coolhanduke Loc: Redondo Beach, CA

I never shoot raw, have not found a need to.
The few times I did I found I didn’t need to.
That’s just because of the subject matter I shoot.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Technically not true, but it needs to be processed before it's a viewable image. If you have to process it, you have the ability to edit it.

I shoot raw only (although my cameras have modes that will not be saved as raw files so I have to shoot jpg. I very rarely use those modes). Even if the raw data needs no editing, I run my images through Lightroom because that's where I can find them. And I might as well shoot raw because I never know whether the image will need editing until I download it onto the big screen.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Crazy argument, isn't it? I wonder what it is really about.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Precisely my point. Many here do not really understand the difference. Because if they do, they wont be polarising one from the other.

Youve given proof that JPEG is basically the same banana. It's a compression software, yet there are those who would insist that a camera jpeg is worse than a jpeg produced in a pc.

It is correct that JPEG has a narrower dynamic range, that is why one must be even more vigilant and precise in his/her decisions when shooting directly to jpeg. It takes more skill to create a good jpeg image straight out of the camera yet many hoggers look down on guys who do it.

Possible, but not all scenes has a wide a stop requirement. In some scenes, JPEG can provide all the dynamic range that is required. If a little bit more is needed then a one can push the D-lighting or any other wide dynamic range settings like "flat" or use other techniques such as multiple exposures. Another is that it wont matter if one shoots RAW if they are pushing the ISO hard, because such raising of ISO narrows the dynamic range of the sensor itself.

Push the RAW hard, the same result happens. Everything has its a limit. What flew in many peoples head is what the question was about. When there is no requirement to edit, is it ok to use JPEG? and the answer is Yes, yes yes. The question was never about editing. Yet that is what we keep seeing as the answer. Besides, with any single color gradient, the RAW file will still band upon its final convertion to high compression JPEG.

Tell that to the polarizing group. They have a hammer and everything is a nail.

I will use Jpeg when it suffice and I will use RAW if that is the better solution for the scene. I dont need to compare and polarize. They are just image files from a myriad of other file formats, that has their own field of use.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

But the question clearly says, NO post processing is needed.
Why do answers keep insisting on post processing requirements? No means no. None is needed not now, not later or ever.

And even if some editing is required many years later, how sure are we that the present software 'then' still has the capacity to edit the RAW of today, when planned obsolecence is the norm? We could not even read a new RAW file in PS before an update. Software makers are a pretty crazy bunch.

I have to disagree on no-one in UHH dislike JPEG. Many Jpeg users are being looked down upon by other members for not using RAW in their shooting.

It is harder to edit a JPEG but it is not cast in stone. Take a very good Jpeg picture and it would go a long way.

I am not against RAW or people who shoot RAW. I shoot RAW myself and process if i see it is required. But that is not the question.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

It's not that the camera jpg is worse than the jpg from a computer, it's that the camera is more limited in adjustment. The camera is limited by its settings, which might have 5 steps of adjustment, while the computer software is more likely to have 100 steps of adjustment. For that reason I believe the computer is better at producing a jpg.

Shooting raw has its place, as does shooting jpg. It is certainly possible to get good jpg images directly from the camera. I choose to shoot raw because I don't always have the time available to diddle with camera settings to get a shot of an ephemeral subject. So I depend on the camera automation to get generic settings close to what is necessary, after which I can polish the image in post. Postprocessing on raw data has significantly more latitude than postprocessing on a jpg so where postprocessing is necessary, raw has the advantage.

And since ALL my images go into Lightroom because that's the only way I can keep track of them, it costs me nothing to use the raw data. LR will generate a jpg when I need it. For me it's a no-brainer.

As always, you are free to make your own decisions about how you shoot and manage your images. I do believe it is desirable, if not necessary, to make the decisions with full knowledge of how things work.

User ID

Length of an anatomical feature found on only half the population.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

The OP stated that no postprocessing is INTENDED. It did not say no processing is NEEDED. Of course, NEED is subjective when it comes to postprocessing an image.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

The male/female ratio is regionally variable, and is estimated at 1.03-1.06 (wikipedia).

Of course women seem to live longer than men for some reason.

Shooter41 Loc: Wichita, KS

Dear coolhanduke...I never shoot raw either, because my subject is indoor soccer under low light conditions. (1) When I take 800 photographs iduring a two hour game, the RAW files are too large and would take up too much space on my memory cards and computer (2) I can run my JPEG image files through Topaz and get results that cannot be distinguished from Raw images by anyone less than my favorite Sony Ambassador from Australia. Like you my subject matter won't allow me to shoot RAW. Hooray for the Sony A7R4! Positive comments are welcome. Shooter41

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Fully agree in everything you say. I just have to add, that the in-camera JPEG is basically a finished product. The computer JPEG coming from a RAW file is a process in progress, where one can still decide to experiment before commiting to the outcome. What I read about it that rubs the wrong way is that the cameras computer compared to the power and speed of a pc is what makes the difference in quality.

As for how people do their stuff, I'm all for that too. I fully support how anybody wants to do their shooting.
But that is not the question where most of the answers are revolving in.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Different words but the same context. None intended, none is needed.
Actually, needed is a less harsh word for the question.
The image may still need processing, but the shooter has no intention to fix it.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Having used Kodachrome and Ektachrome for years I have always been careful about getting exposure right because they don't give you any margin for error. Anyone who uses the camera's JPEG can get away with the same approach. Like a bad surgeon, you can always burry your failures.

If the scene's range is narrow then you just need to get the exposure right. But if it's too wide, D-lighting compresses everything you can't compress only some of the range. You are better off with two exposures and HDR.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

After 32 pages the discussion usually diverges from the original post

Not necessarily, just those who have closed their minds to the possibility of doing better with raw.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Doctors, engineers... lawyers




Thats why I said if a little bit more, and have continued to other ways including "or use other techniques such as multiple exposures"
Just a matter of finding the solution one find fit for his need or most comfortable with.