viscountdriver Loc: East Kent UK

I have just been to an aircraft museum and taken 80 shots in Raw, And that is the last time I will shoot Raw. My poor old tired eyes can't see the difference between Raw and Jpeg Fine and Jpeg is much easier to process.
Now I know I am going to be savaged and given explanations why Raw is so much better but I expect there are others who agree with me.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

All isn't lost...you can "batch edit" them and it will take no time at all.

You won't be "savaged" as you say but it's hard to believe that you don't see any difference. If you like jpg...and you see now difference...just open them all and save them as jpgs and you are good to go.


Raw shots are:

Lower in saturation
Lower in sharpness
Lower in contrast

Basically...worse in every department than a "pre cooked" Jpg.


What PP software do you use?

picpiper Loc: California

What software are you using to compare your RAW files with the jpgs? See my comment and possible explanation here: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-93559-2.html#1594182

JR1 Loc: Tavistock, Devon, UK

You are not alone, I can raw and jpeg an A3 print and rarely will anyone see a differnce

viscountdriver Loc: East Kent UK

perhaps I should have added that one thing I dislike is the time my computer takes in RAW. Itis getting on a bit like me. I use Serif PhotoPlusX6

GHK Loc: The Vale of Eden

[quote=viscountdriver]
Now I know I am going to be savaged and given explanations why Raw is so much better

I have no intention of savaging you.

There is a choice and it is up to each indivual to make his/her own.
You do not want people telling you what you should, or shouldn't, do. Much more useful is information which helps you in making your choice.
It's a big subject but the following snippets may be of some help.
The saved Raw image is, as near as the saving process allows, a precise record of what was recorded by the sensor.
The Jpeg is not. Quite apart from the question of compression, the camera software does a considerable amount of image processing before it saves the image in Jpeg format. Exactly what it does is determined by the manufacturer. My camera tends to give a vibrant Jpeg, which probably differs, probably visibly, from what I should get from a Nikon or Canon. It certainly differs quite markedly from what I see on the screen if I press 'Open Image' without doing any processing of the equivalent Raw file. (Incidentally, this image is not a representation of the image embedded in the Raw file; The Raw file is a linear record of the light energies that struck the sensor during the exposure and it must be converted to a logarithmic format, otherwise, it would look radically different from the orignal scene which was photographed. No one ever actually sees the Raw image - there just isn't any point.)
The image which I see is often less attractive than the Jpeg. The key point, however, is that I do as much processing of theRaw image, using Adobe Camera Raw, as I feel is necessary before I click Open Image.The image I see will be much better, and I can then go on to make further refinements in Photoshop.
The really important thing for me is that I am in full control of the process, as opposed to turning everything over to some form of external automated provision.
Yes, it may take a bit more time, but not as much as you might think, expecially when you become used to the procedures. The real question is, "WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM YOUR PHOTOGRAPHY, AND HOW MUCH EFFORT ARE YOU PREPARED IN ORDER TO GET IT".
I am not a professional, I do what I do simply because I want to.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Ok

PP X6 does batch editing. If you see no difference, and you hate to spend time in front of the computer....I have the solution.

Open the images in PPX6 and save them to jpg.

Done.


No hassle, no fuss, no conversation about raw or jpg.

johneccles Loc: Leyland UK

Hi viscountdriver, I agree with you about RAW and Jpeg, I cannot easily detect any difference between the photos taken with my camera (Olympus EPL1). I still shoot both and manipulate the RAW but not so often lately and then its to create a pseudo HDR. So I still rely on Jpeg for all my photographs.
Cheers, John, Leyland, Lancs.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

you're good with me,i shoot raw now and then,useually for a reason and sometimes i like the results. if you never shoot in raw again,you will still have a rich rewarding life in photagraphy.

RJM Loc: Cardiff, S Wales, UK

I know what viscountdriver is on about, as I often feel the same.

I do shoot RAW sometimes as my manufacturer software lets me adapt the various art filters so I can see what I like best.

I suppose if I was shown how to batch edit RAW files to what I liked I may use RAW even more.

But, for the most part Jpeg's give me what I want and still allow editing.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

If you are that satisfied with the JPG processing your camera is providing, might I suggest you just keep shooting the JPGs. Obviously they are doing the trick for you.

RJM Loc: Cardiff, S Wales, UK

Yes, Jpeg's do it for me and it's surprising how much you can alter them in post processing.

The only benefit of RAW to me (at the moment until I learn otherwise) is that I can use the fabulous art filters and effects to enhance some pictures.

At the end of the day, as you say, photography is all about getting the picture YOU want, never mind how you do it.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

That just means more raw for the rest of us!

gordnanaimo Loc: Vancouver Island

I think the most important consideration here is what you want to do with your photos. If you are happy the way they come out of the camera in jpeg and NEVER want to edit them. Stay with jpeg. The major problem with jpeg is that it is a lossy filling system. Every time you manipulate jpegs they lose some quality. RAW on the other hand in a non-lossy format and you can manipulate them to your hearts content. I preffer to work with my photos in raw and then save to tiff. I can then run off all the diffent sizes of jpegs from the tiff.

Elfstop

I agree with you also...NEVER shoot in RAW only. If you want to remember what you saw while shooting then shoot in jpg...if you want to manipulate the photo to what you would want it to look like then shoot in raw. If you can't get it right in jpg then you can't hope to get it right in PP. Just because one is not a "pro" in PP doesn't mean your photographs that are shot in jpg are not great...and most people can't tell the difference no matter what they say.