Jack 13088 Loc: Central NY

True, but don’t count on changing anyone’s opinion. A few years ago a friend of mine was shooting at a family wedding. As the bride was coming down the aisle he switched to flash because the available light was inadequate and forgot to switch the white balance from candle light to flash with the horrific Smurf effect. He had added raw+ to his usual jpeg so I was able to repair the day for him with a couple of LR clicks. (OK, maybe a dozen maybe counting export to jpg.) He was thankful but still doesn’t routinely shoot raw.

bleirer

It reminds me of that great scene in Oklahoma! Cue the music, the cowboys and the farmers can be friends!

ANDREW: Chorus 1]
Oh, the farmer and the cowman should be friends[x2]
One man likes to push a plough
The other likes to chase a cow
But that's no reason why they cain't be friends

Richard Rodgers, genius

pecohen Loc: Central Maine

From time to time I switch my camera to panorama mode since that seemed to be the easy way to capture a wide view without the hassle of setting up a tripod (that I may have left at home). Of course this results in a JPEG image and often one that I often find unacceptable.

But a couple weeks ago I tried taking a series of stills in much the way I would have shot the panorama using in-camera processing but using a low-speed continuous shooting mode. This worked but I got way too many images and later switched to taking a series of single shots, making sure that some distinctive object was shared between adjacent shots. In either case, the result was an image that IMHO was consistently much superior to what the camera would have produced in panorama mode. In addition, I did not have to resort to several tries because the camera ran out of buffer space.

By the way, I stitched the images together using "Image Composite Editor" which is a free download and works great.

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

Raw is your way of shooting! No need to be disrespectful to the jpeg era of the world. A quick question why would you bring it up for the millionth time?

Whuff Loc: Marshalltown, Iowa

It was a wonderful trip, loved every minute of it, but I never want to go back.

Walt

Mister H Loc: Michigan

Being somewhat new to this still, I shoot both, like many here suggest. Never really take the time to work with the raw file, but have them just in case. Is it time consuming to work with post processing Raw?

pecohen Loc: Central Maine

If you just have one or two images it usually does not take much time - though trying to rescue a truly bad image can take quite a while. If you have several hundred images then sure, it will take some time even to just take a look at them all much less do any work on them. But if you enjoy that aspect of photography you will enjoy the time spent.

BlueMorel Loc: Southwest Michigan

No photo is ever as good as the one you could have shot if only they were shot as RAW! Often wish I could go back in time and reshoot my many jpg.

bleirer

Once you get set up with good software, you set it to automatically apply your favorite settings and you have a photo. Just plug the camera in and the raw files are put in the folder of your choice and the settings are applied but still changeable because the raw file is not altered, just the 'recipe' for the settings. You can work with it, change the settings or leave it alone, export it as a jpeg or any other file type.

sumo Loc: Houston suburb

“RAW files are better”. ????

About 85% (SWAG) agree with you.
I feel guilty for not shooting RAW. Feel like I am not a photographer.

Taking RAW pictures takes up 35MB or more vs 3 MB or less space…takes forever to upload RAW pictures into Smug Mug (My storage for photos)

However. Post Processing seems to be my real downfall. Can’t get the hang of Affinity (loaded on my computer) so I know I couldn’t work on PS/LR.

Watching tutorials in Affinity there are 5 different “persona’s” and each of those produces 5 to thirty tools down the left side and then multiple different workspaces on the right side…then across the top there are 21 more boxes to check….then on top of all that there is the typical File, Edit, Document…..8 more all the way to View to Help with each of these producing drop down menu of 10 to 15+ choices…

I have tried 20 or so times…then watching all the tutorials and trying to understand that English guys accent …it is just too much for my old brain and poor memory.

THEN I HAVE A FRIEND WHO WRITES THE FOLLOWING AND it's LIKE READING A FOREIGN LANGUAGE TO ME ((I did not include his pictures))

“It was eight and one-half years ago that I photographed this Bald Eagle in flight. For over eight years, I have been trying to mitigate the noise in this image satisfactorily. The first Sony in-camera and desktop software made it impossible, and then the only way the Sony software coped with the noise was to blur it. Over the next eight years, I have purchased and tried out every new noise reduction software brought to market without achieving the success for which I was looking. About a week ago, Topaz released its new DeNoise AI artificial intelligence based software. One of the keys to all the Topaz software in this AI series is these programs can tell the difference between image data and noise and act accordingly. I believe Topaz AI fixed me up. I have placed three images in this gallery - the full-frame raw converted in Adobe Camera Raw, an extreme crop to show the noise in the original, and a full-processed 7.7% crop of the original using DeNoise AI, processing this image for the most part with Topaz software, and finishing in PSCC. “

