Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

The controversy part is hard to understand. Which are preferable, apples or oranges, black pepper or white, acoustic or electric? Obviously, these choices depend on the need. For some, JPG from the camera meets their needs. Others who require maximum flexibility in processing are not bothered by those who do not. They may look down on the SOOC crowd, or that may wish in good faith they could share the potential of PP with those who have not tried it, but it is not a controversy. It is becomes an argument only if one camp claims the other approach is without any merit because it does not fit their personal need at the time.

Bill_de Loc: US

I don't think any video will satisfy everyone. One thing I found strange was applying the same settings to both the jpg and raw images. Trying to make a jpg and raw look alike requires different adjustments.

There are times when I can not get a satisfactory image from my jpg file. I usually just hit delete. But there are times that I really like the image and plan on hanging it. In those instances I use my NEF files.

---

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Black vs White pepper is no more an accurate analogy than Red vs Green salsa or Maddog vs Chateau Montelena ...

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

If you shoot tens rather than hundreds shoot both.

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

I agree. The examples were not intended to be any more accurate than the ones you offer.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Processing is quicker and easier working with raw files for me than it was working only with JPEGs.

Mike

blackest Loc: Ireland

I liked the video because it didn't say you must shoot raw or you only should shoot jpeg. If this was audio raw is like having access to the mixing desk v access to a graphic equaliser. Jpeg has baked in some settings that make it hard to adjust after the fact.

So saying how much effort do you want to put into a photo once you have taken it? Probably the only person who actually cares is the photographer. I tend to choose not to choose and shoot both.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Was there something new here, in this video? I watched the entire thing. It is all stuff I know or have heard before. I fully agree with 90+ % of it.

I pretty much shoot RAW in my DSLRs. And for snap shots, shoot JPGs in my SmartPhone (even though it is capable of shooting in RAW). For the majority of my images I have my (RAW) workflow fairly standardized and I am able to process an image fast that the "speed" or "effort" issue for JPGs is not existent for me. I'm pretty quick even with the ACR of Photoshop (I don't use Lr). Yes, occasionally I'l get an image I spend hours or days processing, but then if it were not shot in RAW I probably would not get a useful result.

blackest Loc: Ireland

The new bit was it was balanced, there are valid reasons to choose different options for different photographs.

Bill_de Loc: US

--

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

Thank you, I went immediately to the link and watched it - well worth the time.

11bravo

Likewise, and I might shoot a hundred photos in a day while traveling and I'm gone for 2 months at a time. Storage, both camera SD cards and computer HDD storage, is cheap. I like to have both "just in case".

cedymock Loc: Irmo, South Carolina

When it is so easy to shoot raw + jpeg I don’t understand why this conversation is continuous, I (non-professional ) shoot both if the photo is a keeper I keep both then decide which to edit ( raw or jpeg ). After editing a few hundred photos you should be able to determine what you can and can’t change with jpeg. The foremost reasons for raw is more information, the more information the more ability to edit now and the future. I personally don’t want to take the time to edit every photo (not my favorite thing to do) is why I keep jpeg. Professionals have every reason to shoot raw, editing each photo is their business and yes I know there are a few professionals that shoot jpeg. No decision for me I shoot both and this is what I think the point blackest shared the information of the video.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

When it comes to 'professional' editing, tools like Lightroom exist to automate and standardize repeatable processing, both for efficiency when dealing with large numbers of images and to enforce consistency of the photographer's vision. So, if every RAW edit is a unique re-invention of the wheel, the time and effort is a linear product of the number of images processed. But, when presets are applied to large batches of images and edit parameters are synced from 1 image across x-number of similar images, the work effort and time is greatly reduced, and the work effort is no longer a linear calculation of the total number of images. The experienced editor can kick-out edited images in a relatively short period of time, where 'edited' might be 85% of the final edit results allowing the client to determine which images deserve to be moved to 100% completion. Export presets can be used apply / automate consistent low-resolution 'proofs' with consistently scaled watermarks, etc.

The original question started with RAW vs JPEG or both? These two links provide exaggerated 'expose to the right' approaches, but they also show that a "RAW shooter" approaches their exposure in a way that makes the JPEG virtually worthless.

ETTR in Practice

ETTR in Practice II

Somewhere in this thread (or another) was something like: it's one word: insurance. I disagree. "Insurance" is for things you cannot control. I would say rather, the one word should be "control", best when you control the quality and quantity of data captured into your RAW file via ETTR techniques, and then the full control of the editing of the results.

One final thought to emphasize the wastefulness of RAW + JPEG comes from the analysis in this thread: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-633231-1.html . The entire thread gives some context where multiple people are asking "why don't my JPEG images look any good?" Looking at the EXIF data reveals the camera configuration where the camera was allowed to select a drab unsaturated setting outside the control of the photographer. If you've accepted a common recommendation to use your camera's "Neutral" setting, you're creating crappy worthless JPEGs and forcing yourself to edit your RAW "insurance". The worst of the possible scenarios.

There's a lot of subtle stuff that goes on with cameras and camera settings. Photography is easy when you don’t know how, but very difficult when you do.

cedymock Loc: Irmo, South Carolina

There seem some assumptions in your statements. Not everyone uses Adobe products, nor was it my intent to imply each INDIVIDUAL photo in my statement; (Professionals have every reason to shoot raw, editing each photo is their business and yes I know there are a few professionals that shoot jpeg.) I would think batch file editing is still editing. Bye the way CHG_CANON I personally think your photography is exceptional!