Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I find that after I spend time with my camera, I go right to my computer...

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Sounds like your personal work is not that important.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

This forum is for all. It is not just for learning. It is also a debating society. And much more. I don't give a damn what you think or do either.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

A RAW file is God's way of telling us how hard it is to be a camera.

garrickw Loc: Wyoming Mn.

very simple here if you want the camera to process your photos go with jpeg if you want more control over processing and retain all the information you have captured on your photo you shoot raw ...if you save your finished process files in jpeg you lose all the information you used to process that file if you save in tiff you retain all the information, masks, color correction, raw conversion if you want for printing later on

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Its good enough for my needs
Sometimes i just sleep all day

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

CaptainPhoto

thanks CGH CANON for the link to the BIT's article. Very informative and easy to understand.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Thanks!
The cab is visible, reflecting on the glass door.

BebuLamar

I don't know any better I always shoot RAW. I started out with the Nikon Coolpix 5000 and when I bought it, it only shoots JPEG or TIFF. But I found the firmware update and it could then shoot JPEG or NEF. I always shot in NEF although that camera is so slow in shooting NEF as it takes about 30 seconds after each shot to write to memory card. But still I didn't know any better I always shot RAW.

Josephakraig

Personally I use both. I shoot Nikon and it allows me to do either or both. After shooting invariably I review my JPEG's to decide which ones are keepers. I you don't have a good RAW eidtor then that is a good place to stop. I do have a wonderful editor, a couple actually and I can view the interesting shot in JPEG and then edit the RAW of the same image and perhaps interpret the scene better than the camera computer that came up with the JPEG. Since I was there and know what the scene looked like I can in the vast majority of times produce a much better image than the camera did.

Shooting RAW allows you to get the full dynamic range of your camera, allows you to get the white balance correct and a host of other things including sharpness. Editing a JPEG will allow you to do some editing too but not nearly as much. When you capture in RAW you have everything the camera saw before you but when you capture in JPEG the camera takes a picture of what it thinks you want and throws the rest away so that you have a picture of a picture.

I rename a picture after I edit the RAW to a realistic name, I don't name the original JPEG's. The JPEG's are nice for browsing, I save my edited RAW's as JPEG's. It is a very good storage medium and while you can store JPEG's in a variety of compression levels mostly they all reproduce pretty well.

If I save an image for printing I save it with low compression ending up with a larger file but if I just want a wallpaper or network picture the compression can be extreme and likely no one will notice.

If you aren't willing to pay for a good raw editor then take care in choosing your JPEG settings in your camera and make sure you take great care with your shots. If you don't mind spending time in Light Room, Photo Shop or some other good editor then you should seriously consider RAW. When shooting RAW you can make nearly every shot a great shot, that gives you the ability to spend your time when shooting on the subject, composing, not worrying so much about exposure.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Sharpening should be done as a final step and tailored to the specific output target. The standard method of raw PP is to develop and then convert to an RGB image. During raw PP capture sharpening should be applied. Final target specific sharpening should be applied to the RGB image before conversion to JPEG. Sharpening a JPEG will create damaging artifacts from interaction between the sharpening algorithm and the JPEG compression grid. These are avoided by sharpening the RGB image prior to creating the JPEG.

JPEGs are editable but we can debate "very". Any editing of tone/color applied to a JPEG causes damage that does not otherwise occur when editing a raw or RGB image. The damage caused by editing a JPEG is unavoidable. It may be a moot point for many as their use of the image isn't stringent -- the damage isn't visible on your phone LCD. I make prints and sometimes large prints in which the damage can be visible. If a JPEG has any kind of gradient in it like a sky for example -- funny how skies end up in so many photos -- that gradient will be fixed within the JPEG's 8 bit data space and further fixed by the compression grid. If you want to edit the tone/color such that the gradient is "very" altered the result may be "very" ugly.

Auto WB doesn't work very well and once applied to a JPEG it's not a easy matter to correct it. That's a big reason I shoot raw. I don't want the hassle of setting a custom WB behind the camera in order to capture a JPEG and I sure don't want to spend all those extra long hours at the computer trying to correct WB in a JPEG which has an incorrect WB baked in. I'd much rather be out taking photos.

clickety

Everything you said is valid, however just saying “I do this” without the ‘why’ I do it is neither a debate, nor helpful unless the poster is taking a poll, ie, what the respondent does is irrelevant unless asked, hence my frustration with Quix’s responses.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

There are two types of people in this world: those who will tell you that you won't succeed unless you shoot in RAW and your grandmother.

srt101fan