another gallery says

This gallery post is an exercise to designed to boost my understanding of the difficulties concerned with shooting JPEG in the camera and then post-processing that JPEG. The first example is one of the first Greenwing Teals I had ever shot, roughly ten years ago on 021109. I processed the first image(Gallery Image 1), a 5% crop, on 021109; the second(Gallery Image 2) is the same image processed on 062219 first using Topaz JPEG to Raw AI software to remove JPEG compression artifacts, restore the dynamic range, expand the color space. The second example is a Greenwing Teal I shot on 021617. The first image(Gallery Image 3) is the full-frame image shot JPEG in the camera; the second image(Gallery Image 4) is the 6% crop that was first treated with Topaz JPEG to Raw AI and then completely post-processed on 061419.

(Gallery Image 1) 5% crop of a Greenwing Teal drake. Shot with a Camera: Sony DLSR_A900, 24.2 mp, 35mm sensor; and Lens: Tamron 200-500mm/4.5-5.6; ISO100, 500mm effective focal length, F10, 1/250 second exposure time. This photo was shot in JPEC ROOC and the Contrast, Saturation, and Sharpness were set to High, High, and Hard respectively. It was processed using Paintshop Pro Photo.

(Gallery Image 2) The previous photo of the Greenwing Teal. I was processed using primarily Topaz software. First the processed and cropped JPEG was run through Topaz JPEG to Raw AI to reduce artifacts, increase the dynamic range, and expand the color space. Mainly used Topaz Studio, then finished in PSCC. I cleaned up some of the distracting artifacts.

(Gallery Image 3) Greenwing Teal drake swinging around 25 feet out from the boardwalk at Cattail Marsh. It is a little too deep for success dabbling. Shot with Camera" Sony ILCA-99M2, 42.4mp, 35mm sensor, stationary translucent mirror; Lens: 70-400mm F4-5.6 G SSM II; ISO500, 400mm effective focal length, F6.3, and 1/1000(set as minimum in auto-ISO). It was shot JPEG in the camera(ROOC) and the Contrast, Saturation, and Sharpness were all set to Normal...no boosts in order to make it easier to reduce noise and process in post-processing.

(Gallery Image 4) 6% crop of the Greenwing Teal drake. This image was shot JPEG, and I used Topaz JPEG to Raw AI software to reduce JPEG compression artifacts, increase dynamic range, and enlarge the color space. The in-camera Contrast, Saturation, and Sharpness were all set to normal so that any noise would not be set in harder, making noise reduction more difficult. The processing was mostly Topaz software. Finished in PSCC.”

Soooo I will just stay with editing my JPEGs, in Pic Monkey..most I do is crop, adjust exposure sometimes, sharpen, put a frame around it….satisfies me and I guess that is most important….

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

My pictures are far from perfect, but I sell them for the content. As a picture and use JPG most of the time. Is RAW? To fine tune your picture, yes. It gives you more control better this and that. I'm a "picture taker" not a photographer if the computer fix is what a photographer is today. In the film days Shot slides and got it proper (focused, Proper exposures and cropped) or NG.
I know this is going to tick some off. But, just go out and enjoy your shoot and make it the best you can because you will never be as good as you want to be as the mark keeps moving up as you get better.

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

Unless you take a LOT of photos, the size shouldn't be a big issue. Memory is cheap and getting cheaper.
You should be storing your photos locally and your archives should be both local and online. The upload speed for online storage will depend on your internet service provider. Local storage can be on a couple of external hard drives, which are not expensive these days. Your photos should be stored locally if you are planning to work on them because you are not then limited by bandwidth issues.



If that works for you, go for it.
However, I think its good to be in danger of learning something, so keep trying to figure out how to use the postprocessing tools. Someday the light will come on.

Quixdraw Loc: x

No one has proven the basic premise, that Raw is better - ex in the event of photographer errors or enjoyment of post processing work. A good photo, from the camera or after expert processing, is still a good photo.

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

Raw is better for me. I have a list of reasons, but they may not be applicable to you.
You are the only person who can determine which format is best for you.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

I may have mis-informed you. I do not use LR/PS. I have read what others say, for example, that LR will not allow adjustment of WB in JPGs. I do not use Affinity, although I did the trial, and decided to stay with PhotoPlus - the forerunner of Affinity, which allows full processing of JPGs as if they were RAW - the difference being the greater DR of RAW and a few million more colors, which for me does not cause a problem. So I do PP and enjoy editing both JPG and RAW. I have found that, with SOOCs, they are usually comparable with my edited RAWs, but I quite like shadows, and will choose shadow to avoid blown highlights.