TommiRulz Loc: Corpus Christi, TX

I did not read all the responses... but I have a very successful photography business. I shoot sports, outdoor portraits, and recently did my first wedding (with great success).... I only shoot JPEG. The main reason I guess is that is how I learned, and it works for me. I don't even know how to open a RAW file on my computer.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Need to learn how to set up your camera to produce results more like you would like. You don't have to be a victim.

Bigmike1 Loc: I am from Gaffney, S.C. but live in Utah.

You know, back in the film days there was no post processing. You had what you and the camera both saw. I have never shot RAW and don't have the programs to do post processing. Therefore I don't spend a lot of time at the computer trying to make the images better.

Canisdirus

Laughable...and so wrong.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Sad...and so ignorant.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Just no. Human vision is more complicated than that. What we see or think we see is a composite of different very quickly acquired snapshots that adjust for tone and color in real-time. As you look toward brighter parts of the image your vision compensates and as you move over the image toward darker parts of the scene your vision compensates. If there's a color cast in part of the image your vision compensates.

The last photo I took with my go-everywhere Canon compact I took Thursday late afternoon as documentary evidence. I needed proof that I had mowed a city lot and when I had mowed it.

But as I took the camera from the car my neighbor's 7 year old daughter saw it and decided that any photo I was going to take would be of her. I had selected a vantage point that was appropriate to record the mowing job but not appropriate for my young friend -- completely backlit in bright sun.

Since my camera is always set to record a raw file it only took me a moment to set the camera to maximize sensor exposure and I did that. What I saw standing there was a blue sky with high clouds, very bright grass (freshly mowed) and my neighbor's daughter. Looking at her I didn't see a silhouette I saw here face -- my vision compensated.

Below is my photo followed by the camera JPEG. I made full use of the sensor's 9.5 stops of recording capacity. The blue sky I saw is in my photo. The camera's JPEG processor isn't designed to handle that kind of DR and couldn't retain the sky detail. Still it's too dark and appears underexposed. There's no processing of the camera JPEG nor any different exposure of the camera JPEG that would produce the photo I took. Shooting JPEG the photo I took isn't possible -- shooting raw it's easy.

(Download)


(Download)

Robertl594 Loc: Bloomfield Hills, Michigan and Nantucket

I have not shot a JPEG since 2000. I have some photos prior to that that I am sick that they were not RAW. You give up so much shooting JPEG. Using a program like Lightroom for RAW images does not cause any additional time in PP.

Canisdirus

Proof is in the pudding.

What adjustments do you make in jpeg as opposed to RAW?

Interesting concept ... you have a different set of controls by image format.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

That's your choice. Personally, I feel sick when I see that I mistakenly made an image in JPG.

BlackRipleyDog

Well, it is obvious that you are not the target demographic for whom RAWS were created for in the first place. So until you develop a fuller understanding of their importance, continue shooting exclusively JPEG and don't stress about it.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Yes there was! It was called a darkroom and we did extensive post processing.
There was very limited post processing available for color transparency film except during pre-press which was very expensive. The end result was that color transparency film was more limited in application.

cytafex Loc: Clarksburg MA

Raw images right out of the camera look mucky to me but the idea is to reveal what you want to express and lots of information in raw file to do that lacking in jpg files.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

Shooting RAW and processing is not "doctoring." If one shoots in RAW processing is required as the camera does not process the image for you as it does a JPEG. The amount of time required to process a RAW image is very small, perhaps a minute or two in most cases. If one wants to do more to create the very best shot possible it could require more time but software today has made processing very simple. I can mass process 50 shots taken in the same light, pick the one or two I like best, and then do a couple more things to the main subject within a couple of minutes. I always shoot in RAW because I like to create the shot I see in my mind and in my way and that pleases me. It's a simple choice, if you like what the JPEG gives you from the camera's processing then stick with that, if not try shooting RAW and learn how to quickly process.

Jimmy T Loc: Virginia

I shoot mostly RAW for all pics.
What I haven't seen mentioned yet is what about older pics?
I find that my skills in post-processing (PP) advance and I review older pics that I have taken, scanned, or inherited. I may want to improve their quality by recently available means, like Denoise, Sharpen, etc. When you take a lot of pics you have to be selective about which pics to keep, and keep only the best examples. Also, many programs allow you to perform "Batch Processing" which will save you time.
I also find that PP programs are advancing so rapidly that I find myself critically reviewing pics less than one-year-old because I now have the most recent editions of programs to use. Or, I may choose a different technique to apply. Or Both, and for that reason, always save your changes to the original file as an "XXX.01.jpg or XXX.A.jpg" or any other unique prefix or suffix. Never overwrite the original file as newer PP programs and your own skills will evolve to allow you to progress in photography. However, I must admit that for years I was happy just documenting everything that caught my eye. Personally, I love photography and I enjoy the time and effort required to show each pic in its' "best light". A beautiful pic still makes me . . . .
Smile,
JimmyT Sends

P.S.: Best Wishes
on whatever photography path you follow.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

As I have stated before, some camera models (even within the same brand) make picture controls much easier than others. If I were using an entry-level camera made by my manufacturer, I would be much less interested in trying to manipulate JPEG in the camera...it is just too much of a headache. But I have increased contrast, sharpness, and saturation from the very bland "as-shipped" values. These are exactly the same changes that I make when editing a raw image, if it has been shot from a "Flat" starting point. (Since in reality, I start with "As Shot" parameters in LightRoom, there is almost none of that left to do.)

The key here is that if one is willing to learn a few things, to take control of parameters typically left to the camera (like White Balance), give some thought to what is going on and make a little preparation, it is possible to create very nice JPEGs. Those same steps can also shorten your editing time by not having to "repaint" your image to start out. If not, then it is certainly OK to do it all in post processing. But it won't happen automatically. I just get tired of people claiming that their cameras "hold them hostage" when shooting JPEG. That only happens if you allow it. A flight instructor told me once, "Fly the airplane!" Many accidents occur when pilots allow the airplane to control them instead. I've never forgotten that instruction.