So who uses RAW 100% of the time
I think long standing members have to realise that new members are joining all the time, so what is hackneyed to one is a new subject for others. (Nothing wrong with the original question in IMHO). If you don't like the question move to the next one...simmples squich lol.
Just for.... Wait a few hours, typed in raw, still processing
mcveed
Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)
If you want a thousand responses just do a search on RAW vs JPEG.
balexander101 wrote:
I always shoot in the Raw format. No reason not to!
i have never shot in the raw...but i would be open to try it....
Neilp wrote:
Just wondered what the rest of you do?
I shoot only RAW 100% of the time.
I used to shoot RAW only but that all changed a week ago. I went to Cucumber Falls in southwestern pa and decided to shoot RAE & JPEG. I got home loaded the photos in Lightroom and started working on them.The next day the light went on in my head and I remembered I forgot to load the JPEG's. I made the change in lightroom and loaded them. What a surprise I got, after all the work found that most of the JPEG's looked as good with no adjustments. I will now shoot both, load them in lightroom and do a side by side before adjusting.
Just remember, Believe none of what you hear and 1/2 of what you see.
Pappy
Well excuse me! "ad nauseum"? I thought this was a forum where anyone could post a question about anything, no matter how silly or repetative. Not a forum where someone could be humiliated and intimidated into feeling their question were too boring or stupid. Enough with your sarcasm...."go fly a kite"!
No - not necessarily more detail but much, much more data per image regarding tone, contrast, hue, saturation, and luminosity so that you can fix many issues in your image during post processing. With in-camera JPEGs, what you see is what you get. You can crop and do minor changes in tone, etc. But you cannot salvage and image that is marginal or make great an image that is good.
OK see the point,wasn't far off the point then,thanks
As a side comment, I shot raw and JPEG for about 6 months and did not use a single JPEG and ended up deleting them all. For what it's worth.
I shoot 90% action with my old 20D. If I shoot in Raw, I can't use the continuous as much as I would like so I moved to large jpg. When I am trying to capture something special that doesn't require continuous, I'll shoot Raw/small jpg. Overall that would put me about 95%+ in the jpg world.
Ken Rockwell seemed more against processing RAW images because he didn't like or couldn't find the conversion software for a specific camera's RAW than any practical reason.
For those who want to find a reason to shoot RAW (or not, for that matter), may I suggest the following test.
Find a subject matter that you would like to shoot. Then shoot metered JPG, -1ev JPG and +1 JPG. Then shoot metered RAW, -1ev RAW and +1ev RAW. And with most newer cameras, you should be able to take the JPG and RAW with with the same triggering of the shutter release.
Now take each of these six images into Camera Raw and compensate exposure. Make the -1ev and +1ev shots look like the metered shot. With the JPGs and the RAWs. If you don't see any difference in the process and results, you should probably continue to shoot JPGs. If you do see a difference you will have taught yourself something and be the answerer rather than the asker next time this subject comes up.
(This is not to imply that the only advantage of RAW is exposure compensation - there is a lot more on WB, color etc. This test, though, will probably convince most to shoot RAW).
Thanks to dual card slots on my Nikon D7000, I can dedicate one to JPEG, the other to RAW, so -- at expense of gobbling lots of memory -- I have best of both worlds. Were I a professional photographer, I might well shoot RAW exclusively, but I am not. I download initially to iPhoto, where I make basic edits. From there they go to Lightroom, where ordinarily I do fine-tune editing and incorporate any desired special effects, using NIK and Topaz Labs software. Although I have Photoshop Elements installed, I find that thanks to NIK and Topaz, I can and do avoid the horrors of the full-featured version of PS, which for most photographers, even pros, constitutes overkill. And for what it costs, you can apply the saved greenbacks for a new piece of gear. If anyone amongst us isn't acquainted with NIK and Topaz, do yourself a favor and either or both. Another excellent alternative to PS is Perfect Photo Suite, which is releasing an update later this month. I am willing to bet dollars to donuts that once one gains command of any of the Big Three alternatives, you will throw PS into the ashcan. Free trials are offered for all of them.
Thanks to dual card slots on my Nikon D7000, I can dedicate one to JPEG, the other to RAW, so -- at expense of gobbling lots of memory -- I have best of both worlds. Were I a professional photographer, I might well shoot RAW exclusively, but I am not. I download initially to iPhoto, where I make basic edits. From there they go to Lightroom, where ordinarily I do fine-tune editing and incorporate any desired special effects, using NIK and Topaz Labs software. Although I have Photoshop Elements installed, I find that thanks to NIK and Topaz, I can and do avoid the horrors of the full-featured version of PS, which for most photographers, even pros, constitutes overkill. And for what it costs, you can apply the saved greenbacks for a new piece of gear. If anyone amongst us isn't acquainted with NIK and Topaz, do yourself a favor and either or both. Another excellent alternative to PS is Perfect Photo Suite, which is releasing an update later this month. I am willing to bet dollars to donuts that once one gains command of any of the Big Three alternatives, you will throw PS into the ashcan. Free trials are offered for all of them.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.