striving for.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Rela Logo
CS6 PSE Logo
HD Photo Hub Logo
FullFrame Logo

Learning Topics