JCam wrote:
Not really, the input is the same; the only difference is the amount of time you dedicate to getting the usable product. Is it waste or a photographic "marvel"? I find that it takes me about twice as much time processing a given shot from RAW vs. "fixing" any faults in JPEG shots, and in the end, I don't usually see much difference in the results. I'll admit my old less critical eyes and attitude may account for some of my JPEG preference. I'm not a Professional, and am retired, but why should I spend even more time on the computer for comparable outputs?
A survey to know what percentage of UHH shoots in RAW only, RAW+ JPEG, or JPEG only and how much time is invested in their final GOOD photos. The ones discarded, even after processing, don't count; junk in-junk out. Unfortunately, a survey wouldn't work as typically only the really dedicated usually reply, and I suspect the greatest proportion of UHH'ers consider photography to be a hobby.
Not really, the input is the same; the only differ... (
show quote)
I dont find it takes any more time to work with a raw than a jpg file. With time a wash, I'll take 14 bits vs 8 any day. And the fact that I don't have to mess with WB and jpg, and risk missing a shot while I'm flipping dials playing WB. If your always shooing in a studio where you control every facet of light then fine. Try a music concert where lights change from second to second, and your WB will be bizarre. Getting it right in the camera under all lighting conditions just does not match reality, unless you want to risk missing an actively changing scene.