DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I feel the need to shoot raw all the time.

I shoot raw because I then need to put my images through a conversion program to get a jpg. My program of choice is Lightroom. The reason this is advantageous to me is that when I import the raw file into Lightroom, the import dialog encourages me to add keywords. Having keywords in the LR catalog makes searching for images a piece of cake. It means that 10 years from now I can find the image I want.

I have to edit most of my images. I do not just blindly use what comes out of the camera because very few of my compositions fit neatly into the camera's aspect ratio. Since I have to edit the images, I might as well use something that adds value by including it in a database, allowing searches to find things quickly.

There are two situations in which I shoot jpgs instead of raw:
(1) my camera has a silent mode in live view. It's basically a frame grabber from the video mode. As such, it is limited to a small jpg, no raw file is available in this mode.
(2) When I'm taking a white photo to look for dust on my sensor, I usually don't need to put the image through any processing to see if there's dust. It's a temporary image that I'm not going to keep once the sensor is clean.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Yeah, but an average horse generates 14.9 peak hp... the standard is arbitrary.

1 hp = 745.7 watts.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

I presume you are simply stating the fact that you, personally, cannot or would not, edit a JPG, any more than you could not edit a polaroid?

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Of course you can edit JPEGs, but their maximum potential depends much more on what you do at the camera --- exactly like slides and transparencies.

The irony is that, the closer to "perfect" you make your JPEGs (however you define a perfect JPEG), the MORE latitude you have to adjust them! But the less you need to...

That's why many pros say, "Raw is for rookies."

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

Right on.

Bill_de Loc: US

One thing I learned many years ago is never edit an original. My images are saved on disk with the name the camera gives it. When I edit I give it a descriptive name.

On1 Photo Raw will do nondestructive edits to JPGs.

---

Eagle65

I used to shoot RAW and recently found that I did not need to. My camera (Olympus OM-D E-M1) can shoot 10 hi-res pictures per second. The 5 axis stabilization is what makes the images much crisper. There many software choices for editing that are very good with JPEG images. I shoot primarily air shows and automotive events. At a race track or air show I don't have time to fiddle with all of the exposure controls. I shoot 10fps in AUTO mode and have fantastic results. Most of the time I can process my images in a batch mode for color and contrast in minutes.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Looks like the Olympus OM-D E-M1 is a fantastic camera for the spray and pray approach to photography.
--Bob

PhotosBySteve

I shoot in RAW 100% of the time, with all of my cameras. Even as a Photo-Journalist. Thanks now to Lightroom Mobile, which allows me to immediately download select images to my phone, and than send from there to the publisher.

As for everything else, the only images that become JPEG are those I have decided to share online, after processing the images myself. For printing I save as TIF or JPEG depending on my print requirements.
I believe there is nothing at all wrong with shooting in JPEG mode, if the photographer does not like processing their own work and they are happy with how their camera processes their work.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Hi, lone ranger,

My point is that the processed photochemical (emulsion, film) negative (better applied to a jpeg file) has LESS CREATIVE POTENTIAL than does an un-developed photochemical latent image. Development can be adjusted to affect film speed, tonal range, tonal spectrum/ contrast, and grain characteristics...and once devoted, no further image changes other than those imposed during the printing process are possible.

On the other hand, a correctly exposed raw image data file is very much like an infinite supply of latent images of the same scene that can, alternately, be process as bright high-key, deeply noir low key, and anywhere in between!

Best regards.

Dave

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

Ok I'll buy that.

CaltechNerd Loc: Whittier, CA, USA

I switched to this approach about 10 years ago and don't expect to go back. Occasionally I need one of my old jpgs and am always frustrated with how little I can do to it in PP compared to the raw. If jpg works for you, then definitely don't change. It's a hobby, not a religion.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

So will Adobe Camera Raw., but the creative latitude provided by an 8 Bit-depth JPEG file is minuscule compared with that provided by a properly exposed raw image data capture.

Dave

Ray Story

JPG all the time ~ don't sell pics, might only show one or two people my pictures I save for a while on the Computer...!

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

The only "authority wannabes" who would make that claim are still exposing their raw image data captures in the same manner as they expose their JPEG captures and haven't caught on to the very different character of the two distinctly different digital imaging media.

Dave