How many of shoot RAW exclusively? (Page 7): I shoot RAW, P&S and Bridge...

ksudad Loc: W Valley, PHX

I shoot RAW,
P&S and Bridge

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Mike77 wrote:

I personally don't useless it something very important, I shoot a lot of daughters sport and wildlife. I don't do a lot of post processing. But, i think i am in the minority. Just curious

Mike

I would guess that most people shoot jpegs. I shoot raw exclusively to maximize the ability to fix in post.

Guy Johnstone Loc: Ocean Shores WA

Sometimes I shot in the raw, but more often I'm dressed. If I the image is for print I shot raw and save as a Tiff. If the image is going to be viewed mostly on line I shot Jpeg. For fun I shot jpeg.

Bobgood1 Loc: Indianapolis, IN

Mike77 wrote:

I personally don't useless it something very important, I shoot a lot of daughters sport and wildlife. I don't do a lot of post processing. But, i think i am in the minority. Just curious

Mike

Would someone tell me again why you shoot raw ? It seems like reverting back to the old film processing days when cameras were not as good as they are today.
Shooting raw takes a lot of processing. Okay if you have a lot of time or if you are going to publish and/or make Large prints.

PrairieSeasons Loc: Red River of the North

Guy Johnstone wrote:

Sometimes I shot in the raw, but more often I'm dressed. If I the image is for print I shot raw and save as a Tiff. If the image is going to be viewed mostly on line I shot Jpeg. For fun I shot jpeg.

How do you know in advance whether an image will end up being printed or shown online?

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Bobgood1 wrote:

Would someone tell me again why you shoot raw ? It seems like reverting back to the old film processing days when cameras were not as good as they are today.
Shooting raw takes a lot of processing. Okay if you have a lot of time or if you are going to publish and/or make Large prints.

If you don't do much post processing than you don't need to shoot in RAW. I disagree with your comments regarding your implication that digital is somehow superior to film. It's not. Film has a greater dynamic range and in the right hands can produce images that surpass the current sota sensors.. Digital is easier and more convenient in a number of useful and significant ways, but it is not better.

Weyoun7 Loc: Fremont, CA

I always shoot raw only.

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

Bobgood1 wrote:

Would someone tell me again why you shoot raw ? It seems like reverting back to the old film processing days when cameras were not as good as they are today.
Shooting raw takes a lot of processing. Okay if you have a lot of time or if you are going to publish and/or make Large prints.

Shooting RAW might take a lot of processing but the processing power is here. The little computer that powers my camera is more powerful than the computers that put man on the moon back in 1969.

Of course, days are still 24 hours, but the difference is that instead of spending eight hours in my darkroom, now I spend four hours at the computer with Photoshop CC.

It's a win all the way around!

bunuweld Loc: Arizona

I shoot both RAW and JPG, but only process the small percentage of RAWs that deserve further attention.

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

mwsilvers wrote:

If you don't do much post processing than you don't need to shoot in RAW. I disagree with your comments regarding your implication that digital is somehow superior to film. It's not. Film has a greater dynamic range and in the right hands can produce images that surpass the current sota sensors.. Digital is easier and more convenient in a number of useful and significant ways, but it is not better.

I disagree with your thinking that film has a greater dynamic range than digital. It did when digital cameras first hit the market, but it probably doesn't anymore with all this 64-bit processing going on that allows much better sensors to process all the data.

Google film vs. digital or some such, and you'll find that the tide seems to have turned around 2009 or so.

Annie_Girl Loc: It's none of your business

Raw only, even family snap shots. I'm too lazy to switch between jpg and raw so I just leave it.

donnahde Loc: Newark, DE

Mike77 wrote:

I personally don't useless it something very important, I shoot a lot of daughters sport and wildlife. I don't do a lot of post processing. But, i think i am in the minority. Just curious

Mike

I always shoot raw. Never know when you'll need that extra data.

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

mwsilvers wrote:

If you don't do much post processing than you don't need to shoot in RAW. I disagree with your comments regarding your implication that digital is somehow superior to film. It's not. Film has a greater dynamic range and in the right hands can produce images that surpass the current sota sensors.. Digital is easier and more convenient in a number of useful and significant ways, but it is not better.

I agree with you mwsilvers
Film is still subprime if you get the best quality film on the market and also some of the garden verities films as well.

TaxiMom Loc: Central Oregon

There's other settings to shoot other then RAW????
Just Kidding.

I have both cameras set on the Highest RAW setting they offer.

Debbi

stan0301 Loc: Colorado

I've taken about a million digital shots--to have anything that looks decent you have to color balance--and raw makes that so, so very much, easier. Now PS6 lets you color balance JPEG "like" raw--but raw is lossless--i do convert to JPEG to print, but not until all the work is finished on the image.
Stan