catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway

Another post that hashes out the same rhetoric again and again...

If you have no experience, but can afford decent equipment, proclaim superiority regarding image outcome by discounting the facts. No knowledge or lack of education is trumped by that shinny image machine...

Somehow the perfect Jpeg image can be derived strait out of the camera... but only the poster and a minority of super humans will be able to do this.

The soap box needed to air this opinion has to be at least three stories tall, even on a digital platform...

khorinek

I shoot both. My schedule and time dictate which format I use. I shoot from 800 to 2,000 photos a week. If I am short on time, I use the jpeg files, if I have time to go through the photos for the day I will use the RAW files. Or if I have a special/important photo that needs to be perfect, I use the RAW file. RAW files are another tool in your toolbox.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Everyone has there own "tastes". I do shoot Jpeg because I like high speed photography and want my camera to log those shots quickly. I also am very good at "getting the exposure right" when I shoot. Auto white balance works for me because most of my shots are taken under sunlight and to me exposure is more critical.
That said I do shoot RAW when exposures COULD be tricky. Otherwise, I am a Jpeg guy.
If you would like to see my show, 95% of the shots were taken with Jpeg, and you can still do a LOT of post processing with Jpeg, A LOT.
My photo show will be at the Weller Gallery at the Davis Education and Visitors Center in Fellows Riverside Gardens, Youngstown Ohio. 123 McKinley Ave. Tuesday-Sunday 10-5. Closed Monday. 330-740-7116. The show will run from August 17th to October 13th. Meet the artist date is Sunday, September 8, 1-3 pm. See you there.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

While your title and your question are not really coordinated, I will try to answer what may be your combined issue. If shooting JPEG only, you can get away with AW. You can even PP and change the white balance pretty effectively. In PP you can say "this part of the picture is what I am calling white." The program will then adjust the rest of the colors with little if any loss in detail or quality. You cannot, however, bring back as much lost detail in shadows or highlights.

JDG3

I have been reading this forurm for several years now and I really do not understand all the frustrations over the jpg vs raw issue. They are both tools in the photographer's tool kit. Use the one that is appropriate to what you are trying to accomplish.

I typically shoot both and use both as needed. Sometimes I need to turn a photo really quickly and I do not want to spend a lot of time on the computer loading them into LR or PS and then exporting to a form that I can hand off to someone. The jpg works perfectly for this. And in truth, your jpgs are being adjusted in camera by the software that your camera manufacturer thought was appropriate for the setting that you have chosen. So when you choose jpgs you are choosing someone else's idea of how that image should be processed. This may be fine for many situations.

In other situations where I am shooting for a class, exhibition or some other more "art like" purpose, I put the raw images into my LR workflow and adjust as I see fit. In my opinion, there is always something one can do in LR to make an image better or different. It may be minor but the image will be better to my taste. Remember, LR can also correct for lens aberrations so it is not always big exposure, WB, color, etc that is adjusted. A simple crop in LR can also work wonders on some images. Also, if I take an image in raw and then do little or no adjustments in LR other than export to a jpg, this would be the minimal and most "real" image of what you photographed.

So pick the tool that works. Even the great photographers adjusted their negatives at some point.

khorinek

Well said.

JDG3

I had a similar experience. I had been taking photography courses at the local university and all the pros teaching the basic course were telling us that manual and raw was the ONLY way a real photographer worked. Well one of the more advanced courses was taught by a local, well known and published, very successful pro that did exactly what you mentioned. He shot only JPEGS and often in auto or semi-auto modes. As I mentioned in another post - he chose the tools that worked best for him. He shot hundreds of shots per week on a tight schedule and JPEGS worked. If he had to process all those as RAW, his output ( and income) would drop. So again, use your camera to its full capabilities - use the mode and format that works best and do not feel constrained by someone else's idea of what is the ONLY way to shoot.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

What I don't understand is why this thread is called "WB Auto" since it is about raw versus jpeg rather than auto white balance.

Blair Shaw Jr Loc: Dunnellon,Florida

I share a similar view as well. My new camera is way-smarter than it's owner and so until I get a thorough handle on it's capabilities I'll settle for camera style settings and work on my basic picture taking skills and save the PP work for some distant day if I ever stop moving. High resolution Jpegs are fine with me for now but I will make the transition to RAW when I install updated software on my LR & PS which are quite old editions( 5.? something?) whatever....ha !

Bubbee Loc: Aventura, Florida

Well, I just now decided to give Raw a try. Will combine with jpeg. (Raw +jpeg when shooting) What will happen when I import into my PSE 18, which I am still learning?

tomad Loc: North Carolina

I've tried that with more than one editor and have not found a raw editor that will automatically give me as good a result as the sooc jpeg. I would like to be able to shoot raw and submit the raw file into an editor that will automatically give me results close to the in camera jpeg, then let me tweak from there but so far I haven't been able to find one that I like to use that does that.

rodpark2 Loc: Dallas, Tx

If a scene is of reasonable contrast range jpeg does OK. When there is a great difference between highlight and shadow RAW is the way to go. Both highlight and shadow detail are discarded in jpeg compression and can't be restored. There is an amazing amount of detail held in RAW files which can be brought out. I find that there is very little time used to restore the highlight and shadow detail from RAW files, and so much more that can be done. I shot jpeg for years because I didn't have RAW converters in my Photoshop to deal with the many different RAW formats that my students and I used. Now with Creative Cloud I'll never go back.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

About 3 weeks ago I stopped shooting RAW and JPG and went to JPG only. Looking at a real full day of shooting for a fair ( final set up in the AM till end of fair at 11:00PM). Needed pictures quick so just cut out RAW made life easier and at that point just stopped altogether. Mentioned it to a few buddies (Pro) and some came back with I do to. All of them that shoot sports do.

BlueMorel Loc: Southwest Michigan

I used to shoot only jpg, went to RAW two years ago and only shoot RAW and jpg when at family gatherings for quick sharing. I enjoy working with LR and a little with PS.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.