RAW or JPEG!!!

[lputman]

For me, it depends on what I'm shooting. If I'm at the football field shooting the kids, then I'll have it on jpg. If I've been asked to shoot pictures for someone, then I'll shoot in RAW. Also, if I'm out shooting with the intention of really doing photoshop practice, then I'll shoot in RAW.

[GEli]

Originally Posted by smc1377

While I do shoot in RAW about half the time, I fear that many are using RAW as a crutch. Instead of taking the time to get it right the first time, they just shoot and correct later. While I do appreciate all the benefits RAW gives me in the post-processing stage, I've learned that getting it right from the get go is a lot easier than trying to color correct 500 images.

However with that said, I'll still shoot the very important stuff in RAW *just in case*.

What's wrong with a crutch? You say it like it's a bad thing, but if the person isn't shooting digital with plans to eventually going back to film (it could happen...), being able to fix WB/exposure/etc. after the fact will be a constant for any camera they shoot with from hereon in.

You can only use it as a partial crutch for correctly exposing too. Underexposing by two stops will still yield a terrible image if you try to push it up to properly exposed in PP, even if you use a noise reducing plugin to remove noise (and detail). Within about a ±1 EV range, though, you can push or pull to your heart's delight and still retain most of your detail. With JPEGs, any attempts to change the exposure will do terrible things to an image, though it does still have an acceptable operating range (but it's more like ±0.10EV).

RAW seems to mimic what's possible in a real darkroom more closely, in that you can do a fair bit of push (or, rarely, pull) processing and you'll only see a slightly enhanced grain. As camera tech improves I'm sure the useable window will increase, but for now most traditionalists can be placated by stroking them soothingly while whispering, "It's just like the dark room, just like the dark room..." until they fall asleep .

In case it's not obvious, I shoot only RAW for its flexibility and the superior resultant image quality. Space is not an issue in these days of cheap memory, so the only reasons people seem to be able to come up with for shooting JPEG is laziness. PP is and has always been part of of the photographic process, and leaving the tiny processor in your camera to guess at what you want and do all the work for you is, as I said, lazy!

[zoliky]

I shoot RAW every time... I use JPG occasionally

[smc1377]

Originally Posted by GEli

What's wrong with a crutch? You say it like it's a bad thing, but if the person isn't shooting digital with plans to eventually going back to film (it could happen...), being able to fix WB/exposure/etc. after the fact will be a constant for any camera they shoot with from hereon in.

You can only use it as a partial crutch for correctly exposing too. Underexposing by two stops will still yield a terrible image if you try to push it up to properly exposed in PP, even if you use a noise reducing plugin to remove noise (and detail). Within about a ±1 EV range, though, you can push or pull to your heart's delight and still retain most of your detail. With JPEGs, any attempts to change the exposure will do terrible things to an image, though it does still have an acceptable operating range (but it's more like ±0.10EV).

RAW seems to mimic what's possible in a real darkroom more closely, in that you can do a fair bit of push (or, rarely, pull) processing and you'll only see a slightly enhanced grain. As camera tech improves I'm sure the useable window will increase, but for now most traditionalists can be placated by stroking them soothingly while whispering, "It's just like the dark room, just like the dark room..." until they fall asleep .

In case it's not obvious, I shoot only RAW for its flexibility and the superior resultant image quality. Space is not an issue in these days of cheap memory, so the only reasons people seem to be able to come up with for shooting JPEG is laziness. PP is and has always been part of of the photographic process, and leaving the tiny processor in your camera to guess at what you want and do all the work for you is, as I said, lazy!

Again, I'm not arguing against the benefits of RAW in the least so I'm not sure where you are going with your comments. All I'm saying is that for some, I fear that instead of learning how to treat photography as a skilled art form, they are relying too much on the post processing stage. There's still a lot of value in learning what metering modes to select, how to properly white balance on camera, how to compose, how and when to push or pull EV, etc.

So while, yes, the digital post processing stage is much like the darkroom, that doesn't mean that "old school" photographers should care less about the fundamentals of photography just because they can correct it in the darkroom.

I'm not trying to say that everyone who shoots RAW doesn't care about the fundamentals. I'm talking about the ones who don't know how the metering modes work on their cameras or how to push or pull their EV and solely rely on post processing.

[GEli]

Originally Posted by smc1377

Again, I'm not arguing against the benefits of RAW in the least so I'm not sure where you are going with your comments. All I'm saying is that for some, I fear that instead of learning how to treat photography as a skilled art form, they are relying too much on the post processing stage. There's still a lot of value in learning what metering modes to select, how to properly white balance on camera, how to compose, how and when to push or pull EV, etc.

