MS. DONNA Loc: NEW SMYRNA BEACH FL

Just wondering do you shot raw or jpeg I know the hype is raw, however I have met 3 pro shooters ( that I know) they only shoot Jpeg & the images they have are absolutie beautiful. Just throwing this out there.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

And I thought this was going to be about 4-wheelin' in the nude!

What a gyp!

P.S. - I shoot both simultaneously, so I have a choice once I get home.

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

I'm with you ..... What a let down! :lol:

I always shoot RAW when I want quality.

MS. DONNA Loc: NEW SMYRNA BEACH FL

MS. DONNA Loc: NEW SMYRNA BEACH FL

Lol

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

If you can get your white balance right and your exposure right, the advantage to RAW is minimal. Now, there are some processing advantages to starting out in a raw converter, but I sell lots of images that are shot in Jpg large fine and sRGB and they are gorgeous!

It is like two cars: one goes 0 to 60 in 4.9 seconds and one does it in 4.1 seconds. One is faster, but the practical application is more academic than practical. And the 4.1 version will cost $20,000 more. RAW is like that - is it better? Yes. Does it matter? It depends.

For images that might be printed at 16x20 and larger, you can make a good case for RAW, and it also depends on the subject. For portrait work in which you might move from inside to outside, I think RAW is a good choice due to the changing conditions. For landscape work with a large range of colors, RAW could be an advantage. For sports stuff, Jpeg is perfect.

Do not get sucked into the argument that you just have to shoot RAW and AdobeRGB because it simply is not so. If you never print larger than 11x14 a Large Fine Jpeg will be all you need and I have gone to 20x24 with them with no issues.

Dunatic

Ya, I go 4-wheeling in a Jeep. But, certainly not in the nude. And, oh, I shoot in raw and jpg. Usually use the jpg format because I'm just learning Photoshop, but want the raw images available to practice on. Cheryl

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

I used to 4-wheel in a jeep, but now its in a 5-speed Dakota.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

Wow - talk about thread creep.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Question was asked & answered. The rest is levity based on mis-spelling of thread title. Pretty said when a Captain needs a joke explained.

julesreyesmarko Loc: Los Angeles

I shoot RAW. Not worried about speed, because I know how to batch process, and sometimes I can't go back and retake a picture, quality is important to me. RAW is lossless and jpeg is lossy.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

Oh - I thought MINE was the joke! :-)

mainshipper Loc: Hernando, Florida

For shots I care about I only shoot RAW because I want all the data from the image capture without any image manipulation by the camera. And to the earlier point, RAW is lossless and JPG is lossy meaning every time you touch a JPG some data is lost. In the end, your image will probably wind up a JPG where printing or publishing will happen. Shooting RAW and JPG concurrently always seemed like a waste of storage. I use Lightroom as my first stop when processing my images and the way it works with RAW images is a piece of cake.

nikonshooter Loc: Spartanburg, South Carolina

Jpeg is ALWAYS 8 bit from the GITGO. There is no recovering lost information when converting to 16 bit or 32 in PS. For that reason, I shoot RAW ....I want to gather as much information as the camera can.

I have never shot both RAW and JPEG......just don't have the file space to keep both and time to sort out and delete the JPEGs.

NOW, with that being said, I also shoot NBA, NFL, college, and HS basketball/football games and the paper ALWAYS wants Jpeg.

When shooting for anyone else other than the Spartanburg Herald Journal and Cox Broadcasting, I shoot RAW.

mainshipper Loc: Hernando, Florida

The reason that JPG is a good choice for action photos is because the modern DSLRs can process the images much faster in a rapid fire mode versus RAW.