Fab4223 Loc: New York

I only shoot in jpeg ,and I use Picasa to tweak my photos ..am I missing out by not shooting in raw ? My photos seem pretty sharp and colorful in jpeg.i am very happy with my results. I'm aware that processing raw files can take me to another level ..photoshop seems complicated and hard to master ??thanks on your feed back..

PrairieSeasons Loc: Red River of the North

If you are happy with the results of jpeg, stick with it.

Like all increases in technology, RAW can make you lazy. Just like people forget how to spell after using a spell checker, people forget how to use correct white balance and exposure after using RAW and a post processor.

By the way, if you're happy with the shots you make and your post processing is limited to cropping and light / color, I would recommend lightroom before photoshop. Lightroom is cheaper by far and does a great job at color and exposure.

GDRoth Loc: Southeast Michigan USA

Yes, Lightroom is the first step...........may never need Photoshop......

Fab4223 Loc: New York

Thanks for your input..

jerrymat

Did you know that if you load a jpeg image into your computer and make the slightest modification to the file and then save it as a jpeg that you degrade the file? Did you know that jpeg is equivalent to what (in film days) we called drug store processing? A mistake in exposure by even a tiny bit (in jpeg) cannot be fixed without degrading the file? I took jpeg files for the first two years of working with digital and am forever sorry. I ruined some wonderful images.
I now take ALL pictures in Camera Raw, load them into Photoshop, make adjustments and save the file as a Tiff. At any time I can create a jpeg file from the Tiff and have an excellent result. Anytime I can go back to the Tiff and try some new software procedure on it, and lose nothing from the original.

GDRoth Loc: Southeast Michigan USA

FAB4223...............even if you now start shooting in RAW as recommended by jerrymat (which is good advice), you DO NOT need Photoshop. Lightroom will do everything you need to process and manage your images (be they JPEG or RAW)....

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Just an observation:

Jpeg = cake already baked. If you don't like the flavor...you can't do much.

RAW = ingredients for cake. You are free to make it taste however you want.

HEART Loc: God's Country - COLORADO

Interesting analogy.

jazzplayer

I simply must make an observation here that I've been keeping to myself up until now, but the title of this thread is the topper...
When I see people posting messages about "shooting in JPG" or "shooting in raw", that is the immediate tipoff to me that they don't really grasp what JPG or RAW are.
What we are talking about is nothing more than various formats for file storage of all the 1's and 0's that comprise picture data. They are file formats & nothing more! Sure, they are handled differently by computers (in & out of cameras), and that's why we use different formats - so that we CAN process them differently. But I think that saying I "shoot in JPG" because that happens to be the file format I have set my camera to output for the moment, just seems a bit inappropriate. And it slays me to read things like, "I love JPEG!" - How can you "love" a file format? - Or maybe you're talking about loving the entire Joint Photographic Experts Group? hmmm...
I can't help it - if I happen to be saving RAW files out of my camera right now, I'd still really have to force myself to say something as inapplicable as, "I'm shooting in RAW." - That makes it sound like it's a bloody religion or something, when in reality all it is is a data-handling choice. I use .DOC, .TXT, .PDF and .RTF for text documents, too - is one better than the other? Yes! - and which one that is depends on what you're doing with it.

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

I like shooting in RAW, but that is me.
If you are happy with your photos then carry on!

rebride

Picasa does raw.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

How is this true? I shoot raw and I understand perfectly what they are and I know shooters who shoot jpg and understand completely.

This makes no sense.



Let me translate: "I really like the process of shooting in jpg and I like the results I get..."

Not real hard to figure out is it?



Yes, a data handling choice that has technical and artistic ramifications...and since we must communicate with each other in a technical way to convey certain ideas...we identify what format we use...not hard to come to grips with

This rant doesn't make sense at all.

jerrymat

You are baldy misinformed. Jpeg was invented as an economy storage measure for the web, when large files were so depleting of available storage space. It was at a time when hard drives were super expensive and web space was limited. It was a compromise that threw away picture information in the attempt to make something work.
I started film photography at the age of 12 and by the age of 15 I realized that drug store processing of negatives and prints was a losing proposition. I built a darkroom to control the process myself. I later learned the zone system as a means of visualizing and controlling the black & white process. Eventually I added color to what I could control in the darkroom.
Digital photography brought new problems. If one shoots in jpeg they are allowing the built-in computational mechanisms of the camera to determine the nature of the image. The photographer loses control over the image elements completely. The jpeg image allows very little adjustment in software. Since most people attempt to modify the original jpeg image file and then save on top of it all their changes, they are automatically throwing away more image data. In an extreme case something like a blue sky develops parallel banding.
Shooting in camera raw tells the camera to keep hands off and gives one all of the pixels captures (without throwing any away). That allows the computer equivalent of the darkroom.
When you say it is a "data handling choice" you have missed the main point. Camera raw gives you all of the captured data and jpeg gives you a limited sample, that being determined by the camera computer. The idea is to capture everything your lens and camera are capable of. If you decide that you want another file format, for whatever reason, you can change it later, even making decisions of what data to throw away at that later time. In jpeg, you have to live with the permanent loss of data from the moment you press the shutter button. Imagine a device that will generate a gallon of beer. However, to save weight you have it save only a glass. Then you want to transform that glass back into a gallon. The only way is to water it down. That is jpeg.

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

I capture in JPG-Fine, and in my PaintShop Pro x4 my JPG saves are set to minimum/no compression. I also have Picasa set to minimum or no compression.

If the picture is captured corrected in the camera, the hughe RAW files are really not needed. They take a lot more work to process into something that can be shared and printed, which is done with a conversion to JPG for final result anyway.

jazzplayer

I don't think so, but you must've missed my point - the "choice" I am referring to is whether you want to have all the image data, or throw a bunch of it away - simple as that.