So while, yes, the digital post processing stage is much like the darkroom, that doesn't mean that "old school" photographers should care less about the fundamentals of photography just because they can correct it in the darkroom.

I'm not trying to say that everyone who shoots RAW doesn't care about the fundamentals. I'm talking about the ones who don't know how the metering modes work on their cameras or how to push or pull their EV and solely rely on post processing.

If someone doesn't know how metering modes work or has no idea how to push/pull EV in camera (so lack basic camera operation skills), their results are going to be crap even after PP. People who don't know how to photograph will make terrible photographs regardless of whether they shoot in RAW or JPEG. RAW is not a magical cure for poor fundamentals, it just allows for a slightly wider margin of error for passable photographers shooting in strenuous conditions. Until you can pull an image 4 stops up or recover detail from very blown whites, and still get something printable, I don't think what you're suggesting RAW can do is possible.

[shutterbug]

Originally Posted by kimspics

I just printed out a very good article ( more like a book- alot of pages) on wedding photography. This photographer says that they only shoot weddings in RAW and not JPEG. Her exact words are.... I can't stress this enough...shoot weddings in RAW....shoot in JPEG and you are asking for trouble. O.k My question is what is the difference and does everybody agree with this?

I used to be intimidated by RAW. Not anymore. It's wonderful. You have so much control over your shot. I don't shoot anything in Jpeg anymore. Only RAW.

I have yet to see a photo that can't be helped with some post-processing.

[FedererPhoto]

one more anecdotal piece: I shoot RAW.

Why? With the processing speed and power of modern cameras and computers, there is simply no reason not to. ... so even if I only 'need' it on like 1/100 shots, I still do it.

[jsanders]

You have a point there. Usualy the majority of the picures you shoot, you can throw away/ And just one ore two are really really nice. And then you SHOULD be able to do anything in post processing what you want.

[smc1377]

Originally Posted by GEli

If someone doesn't know how metering modes work or has no idea how to push/pull EV in camera (so lack basic camera operation skills), their results are going to be crap even after PP. People who don't know how to photograph will make terrible photographs regardless of whether they shoot in RAW or JPEG. RAW is not a magical cure for poor fundamentals, it just allows for a slightly wider margin of error for passable photographers shooting in strenuous conditions. Until you can pull an image 4 stops up or recover detail from very blown whites, and still get something printable, I don't think what you're suggesting RAW can do is possible.

You like being argumentative, don't you? Ok, so I'll bite.

Where have I suggested ANYTHING about the possibilities of RAW that makes you say what you said (see bolded statement above)? Here, I'll make it easier on you and quote what I said and you tell me what's being suggested that you don't think is possible...

While I do shoot in RAW about half the time, I fear that many are using RAW as a crutch. Instead of taking the time to get it right the first time, they just shoot and correct later. While I do appreciate all the benefits RAW gives me in the post-processing stage, I've learned that getting it right from the get go is a lot easier than trying to color correct 500 images.

However with that said, I'll still shoot the very important stuff in RAW *just in case*.

Again, I'm not arguing against the benefits of RAW in the least so I'm not sure where you are going with your comments. All I'm saying is that for some, I fear that instead of learning how to treat photography as a skilled art form, they are relying too much on the post processing stage. There's still a lot of value in learning what metering modes to select, how to properly white balance on camera, how to compose, how and when to push or pull EV, etc.

So while, yes, the digital post processing stage is much like the darkroom, that doesn't mean that "old school" photographers should care less about the fundamentals of photography just because they can correct it in the darkroom.

I'm not trying to say that everyone who shoots RAW doesn't care about the fundamentals. I'm talking about the ones who don't know how the metering modes work on their cameras or how to push or pull their EV and solely rely on post processing.

Again, I'm not arguing against using RAW. I'm not arguing against post-processing. I'm not arguing against the capabilities of RAW. I'm not arguing against you. Why do you feel the need to make up arguments?

[neilwood]

I shoot raw for a number of reasons:
1) Greater room for correction in post processing. White balance and exposure have greater room for alteration in RAW

2) I prefer to set my sharpening/curves per photo rather than using a generic setting.

3) I have one of the best optical and image processing set ups to hand at all times - my eyes and brain.

Until someone can come up with a system that will interpret an exposure the way I want it - i prefer to process the images myself rather than letting a small sliver of silicon do it for me!