Yooper 2 Loc: Ironwood, MI

Very, very nice. I converted to RAW 2 years ago and never looked back. The PP is the best part of photography for me.

hikercheryl Loc: Madison, NC

Exactly!

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Yes, but we also have to take into account that lbrandt is not just some snapshooter with an overbearing opinion, like some of the "can't walk the walk" people on here.
lbrandt is quite an accomplished photographer with some very good landscape work.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

Definately... I love working on the photographs - always a challenge to save shots and get the best out of the rest!

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

79, I'm gonna butt-in here. This is the only page I've looked at since page one. But something here kinda struck me.
You said, "if you get it right", so I assume you thought you got it right?

Then you say you wish you could take them with what you have now?
If you got them right, why wish they could be taken over again with different gear? Is it for more saturation, less blowout, or just more pixels?
I personally don't care if a guy shoots Jpeg or Raw, it's their prerogative.
But it's hard to argue that a raw file is no better than a Jpeg. That you are satisfied with Jpeg is one thing, to say its as good as Raw is a completely different matter. I shoot lots of stuff that I put through DPP and leave it at that, but they ARE Raw. Maybe I can't shoot well enough to use Jpeg, but I've never come accross a shot that I didn't feel could be improved by being manipulated in Raw. I'm sure all of us reading this have shoot film, and we got what we got. But now, we can get much more, if we want.
90% of everything I shoot will eventually be deleted. But for the 10% I have left, I personnally want every advantage I can get. I may not PP, and just convert as good enough. But if I was to sell the shot or put it on display, I want to tweek it to what I felt was just right. And there's a good chance that maybe nobody could even tell. I've never overhauled a shot, or ever even put one through PS, but the pixels are there if I needed to do that.
If you feel comfy in Jpeg, that's OK. But personnally, even if I was just gonna convert a shot, I want to be able to have the ability to manipulate a shot to whatever it takes and never to have to say, gosh, I wish that shot had been in raw! One never knows what might be developed in 10 or 20 years, and we will need a Raw file to take advantadge of it. But that's just me, and I know we are not each other! :lol:
SS

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Since I do not shoot raw, I would have shot this image with a Sony camera and let it do IN CAMERA HDR - no need for extra software or time in PP.

josephpaul

point taken. I think we should all shoot with whatever we feel most comfortable. My point is I would never drive a smart car (no offence to those that do) and say its every bit as good as a Bentley just because it has four wheels and gets you from place to place.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

I think you know that "in camera HDR" would not handle this scene anywhere near as well as post processing would.
In camera HDR is typically a very "muddy" bland image in many situations.

DebAnn Loc: Toronto

Good illustration Linda. Glad you're a convert!

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

Why do you feel the need to convert? Why can't both formats live in harmony together---using one or the other depending on the situation? If you like, I can give you an example where shooting JPG or raw wouldn't make a bit of difference. Knowing how and when to use the tools you have is what you should be enthusiastic about. Just my opinion. :-)

rbourque2 Loc: Portland, Maine

[quote=Linda From Maine]With extreme gratitude to all those on UHH who helped me see the light!/quote]

Linda from Maine,

I am so glad you've seen the light, or the results of a picture well done.

Yes RAW is so neat and even if you take the most pro shots around, when you need a little extra it can help you out quite a lot. I feel it's like being a member of AAA, it's not if you break down, it's when. And when they got you covered.

RAW when you need it it's there. And it's got you covered.

There have been a few times after I taken a picture it came out bad and so I've retaken it to find out that the RAW picture could have been tweak up a bit to help me too!

But great to hear your excitement.

Randy (originally from Maine but transplanted to PA)

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Lets turn it around a bit.
Assume I have a program that will read the raw (a raw converter-we all have access to one).
Assume I have plenty of room on my card and on my hard drive (space is cheap).

It is no problem whatsoever for me to tweak an image to how I like it, it takes no time at all.
I can do hundreds at a time with my batch process action.

Now - can anyone at all, give me a reason to NOT shoot raw?

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

No. I do not know that...... - but I do know that the Sony version works very well for me ! - along with Elements. - and you do not need to be on a tripod to use it.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

??????

But you said



You can't have it both ways.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

All digital cameras require SOME basic PP ! I paid $25 for my Elements 9 used. I am also on a used windows XP machine that I paid $150 for. My goal is to keep PP to a minimum - as well as time and especially - money !