photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

I would say yes if only for the ability to sharpen a photo in pp especially if you plan on printing them. The difference between a sharpened and unsharpened PRINTED photo is very discernible.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Excellent points. I just found out my doctor is not just a member of the AMA, but is actually on some of their committees!!!!! He clearly has a vested interest in some of what you have now convinced me must be absolute JUNK!!!!

I will never trust him again!!!

coyotecall Loc: New Mexico

I've been shooting a Canon "dig" for many years now and have jumped from Raw to jpeg twice. I started with Raw, having been told (by "experts) that it contained more color information than jpeg...then a different set of experts said, "Don't bother, it doesn't make that much difference."....then.......etc. the tipping point for me is simply this, on my Canon Rebel the "A-Dep" (aperture dependent) setting is only available using Raw and that setting really helps with depth of field...getting feather def. on birds for example. So I'm back to Raw. A bit more tedious but much better results for what I'm doing. If all you want is a versatile point-and-shoot result then stick with jpeg, you will get great shots for what it can do and you won't have any extra post processing, or at least not much, otherwise go to Raw.

Kuzano

Yeah...!!!! Doesn't that just piss you off about doctors in general.

They're all about extending life as long as it only uses the practice of Allopathic medicine, and revolves around the uses of pharmaceuticals from drug companes. Notice I did not differentiate between prescription and non-prescription drugs.

Futherance of the AMA practices the the uppermost tenets of most physicians. Herbal medicine, Spiritual practices, and such outlandish practices as chiropractic, acupuncture and naturopathic practice are simply targets of the AMA and their membership.

Standard AMA practitioners hold first and foremost the rise of their own income. This is indicative financial enhancements of their professions, evidenced by the rising care in health costs.

There are more preventive methods available to retain and improve health, but rarely tendered by AMA and other organizational bodies.

Hence the Hypocritical Oath and the symbolism of the Serpents intertwined about the staff.

I am simply saying that Scott Kelby's observations are naturally self serving shown by his relationship with Adobe, just as most doctors are self serving based on their organizational bodies aim to increasing income for the profession and the drug companies.

My last urging from a physician was to control my cholesterol by taking Crestor in place of Simvastatin as the latter was not working well for me. The cost quote on a 30 day supply of Crestor was $593 (one month!) from on pharmacy and similar from others.

A naturopathic healer found a solution based on herbal supplements, change in diet and exercise. Cholestorol is now within suggested limits, and the supplements run about $20 per month. The diet turns out to be less expensive overall.

So when Scott Kelby divests himself of the NAPP connection, drops his prices to reasonable seminar rates, and becomes a reasonable force in the post processing marketplace... I will relent on his objectivity.

I've purchased some of his books and they are good. However, they are fodder leading into NAPP and the seminars.

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

Enough already!

1. Less than 40% of US Physicians are members of the AMA.
2. The CPT (Common Procedural Terminology) codes, under which all medical procedures are coded for billing, is a product of the AMA, and its use is mandated by all government payors and insurance companies. Doctors must pay large $$ to purchase the list of codes which are not available without charge (although mandated).
3. Physician pay is down 20-30% over the last decade with even more loss looming. There is no extra pay to implement the onerous federal computer and data collection/submission mandates.
4. Those physicians making $ from drugs are those employed in the highly ranked research hospitals. They use your tax dollars to research and then get to own part of the patents than ensue (along with the universities). The vast majority of physicians are in no way involved in this.
5. This mess is the result of Congress that, with the implementation of Medicare decades ago, mandated that Medicine become a business.
6. With the continued cuts, how many young bright people do you think are going to be willing to take on $100,000 to $300,000 or more in debt to work for $70-$80K per year?

Now if you want to talk JPG vs RAW, let's do that. This belongs in another part of UUH.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

WTH?

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

Thus my comments! Someone needs to get a reality check as to where the health care dollar is going. It is not physicians, in general, especially in small town and rural America.

mickeys Loc: Fort Wayne, IN

here you go

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Ummm.... this is supposed to be a photography discussion. My comment was for the somewhat off-topic direction this has taken.

WHAT THE HECK does health care have to do with raw or jpeg?

Kate1948

You are correct in that, if you shoot RAW, post processing is necessary and if you shoot jpeg you can print or post the image right away.

"Photo quality" is something that depends in large part on the photographer and, even the best photographer sometimes has to shoot under less than perfect conditions, which is where RAW comes in very handy. Even in shots that come out OK, RAW allows you to take it way beyond OK to pretty darn good. The difference shows in print and on screen.

To me, the issue is: how important is the image to you?

When you shoot RAW you always have the option of deleting the RAW file later if you don't want it but IF it's a photo that you will want to keep--something meaningful like a new baby, a wedding, a graduation, etc.--wouldn't you want to have the best possible keepsake?

Even if you don't know how or care to process it now, save the RAW to process it later. You can regain detail in shadows and highlights; reduce noise; change your exposure; change your white point; sharpen the image--and this is just on the first screen of ACR.

I shoot RAW always. My camera setting has the option of exposing a RAW and a jpeg at the same time. (I assume all do). If the jpeg is fine, I may use it, but if it isn't I go to the RAW and salvage the moment.

I like to have the option, and I regret all the years that I didn't shoot RAW.

coyotecall Loc: New Mexico

I was wondering the same thing......some "raw" feelings I suppose.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Though I know exactly which post you are replying to, it helps to click on "Quote Reply" so we are sure.

wings42 Loc: San Diego, CA

A REASON TO SHOOT IN JPEG.

My Nikon D7000 has a shooting buffer size limited to 5 or 6 continuous (burst) mode photos, then it slows down to about a shot every 3 or 4 seconds until the photo buffer clears. I love to shoot birds in flight and was frustrated shooting in RAW. RAW + JPEG was even worse. I use class 10 Sony SSHC 40mb/s 32 GB memory chips.

At the start of this month I went to JPEG only. What a joy! I've not yet run out of buffer space with auto repeat shooting, either fast repeat or slow (my usual mode). That means I can follow a bird from take off to too far away, or conversely from approach to landing and possible interactions with other birds or preening. The photos are generally sharp and clear to the limit of my lens and ability to hold steady. The best action shots are good enough for computer display or possibly 8 1/2 x 11 prints at least. Until I get a camera with a much bigger buffer I'll continue shooting birds and wildlife in JPEG.

These two photos are cropped with no other PP except a bit of sharpening on the butterfly. My 70-300 lens has a minimum distance of 6', and I could only back up about 5'. I included it to show the color.

California Thrasher - Please download

(Download)

California Sister butterfly

Chris Knight Loc: Ayden, nc

Thanks all that replied to my question. I have read and my question has been answered. There are times I wish this website was on pumping systems....NPSHr vs.NPSHa...static head...friction loss...system curves...something that I really know

Chris Knight Loc: Ayden, nc

Thanks Bob...good advice...will do post processing at some time...just busy with other things right now