My Doubts About Raw (Page 8): But what you don't know is how the OP set up his camera. He seemed happy with the results - that's what counts. I'm sure he could have increased vibrance...

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

garrickw wrote:

Don't take this wrong but your male cardinals are to the orange side and your camera has lost a lot of feather detail when it processed your shots the blue jay is also washed out I suggest you try Raw again and setup some of your own presets you like and your processing will go faster

But what you don't know is how the OP set up his camera. He seemed happy with the results - that's what counts. I'm sure he could have increased vibrance or saturation and sharpness. In any case, his JPGs can still be edited.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Linda From Maine wrote:

There is really no need for these constant testimonials touting one way as superior to the other since the decision should be based on personal interests, needs and desires.

And you can do both!

And you can switch at any time! It's always open season on choosing whether to shoot raw 😀 👍

AMEN!

Silverrails

Linda From Maine wrote:

There is really no need for these constant testimonials touting one way as superior to the other since the decision should be based on personal interests, needs and desires.

And you can do both!

And you can switch at any time! It's always open season on choosing whether to shoot raw 😀 👍

Thank You, "Personal Choice or Decision", although the choice is sometimes determined by circumstances, such as Knowledge and Understanding and Ability to post-process RAW images. I shoot JPEG for all the mentioned reasons. Maybe one day. I am soon to dive into the world of Monochrome images, see what I can create.

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

jradose wrote:

Wow. I express my opinion, and the "raw profe... (show quote)

I love your photos and processing with jpeg ! Don’t let them get to ! I’m a jpeg shooter as well , I do post process my jpegs and am having the time of my life.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

gvarner wrote:

My thought is that RAW works great when there are flaws to correct in the photo. If you’re happy with how your JPEG's come out, go for it.

Raw excels with flaws, but using a raw-only workflow lets you use the camera to its fullest potential, in bad light, with highly saturated colors, and when your dynamic range exceeds what a jpeg is capable of capturing. Raw is not just about fixing mistakes, any more than shooting TriX and underexposing 2-3 stops and using a developer temperature and time that would permit the revealing of shadow detail - no mistake, but a deliberate exposure choice, given the available tools. In my use, jpegs are limiting, and do not provide the best the camera can offer. And if images are shot with high ISO, the tendency is to remove the noise to a point where everything looks like smooth plastic and people look like they are cousins of Gumby.

The last thing you want to do is to settle on what the camera can produce without much alteration, and tossing everything that doesn't look ok. Shooting raw helps to ensure more and better choices later when you post process and fewer tossed files - at least as far as exposure and picture settings are concerned.

I am not saying that this is the only way to shoot, or that this way is better than anything else. I am saying that for what I shoot, when I shoot it, and how I deal with the images afterwards, raw gives me options that are missing in camera-generate jpegs.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Grahame wrote:

With all due respect I would suggest that you simply have not mastered a raw workflow adequately.

I would second that. The worst I get is sometimes being able to rework jpgs to be as nice as my initial RAW images. I rarely shoot jpgs in camera. Yes, a nearly perfect jpg file in camera can be really nice but not consistently.

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

Gspeed wrote:

Yes.

Nothing wrong with a pre baked cake

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

Gene51 wrote:

It sounds like you are not taking the time to proc... (show quote)

Key being upon close examination! How close? Most people coming to your home admire your photos without close examination

MadMikeOne Loc: So. NJ Shore - a bit west of Atlantic City

Linda From Maine wrote:

There is really no need for these constant testimonials touting one way as superior to the other since the decision should be based on personal interests, needs and desires.

And you can do both!

And you can switch at any time! It's always open season on choosing whether to shoot raw 😀 👍

THANK YOU! I am sick to death of this constant RAW vs. JPEG here. When I first became a member here, one of my most vivid memories was the advice I received that shooting RAW was the only way to go. The implication was that if I didn’t shoot RAW I was really missing out on something.

Just noticed that we are at 8 pages and counting. Unwatching this topic - gotta go make a lasagne!!

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

If you only listen to the RAW shooters, you will become deaf to all your possible successes.

tomcat

MT Shooter wrote:

I personally quit shooting RAW with the release of the Nikon D850. The user adjustable in-camera processing can be set to yield as good, if not better, results that I could get spending endless hours editing RAW data.
Granted most cameras do not offer nearly as much user customization in-camera, but you will never know until you try.

Here, here. I am starting to agree with you 100%. After many years of shooting portraits in raw (so that I could be the final "master"), I have started shooting jpegs with my Z6 for sports photography. There is an advantage for me because I shoot between 5 and 8 high school basketball games each week. And with 1200 images, that's too much time at the computer. So for sake of my remaining time on this earth, I am shooting large jpeg files. I can't improve on the camera's interpretation of the jpeg any better by me processing a raw file. And for what I do, the jpegs are faster. So long as I keep the color balance correct and watch for highlights control, the jpegs are better.

Thanks for giving more hoggers a chance to weigh in on this topic

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Delderby wrote:

I cook it the way I want it to be - but the grill has to be right first, and you can't sear it afterwards.

I get my best results with a Sous Vide cooking method. and I always sear after the fact. With a culinary blowtorch. No grill.

Short ribs cooked for 48 hours @130°, then torched:

IMG_20191117_130711 by Gene Lugo, on Flickr

Sirloin, cooked for 90 mins @ 127º, then seared with the torch:

IMG_20181125_183141 by Gene Lugo, on Flickr

These are jpegs from a cellphone. No raw in sight. The only jpegs I ever shoot these days, only because I can't be bothered with the nonsense of dealing with heic files and other garbage.

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

garrickw wrote:

Don't take this wrong but your male cardinals are to the orange side and your camera has lost a lot of feather detail when it processed your shots the blue jay is also washed out I suggest you try Raw again and setup some of your own presets you like and your processing will go faster

I have been shooting cardinals for 7 years. Your male cardinal is to red I have never seen a cardinal that red in real life! The vast vast majority have a orange tint! The blue jay is absolutely not washed out!

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

davyboy wrote:

Nothing wrong with a pre baked cake

True.
(Some are excellent;
Some people just like self made better;
Some people won't do anything other than self made.
We all be different!)

srt101fan

Linda From Maine wrote:

There is really no need for these constant testimonials touting one way as superior to the other since the decision should be based on personal interests, needs and desires.

And you can do both!

And you can switch at any time! It's always open season on choosing whether to shoot raw 😀 👍

I can't help but think that those that react emotionally to this RAW-JPEG issue are missing something. Why the defensive attitudes? The facts are all there for anybody to see...