Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
What is everyone shooting in "RAW vs JPEG"
Page <<first <prev 12 of 17 next> last>>
Sep 5, 2021 19:08:33   #
PAR4DCR Loc: A Sunny Place
 
Always shoot in raw.

Don

Reply
Sep 5, 2021 19:09:00   #
smussler Loc: Land O Lakes, FL - Formerly Miller Place, NY
 
Lou Razzano wrote:
He definitely wasn't jumping all over him--I agree. By the way, want to know how "old" of a photographer I am? I bought my first good digital camera back in 2000--a Nikon Coolpix 990 which i kept for five years (which I still have, along with the box it came in and instructions as well as a very wide add-on lens--they will be collector's items in the future). Years later I bought a Nikon Coolpix 8700 and shot with that for another 5 years (which I also still have) then I bought a Nikon D 5100 (my first DSLR) which I shot with for two years and then a Nikon D 7100 which I still shoot with (I keep the 5100 as a back up camera) and have had for the last 8 years and am very happy with. I use a Tamron 18-270 mm lens most of the time but also use a Nikon 35mm (DX) f/1.8 at times when shooting in low light without a flash or doing portraits of people with a lot of bokeh behind them. The 5100 has a 18-55 mm lens (DX) on it and I also--just for the hell of it--bought a Nikon N 75 film camera (the LAST and best film camera that Nikon ever made before going completely digital) online for only $60.00 that I sometimes shoot with using Kodak Portra 400 ISO film and that came with a 28-80 mm full frame lens. I've traveled to India, Japan, Thailand, Portugal, Italy (three times), France, Spain, England, the Basque Country, the Dominican Republic and Canada with my Nikon D 7100 and taken some great photos with it. I've thought of possibly buying the Nikon D 850 professional full frame (FX) camera for its greater dynamic range (can go down to ISO 64) , higher resolution (45.7 MP) and 4K UHD video capability but, as of late, I haven't been traveling (hopefully by late 2022 Covid will have reached herd immunity and I won't have to wear a mask on an airplane for the many hours of flight to far away places and I'll start traveling again). Also, I'm not prepared to lay out the $3000.00 for the 850 since I've been so happy with the images that I've captured (many in RAW) with my good old D 7100 with my Tamron 18-270 mm lens. (I have no desire nor need for the "mirrorless" cameras that are being pushed these days.) Now I've read that Nikon may stop completely making DSLR cameras so maybe next year I might be able to buy the 850 at a bargain price. Think that I should upgrade or just keep using my D 7100 camera?
He definitely wasn't jumping all over him--I agree... (show quote)


I think you need to start your own thread, rather than ask this question in this one. Many may not even read this far. Just saying . . .

Reply
Sep 5, 2021 19:10:37   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
quixdraw wrote:
Do the math. Just out of habit, I probably shoot 36 or less photos in a session, times five minutes...three hours in which I could be doing other things. Many of my photos don't get any post, those that do don't take five minutes. Lets be generous and say two and a half times as long for nothing of importance to me. If I were on a trip and took 300 photos...

I just get tired of being subjected to the recruitment efforts of the monotheism of raw. I am not a possible convert.

To each his own.
Do the math. Just out of habit, I probably shoot ... (show quote)

Yup.
We each have different desires/requirements/tasks at hand.
I only work on the ones I'm going to print or post.....
I might work on others later.

So how long does a JPEG edit take you compared to a RAW edit?

Reply
 
 
Sep 5, 2021 19:15:20   #
Quixdraw Loc: x
 
Longshadow wrote:
Yup.
We each have different desires/tasks at hand.
I only work on the ones I'm going to print or post.....
I might work on others later.

So how long does a JPEG edit take you compared to a RAW edit?


Can't tell you, very little time. I'll set the timer on my watch next time I have a new set of photos. I'm comfortable with my photos and comments / critiques good or bad.

Reply
Sep 5, 2021 19:16:22   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
quixdraw wrote:
Can't tell you, very little time. I'll set the timer on my watch next time I have a new set of photos. I'm comfortable with my photos and comments / critiques good or bad.

Longer for RAW?

Reply
Sep 5, 2021 19:32:16   #
robertjerl Loc: Corona, California
 
Retina wrote:
Raw is even better than a negative. It is like film before it is developed. You get to try all sorts of things you can't do with a finished negative. Any corrections needed with JPG is like starting with a print.


More like starting with a color slide.
And yes I used to sometimes play around by sticking slides in my enlarger with regular color print paper instead of the color reversal paper for making prints from slides. Got some weird and often interesting results.

Reply
Sep 5, 2021 19:55:33   #
jim quist Loc: Missouri
 
For years I shot everything in raw. One day I decided to give jpg a try. I loved the results so much I now shoot everything in jpg. I really like the time I save editing.

Reply
 
 
Sep 5, 2021 20:08:09   #
LEWHITE7747 Loc: 33773
 
jim quist wrote:
For years I shot everything in raw. One day I decided to give jpg a try. I loved the results so much I now shoot everything in jpg. I really like the time I save editing.


God Bless You!

Reply
Sep 5, 2021 20:08:18   #
paul lehmann Loc: long isl ny
 
Thank you longshadow for a calm insiteful answer

Reply
Sep 5, 2021 20:17:13   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
paul lehmann wrote:
Thank you longshadow for a calm insiteful answer



I forgot one - Some have a photo business, some are hobbyists.

Reply
Sep 5, 2021 20:41:45   #
Blues Dude
 
I use JPEG Fine because I don't want to spend a lot of time in post processing. I'm an old film photographer, so I try to do everything first in-camera. Then, hopefully, I only have to make minor edits in post. But that's me; other folks like to spend hours in post, to get their best images possible. You have to decide what works best for you, and how much time you want to spend actually taking photos versus editing in post.

Reply
 
 
Sep 5, 2021 20:49:15   #
photowb
 
Well said.

Reply
Sep 5, 2021 21:12:38   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
Blues Dude wrote:
I use JPEG Fine because I don't want to spend a lot of time in post processing. I'm an old film photographer, so I try to do everything first in-camera. Then, hopefully, I only have to make minor edits in post. But that's me; other folks like to spend hours in post, to get their best images possible. You have to decide what works best for you, and how much time you want to spend actually taking photos versus editing in post.


To each his own, what works best for that person.

Reply
Sep 5, 2021 21:18:49   #
Flagator1980 Loc: Columbus Ohio
 
Such a friendly group. Know why I have been a lurker and never commented before now. Back to lurking mode since I am so clueless.

Reply
Sep 5, 2021 21:19:14   #
robertjerl Loc: Corona, California
 
Have we gone on long enough?

As Kipling said:
...
"It is well that they are dead,
For I know my work is right and theirs was wrong."

But my Totem saw the shame; from his ridgepole-shrine he came,
And he told me in a vision of the night: —
"There are nine and sixty ways of constructing tribal lays,
"And—every—single—one—of—them—is—right!"

from "In the Neolithic Age"

Shall we throw in religion, politics, music, best car brand and favorite foods to see if we can push this to 100 pages?

*When it comes to photography I am in both the RAW tribe and the Canon tribe.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 12 of 17 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.