Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

At the risk of stirring up more controversy, I never understood this idea. What is this "processing" of raw files that takes so much time? (If that is what you are referring to.) I rarely do more than a few seconds of "processing" to raw files. The raw files are much easier and quicker to work with than JPEGs. Maybe we Canon shooters are just fortunate in that regard?

Mike

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

I was pretty sure we were only getting one side of the story. I didn't think the OP really felt insulted, as claimed, but rather wanted to stir up some controversy.

Mike

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

I like to play "What if?" in discussions like these. What if the camera manufacturers never provided the option to process the image in their pro-level cameras to a jpeg - only providing solid raw conversion software. Would this discussion still exist?

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

I suspect that the number of pro-level cameras would be much smaller.
After all, there are some pros (e.g. journalists) who depend on an immediate jpg in the field.

saxman71 Loc: Wenatchee

When you put out a topic like ""Raw is pretty much useless to me" you are asking for trouble here.

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

And I see lots of journalists involved in reportage, especially in metro areas - extensively using cellphone cameras, bridge and point and shoot cameras for their work. It was based on a journalist friend's results using a Sony RX10M4 that inspired me to get one. But if camera manufacturers did not offer jpeg at all, I don't think it would have been a problem and we still wouldn't be having this discussion and many other similar ones here and on other forums.

I suspect that offering jpeg was a marketing decision - looking at the Polaroid business model of instant photography. Truth is for many years there was a huge market for darkroom equipment - simply because photographers would take the time to process and create their own art. There was no strong advocacy like we hear now for SOOC shooting - because clients and art collectors recognized that a proof/contact print was not a finished print. I don't understand why some digital shooters have lowered their standards to accept unfinished/unretouched prints, and instead glorifying the virtues of "getting it right in the camera" and SOOC.

Kuzano

JPEG acronym stands for Joint Photographer Experts Group and a primary part of the decision for a compression algorythm revolved around transportability of image files, and remains important for the parts of the world that are still constrained by low or no bandwidth.

Not everybody in the world has internet, and even more have lower bandwidth than efficient for transferring large files around the world, or even within just the US.

Kuzano

As do those who infer in their postings that RAW is a necessity for the best image quality.

Let's not go down this road. I only suggest what I do as a result of my experience with RAW and Post Processing, by choice. Not as an indictment of either RAW or Post Processing. I believe I am clear on that.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Of course. We all post JPEGs to the Internet, whether or not we work with raw files, and regardless of the bandwidth available to us.

Mike

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

Who cares if one shoots in his or her Birthday Suit ! Who cares what camera they are using ! WHY do folks have this missionary need to convert someone ? There is enough info on this forum as well as many other sites that you should be halfway competent to shoot in the format of YOUR CHOICE and process or not as you wish and still capture great images... Do you ever tire of hearing the word I, I, I, over and over again. Who gives a Rip about I ? Concentrate on U... thats whats important. I don't think we have seen or heard from the Best or the Worst yet; the rest of us ALL fall somewhere in between, doing our own thing as it should be.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Some of my cameras don't offer RAW output. when using these cameras, I have to put more thought into the camera settings at time of capture to get the image as close to possible to what I want such that I won't run into problems during editing. Sometimes I will take multiple shots of the same scene with slightly different settings. No big deal.

BebuLamar

I don't care if you shoot RAW or JPEG or both but I don't want you to go out in public in your birthday suit.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Name calling, implying that someone is 'lazy" because they approach their photography is different for one's own and then taking them to task in a private message?

My response to that is simple. GROW UP!

This is childish, immature and rude behavior. If the perpetrator of this wasn't a "baby" , I would view it as harrassment.

I am not going to go into a dissertation on the technicalities and attributes of RAW or Jpeg files, because in this thread, all of that is beside my point.

Unfortunately, there is some of this counterproductive behavior on this site. The good news is that there are many more folks here that are polite, sharing, kind, helpful and who participate in good faith.

Ignore the trolls.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

I think that these obnoxious street-corner preachers ought to realize that whether they’re advocating getting it right in-camera or correcting things on a computer, we should all just enjoy photography.

BebuLamar

I don't mind if people disagree or even nasty with me in the forum but I don't like people sending me nasty private message.