Cotondog Loc: Saskatchewan, Canada

I think most people who are NOT professionally trained (and I certainly fall into that category) begin shooting in jpeg only. However, once you progress to shooting in RAW, you will NEVER go back to jpeg (and I also fall into this category). RAW is the way to go!

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

I've done a test with a jpeg and a Raw. The Raw (for me) is always better.

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

People, it is not an either or situation. The raw file is like a photo negative. Think back to film days. People had tons of photos in albums, but only kept the negatives of special pics that they might want to reproduce or enlarge later.

jbk224 Loc: Long Island, NY

Don't shoot the messenger!
There have been so many discussions about this..on and on and on and on and on.......
The end result is always the same. Shoot raw and do the least amount of PP that you are comfortable with doing. The result is that you will always have the original unadulterated file and can modify or not as your skills improve.
Of course there are reasons to shoot jpg. (+RAW)
1. You need a file immediately to pass along to someone. i.e. TMZ, National Inquirer
2. You need to print out a file immediately. i.e. Birthday party or fund raiser function
3. You can't afford storage. RAW files can be very large.
4. You have no desire to post process.
So, if you don't fall into any of these categories; join the club. Happier you will be.

wds0410 Loc: Nunya

I didn't say that I don't shoot Raw or that I don't agree that Raw is the best path to a great result. I simply pointed out that the post in question was condescending in tone which it clearly is.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

You done the right thang. Gud luk shooting raw.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Yes, you must believe and FOLLOW ...

..

xt2 Loc: British Columbia, Canada

Why on earth do you care what a stranger prefers??? No need to denigrate those you disagree with!

henrycrafter Loc: Orem Utah

I have been shooting raw 95% of the time for about 5 years now. The reason is that I compose pictures from images that I have captured using post production editing heavily. I find that by using Digital photo professional I can save the images without continual compression which is my personal choice. I also use a T5i because I like it and can use it to its' maximum potential. I DO NOT BADMOUTH anyone who chooses use a different approach. Do what make you happy.

chasgroh Loc: Buena Park, CA

...I do all my canvas printing from jpegs, and they are fine. That said, most *started* as RAW. What's the difference? Well, it's all about post-processing and how much you can manipulate what you're working with. I actually do a bunch of jpeg-only shooting, but it's of the sports variety and in super high volume. The equipment I use is top notch and my methods produce fine photos for my clientele; but when I have the time (which is anytime I'm *not* shooting pageantry/sports) I shoot RAW for the *advantages* provided by the format...and much of the time those advantages are not needed! Pretty simple, and time-tested. The first time you bring back what looks to be a blown-out sky, for example, because you have the extra "room" provided by RAW, you'll see the difference. So, this comment is absolutely not to denigrate successful printing from jpegs, original or otherwise. Final product is final product.

wds0410 Loc: Nunya

2mdman

I shoot RAW+JPG if I'm travelling and want to post the pic on Instagram for family/friends to see stuff on the tirp rather than waiting to get back home. The JPGs get deleted when I download the pics. Other than that, I shoot RAW only and create JPGs from Photoshop to share/post.

PAR4DCR Loc: A Sunny Place

Took me awhile to switch also but now RAW only!!

Don

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

It may seem that way.

Shooting jpeg is default. Almost all phones, most point and shoot cameras only offer jpeg output, and even the more advanced cameras are set to record jpeg by default.

Shooting raw requires two things - a desire to produce better pictures when faced with challenging lighting, there is a need for greater detail capture, or you have a variety of lighting conditions and you need to resolve them easily and quickly, and the software to convert the edited raw file to a jpeg or other bitmapped format.

It's not a cult to do either - but it does require a bit more dedication and desire to shoot raw, and the benefits are clear to anyone who does it. When I have to work on a student's image that was taken as jpeg, it is completely frustrating. Shooting jpeg for me is like having a sports car, but it is automatic everything, and it has a rev limiter set to 3000 rpm. Kinda takes all the fun out of it . . .

My first sports car was a 1966 Sunbeam Tiger - stick shift, no power steering, no power brakes, mechanical linkage for clutch and throttle, nice hard suspension, a 200 hp 4.7 L V-8 engine (Ford 289, like the original Mustang) all in a 2500 lb package - I have yet to have as much fun driving any car as I did driving that one. Now I drive a Prius.

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

Yeah, ok.

I don't need accuracy. Cameras can be inaccurate and unforgiving, especially when you hit their hard limits. I really enjoy flexibility to be able to correct what the camera can't capture correctly.

Fuji does have great jpegs with 3 stops of highlight headroom. Not sure how they do it but it totally works. I don't shoot Fuji, so I can shoot raw if I want to. Not a matter of being snobbish. I just can't justify leaving image quality on the table just for the sake of saying this image came straight out of the camera with no post processing.

Three versions of the same capture.

First has only one adjustment - to set the exposure to a "correct" balance.
Second is what the camera saw, but using my exposure decision to protect the highlights. Straight out of the camera.
The last is what I post processed, which was WAY CLOSER to what I saw than what the camera would have captured.

Not snobbery at all. Just after better looking images. The scene's contrast range is beyond anything that can be rendered by a jpeg conversion in the camera. I spend 90% of my shooting time shooting high to very high contrast subjects. It is pointless, not snobbish, to limit myself to just jpegs. The first image would have been deleted, based on the total lack of detail in the shadows and the highlights. It's a terrible image. However, understanding my camera's capabilities, and knowing what the limits are in post processing, I was confident that my exposure choice was a good one, even if it did produce an "underexposed" image. This is not an example of great photography by any means, but it is a great example of a high contrast scene and why a jpeg is limited while a raw file, edited and converted to a jpeg is clearly superior.

If I did portrait/product photography or was a photojournalist, then I would accept whatever the camera produced. In the first case, I have 100% over the lighting, and I doubt I could tell the difference between a jpeg or a raw->jpeg image. In the second case, I'd generally be forbidden from producing a manipulated image.

If this makes me a snob, then great - I take it as a compliment.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)