RAW or JPEG!!!

[Pasq]

Originally Posted by shutterbug

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

yes you have, my shots! hehe

i'm sorry, just had to throw some poor humor in.

Even though i'm such a newbie, i also shoot in RAW. My reasoning, you capture more data. RAW uses the full bits of your CCD/CMOS (it is CMOS for canon, right? remember, newbie here). From everything i've read JPEG captures the image in 8 bits and RAW captures in 12 bits, yes?

For me, it just makes sense to utilize the full potential of the camera to get the best image quality possible. BUT! it all comes down to personal preference.

Isn't that why people always bought the kodachrome film? what's that old Paul Simon song....

anyway, just my 2 cents worth.

[InvisibleBlack]

I just switched over to shooting RAW. I checked the conversion times on my laptop and they are fine. I usually do very little PP as I try to get my shots correct when shooting. It works sometimes. I have three 4 gig chips so I dont lack for space that RAW files take up so all of my barriers to shooting RAW are gone.

Space
Time
Speed

Pat C

PS

I have 4 Gig chips.. can I justify an 8 gig chip purchase.

[Rail16]

If you have the storage space, on your computer and camera, shoot RAW.

[harrison.lin]

Originally Posted by kimspics

so do the majority of you all shoot in RAW? should I change my camera setting to RAW? if RAW is so much better why does jpeg even exist?

JPEG is good for comression. RAW takes up a tremendous amount of memory, reducing the amount of shots you can take and keep.

JPEG is good for sending to friends, family; and perhaps storage .

[Usuqa]

i shoot in raw also, for a good reason why raw is better than jpg just take a look at my other post.

No flash fired.. black photo recovered (bee macro)

[muddy250]

RAW everytime. You get to make your own jpeg and the amount of latitude you get to fix means you can often create something almost from nothing.

[sandman935]

When I used PhotoShop 6 for post processing, I really didn't see the point of shooting in RAW. The plugin did little more than adjust exposure. Using PhotoShop CS3 and Camera RAW, I shoot nothing but RAW all the time. Sometimes, I'll shoot RAW plus JPEG if I think I'll need the ability for a quick preview on the computer, but that's about it.

[GEli]

Originally Posted by smc1377

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...

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?

Oh I just love arguing. Being able to develop and defend an argument is an important skill. Don't go taking any of this personally - it's not you, it's your claim that I'm arguing against. If you are taking it personally, or don't like arguing (boo!), just let me know and I'll stop.

To answer your question: I'm arguing against your assertion in your first post that it's possible to use RAW as a crutch in a significant way. I think that at most it can be used to correct a narrow window of nearly-properly exposed images without any significant quality degradation.

[smc1377]

Originally Posted by GEli

Oh I just love arguing. Being able to develop and defend an argument is an important skill. Don't go taking any of this personally - it's not you, it's your claim that I'm arguing against. If you are taking it personally, or don't like arguing (boo!), just let me know and I'll stop.

To answer your question: I'm arguing against your assertion in your first post that it's possible to use RAW as a crutch in a significant way. I think that at most it can be used to correct a narrow window of nearly-properly exposed images without any significant quality degradation.

I love arguing as well. But if you're gonna argue, at least make a relevant point. Again, where did I say anything about the capabilities of RAW that caused you to proclaim that you "don't think what you're suggesting RAW can do is possible"?

My point has been simple and clear and I don't think anyone here would care to hear it for a third (or maybe fourth) time.

[jsanders]

I have heard people say: "If you don't shoot RAW, you're not a real photographer."
I see a lot of pro's and con's on shooting Raw /JPEG. To be honest: I hardly shoot Raw, because most of my shot's I don't edit.
In june I have to shoot my first event. I consider to shoot this in RAW + JPEG just in case that I make some huge mistakes that I have more options to fix my shot.

But anyway what do you have to say about the claim:

"If you don't shoot RAW, you're not a real photographer."