What is everyone shooting in "RAW vs JPEG" (Page 2): "Every one" Is NOT shooting RAW! I'm not. Jpeg all the way! And I'll match up my photo posts with anyone. Take a look at some of my...

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

"Every one" Is NOT shooting RAW! I'm not. Jpeg all the way! And I'll match up my photo posts with anyone. Take a look at some of my posts and you can see how nice photos can look without the Photoshop "treatment"! Not bragging, the proof is in the pudding! I think there is a disservice being done to beginners with this constant indoctrination that you can't produce great photos without using photoshop et al.

tradio Loc: Oxford, Ohio

Used to shoot RAW and jpeg but now, it's RAW only..

Yakybird Loc: Rhode Island

Yes that is what I did. After reading that JPEG photos are already compressed and RAW photos work better with editing. Thank you 😊

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

tradio wrote:

Used to shoot RAW and jpeg but now, it's RAW only..

Might want to tell people why so they can understand what made you change.

I still shoot RAW+JPEG because I like to view the images in Windows Explorer, not an editor or cataloger.
Explorer is my cataloger. This system works well for me, my preference. It doesn't mean everyone else should do it that way.
Unless they're me.

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

Yakybird wrote:

I am finding shooting in RAW that my photos look better then in JPEG. Just curious on what everyone uses.
Canon EOS 90D
Tamron 150-600mm G1

Spectacular shots ❤️🌈🏆🌈❤️

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

Yakybird wrote:

Well I am a beginner. I am quite happy with my photos. I have won a 2 photo contests online (beginner contests). Maybe I am in the wrong group here. Not use to being jumped all over everytime I post something. 😕

Paul was not jumping on you. He never does that. He was asking questions to get you to think, and at the same time giving you the reasons why your photos are better than jpeg from the camera of you edit that way.

Btw, your photos are good, so you must be doing more than a simple edit.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Retired CPO wrote:

"Every one" Is NOT shooting RAW! I'm not. Jpeg all the way! And I'll match up my photo posts with anyone. Take a look at some of my posts and you can see how nice photos can look without the Photoshop "treatment"! Not bragging, the proof is in the pudding! I think there is a disservice being done to beginners with this constant indoctrination that you can't produce great photos without using photoshop et al.

Everyone has their own method/process that works best for them.

And yes, many people have a tendency to tell people what is 'best to do', because it works so well for THEM.
I myself, do what works best for me. Which includes NOT using a cataloger.

Yakybird Loc: Rhode Island

Thank you😊

Yakybird Loc: Rhode Island

Thank you 😊

Yakybird Loc: Rhode Island

Yes I agree. That would be more of a learning method. Thank you.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Yakybird wrote:

Thank you😊

I highly recommend using "Quote Reply" so we know to whom your comment is directed, if it is not in general.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Yakybird wrote:

I am finding shooting in RAW that my photos look better then in JPEG. Just curious on what everyone uses.
Canon EOS 90D
Tamron 150-600mm G1

I've been doing digital photography seriously for about 15 years. For almost 12 of those, I was JPEG only, with minor editing, usually in Windows Photos. With care and occasional HDR brackets, I got a lot of really nice images, many in difficult circumstances.

Not quite four years ago, I started saving raw files also, in preparation for a night sky workshop that I was planning to attend. Since then, I've been saving both both raw and JPEG files, but I work hard with my camera settings to make the JPEGs ready to go, or at least close to it.

Lore here is that the only way to get a decent photograph from a digital camera is to work with raw files. But the truth is that manufacturers have devoted millions of dollars and untold hours to developing cameras that can produce beautiful images for those who know what they are doing. It is true that some situations require raw files and a lot of work to get anything usable, but that is the exception most of the time.

So to answer your question, I use both, as appropriate.

Yakybird Loc: Rhode Island

Longshadow wrote:

I highly recommend using "Quote Reply" so we know to whom your comment is directed, if it is not in general.

Thanks for sharing that. Sorry for the mistake.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

I shoot RAW (my preferred way to type it) 99.999% of the time. Only a few of the in camera effects that require JPEG are exceptions and I hardly ever do those.

My first digital camera put everything out in TIFF and my first two DSLRs (Sigma SD10 & SD14-after those I went Canon) only did RAW so I just got used to the idea of having to do some editing and converting to JPEG when I exported an image to post.

Yakybird Loc: Rhode Island

robertjerl wrote:

I shoot RAW (my preferred way to type it) 99.999% of the time. Only a few of the in camera effects that require JPEG are exceptions and I hardly ever do those.

My first digital camera put everything out in TIFF and my first two DSLRs (Sigma SD10 & SD14-after those I went Canon) only did RAW so I just got used to the idea of having to do some editing and converting to JPEG when I exported an image to post.

Thank you for the info.