pecohen Loc: Central Maine

This is a topic that I re-visit with some trepidation since I have learned that there are such strong feelings about it. And let me add that I am not telling anyone they have to shoot RAW or do any post-processing; if you are happy with your photography as it is then fine, you should stick with what you know and what you are happy with. But some people may be on the fence about the topic and wondering whether it is worth the time, effort and money that is associated with the switch. And I recently had some experience with this issue that may help in making that evaluation.

It may help to let you know that what renewed my interest in photography was precisely the new possibility of post-processing images on my PC. That new interest began a bit before there were digital cameras, so at first and for quite a few years I was editing JPEG files and initially these came from scanning photos taken with a film camera. The results, even with the early digital cameras, really look pretty inadequate today, but it was new technology and I enjoyed the process. I recently went through some of these old images; most are not worth spending time on.

But somewhere in the late 1990's, years before DSLRs were on the market, I bought an Olympus 2500L. For the day, that was a fairly high-end digital camera. Except that it would only create JPEG images, it would probably qualify as a decent bridge camera today. I found some images that I shot at Yellowstone National Park with that camera. I was busy with other things at the time so I'd never done anything with them.

Editing these old JPEG photos was a good reminder of why I should shoot RAW. Shooting RAW forces me to edit, but editing, for me, is a vital part of the photography process and I will do it whether I shoot RAW or JPEG. Editing these old JPEG images did remind me that the end results will often be better when you start with a RAW image, but really, I was quite aware of that. What I was less aware of was how much easier the job of editing tends to be using RAW sources. Editing these old JPEG images took much more time and effort than they would had they been RAW files. And I found myself resorting to editing techniques I'd not much used for many years; somehow easier techniques with today's great software just did not do the job when starting with JPEG source.

If you are interested, I put these photos into a short slideshow and posted them at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJcPA_78j5M

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Great testimonial!

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

Well put! However, your YouTube video is designated “private” and not available for viewing.

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

There's a dispute?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

(a little bit...)

ELNikkor

I only use RAW when necessary, about 10% of the time.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Older JPEGS from crappy cameras/small sensors no doubt are problematic ! Today's JPEGS from state of the art sensors and in camera processing/software are much different ! Today, IF I were shooting landscapes with M4/3 or a 1 inch sensor, or trying to do some artsy/abstract "fine art" photography - I might be inclined to shoot/process raw for that purpose - otherwise, not so much. I would only shoot raw for problematic scenes where I thought it would be a definite advantage. - which, for me is NOT often. I am not a computer/software geek either ......
.

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

Ha! I'm a Raw shooter too. For me it's actaully a "Do what you like, like what you do" subject. If Jpeg floats someone's boat fine, same with RAW......for me...if you PP, RAW is the way.

Bayou

pecohen Loc: Central Maine

Thanks for letting me know. It took a little searching for how to fix this but I think it should now be played by anyone.

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

Jpegs from current cameras are much better than in days gone by. A good byproduct of your method is a lot less memory/storage needed for the whole process!!

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Amazing how that works, eh?

I have one camera that provides RAW, one does not.
I work with what I have available.
(And I do have a preference. )

pecohen Loc: Central Maine

imagemeister wrote:
Older JPEGS from crappy cameras/small sensors no doubt are problematic ! Today's JPEGS from state of the art sensors and in camera processing/software are much different ! Today, IF I were shooting landscapes with M4/3 or a 1 inch sensor, I might be inclined to shoot/process raw for that purpose - otherwise, not so much. I would only shoot raw for problematic scenes where I thought it would be a definite advantage. - which, for me is NOT often.
.


Different strokes for different folks.

I like to keep the number of adjustments I make to my camera at a minimum. Even so, I sometimes forget something even though I know better. Old age I suppose.

One thing I don't have to manage on a shot-by-shot basis is the image format; I keep it on RAW pretty much always, even when I just want to record some information. I know if I switched to JPEG I might forget to put it back where it should be later.

BebuLamar

I simply shoot in raw+jpeg. I don't shoot very fast and my camera only has 16MP. I have no problem with either buffer or memory card space.
I sometimes shoot so that I must edit the raw to get good image and the jpeg would look bad but that's not often. Often I would shoot so that the jpeg looks fine but I can improve by changing contrast, saturation, color balance, sharpening etc.. When I open the raw file it looks exactly like the jpeg. I can go from there if needed.

pecohen Loc: Central Maine

I have two cameras that shoot RAW and I also work with what I have available. And I too have a preference - in fact two preferences. One camera I prefer when I'm on a casual walk and I want a camera that fits in my pocket. The other camera I prefer on all other occasions. Only very rarely do I take either camera off of RAW.