Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

It will only be controversial as long as there are those who cannot see the benefit. I shoot sports and wildlife, landscapes, events (weddings and engagement parties etc), all in raw - I can do better than the camera 100% of the time. And to spend the time to "fix" a single deficient jpeg negates the value - especially when I can "fix" a hundred or more images with a few quick keystrokes. Personally I fail to see any benefit, other than the perception of convenience - which comes at the cost of ultimate image quality - that would make jpeg a choice over raw. Speed, quality, quick processing for quality results, etc - all make the raw file, if your camera can produce it, a better choice 99% of the time. After a wedding I will spend less than 2 hrs producing excellent quality proofs - adjusted for exposure, white and color balance, shadows and highlights, whites and black, contrast and microcontrast, sharpening and noise reduction, and generate a set of nice, proofs for client review. Doing this to jpegs, it might take me 2 hrs to get 10-15 done. And the results would not be quite as good. For those willing to make concessions on image quality and/or have the time and inclination to spend on optimizing compressed low bit images, well, more power to them.

Key to leveraging the benefits of a raw workflow lies in being able to understand the benefits, and adopting a solid, efficient workflow. If you are still editing the majority of your raw files one at a time, there will be little benefit on the time component, but you will still see better results.

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

jrushphoto Loc: Flint, MI

Understood. I use a VERY old Panasonic Toughbook laptop to run the shows and it doesn't even have a raw editing program installed so there isn't any way for it recognize the raw info. I have, from time to time, looked into other ways but I do the slideshow just as a little extra for my clients ( I don't even tell them I'm going to do it, I surprise them with it, almost always a big hit!). Since I'm doing fewer and fewer weddings these days, there is no really good reason to change what has worked for so long. Always looking, though, so thank you very much for the observation, I had forgotten about the embedded preview, maybe I'll try looking into it again.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

More than likely, they are supposed to.
--Bob

Bob Boner

You can always make the raw image reflect your intentions better than the jpeg. The person who wrote the software that your camera uses to process the jpeg image NEVER saw the scene. If shooting only jpeg, and the white balance is off, it is hard to get it exactly as you remember it. With raw, you have total control of the white balance. That is just one of the advantages of raw. The raw file is much larger, so you can make larger prints. And you have much more control on almost all aspects of the final image.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Most of what you said was correct, but the only time the raw file is "bigger" is if you compare it to a lower quality jpeg file - I think you will find that the raw file has the exact same pixel dimensions as the full sized high quality jpeg - and it is the pixel dimensions that determine print size. And you don't need lots of pixels to make large prints - though it sounds completely counter-intuitive. I am sure you have seen the billboard ads proclaiming "I took this picture with my iPhone" which is only 8 mp - bu the image on the billboard is 40 ft wide and it looks crisp and nicely detailed. No magic tricks or fancy software - just a knowledge of human physiology.

The primary advantage of high mp is to record more detail which is most beneficial if your viewing distance is <2 ft. Bigger prints imply greater viewing distances which in turn imply distance limited ability to discern fine detail - which means you need less resolution.

Bob Boner

Gene51, you are correct about the pixel dimensions. The raw file size is larger if you don't convert it to 8-bit color. Sorry that what I said was misleading and thanks for correcting it. Since I never shoot jpeg, I was thinking about the size of the file when I misspoke about print size.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

This explains it with pictures and everything:

http://www.slrlounge.com/school/raw-vs-jpeg-jpg-the-ultimate-visual-guide/

Mudshark Loc: Illinois

Oh God…NO…NO…NO…not another round of this insanity...

rochephoto

Raw = millions of colors and the ability to reprocess as software improves
Jpeg = Hundreds of thousands of colors and no chance to access the full camera file info later.

SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA

For me, the RAW vs: jpg depends a lot on how the picture will come to the viewer.
If it's for the IPad/cell phone bunch, jpg.
If it's for me and my computer, often RAW, or RAW+jpg.
And I like big, fast, SD Cards in my D3300.

In RAW, you can always convert to jpg.
In jpg, you cannot convert to RAW.
Consider that. :)

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

And yet, despite the well-known and extremely well-documented facts, there will still be those that will absolutely refuse to be confused by facts or swayed by logic. :)

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

AND.... you can get these nifty tees! ;) :thumbup:

Mudshark Loc: Illinois

I want one with a guy bent over shooting a moon…
"I shoot RAW…"

PhotosBySteve

SERIOUSLY? You've been a member for a year and a half and you ask a question like this?