The case for RAW, example

[UncleDoug]

A friend stoped in to have 2 35mm slides scanned because the digital files provided to her for a job were too small to use.
She described the situation as this. The images are going to be used for "hi-end" posters that measures 24x36. And the files delivered were JPEG's that were 8x10 @ 300 dpi. In conversation with the photographer about the situation he said, "just up-rez them", and he was adamant about it.
Trying to do this and please the final client, a major ski resort, would be like trying to put 20 pounds of dung ina 5 pound bag.
Turns out I'm good friends with the photographer in question. And I've been trying to beat the concept of RAW into his head for 2 years now. I asked him, "Do you have RAW files of those images?". "No" was the reply.
Well, the photographer had been paid $2,500 to shoot the resort over the winter. All JPEG's. Needless to say, the resort has a new photographer now and my friend has learned a valuable lesson.

Always shoot in RAW. Could be like winning the lottery in clutch situations.;)

[Pekka]

Good lesson. I always wonder why selecting RAW is such a big deal for some. Computers are fast, cards are cheap, converters are fluent, you have maximum control over presenting your work with wide variety of output formats. Why not?

[Alpieagle]

I always wonder why selecting RAW is such a big deal for some. Computers are fast, cards are cheap, ...

Agree with you, but you could really start wondering how many "pro's" shoot jpg just for the sake of saying "i don't need to shoot raw - my photos are good without post-processing".

Surprising (or shocking?) how many photog's told me they stick with jpg simply because they don't want to spend money on cards. :confused:

Guess they should just go on, good customers will recognize the difference. ;)

[SuzyView]

I got my 20D and 2 1gb CF cards. I was totally prepared to start shooting RAW. I even bought 2 books recommended by members of the forum. I've been reading the books since my 20D arrived. So, I went to my first shoot totally prepared to shoot RAW. The principal asked if she could have a disk with all the data on it. She doesn't have a clue when I said I was going to shoot RAW. She only knew to pull up the photos and print them as is. So, I did the highest JPEG and took 250 pictures on one CF card. My first opportunity to shoot RAW in a school building with terrible white balance was ruined. And some may say, why didn't you shoot RAW and JPEG? I don't know what I'm doing yet and didn't know how much memory was going to be used up.

Shooting RAW is going to take some bravery on my part, but I am determined to. I just formatted my CF card after dumping the school shots. Ready to go out tomorrow and shoot 50 in RAW. I have the software to deal with it, just need to do it. :)

[R Hardman]

Started with RAW and stuck with it. Took a little time to learn the software but... it took longer to learn my first SLR in 1980. I also think that RAW vs JPEG could be viewed the same way as those who use film. You have those that take their film to the 1-hour photo place (JPEG) and those who spend the time to process their film at home for complete control of the final print (RAW).

[TaylorAtCTS]

I have never and will never shoot in JPEG, even with my P&S i shot RAW. I love the control it gives me. Thing is, ive been an avid Photoshop user for years and it was very easy for the to learn ACR; sometimes it takes me longer to get the result im looking for...but usually i can do pretty well.

[primoz]

Well Pekka here's my answer why shooting raw is such a big deal for me. Speed and speed once again. Computers are fast, cards are cheap, converters are great etc. Agree... but computers are even faster with jpeg, there's no need for converters at all and cards are even cheaper when shooting jpeg. Once when you shoot for fun, it really doesn't matter if you spend $100 more for card or not. But when you count all your expenses and compare them to profits it does matter sometime... $100 is $100 on the end. And $100 here plus $100 there can be quite a bit on the end.
And when it comes to speed I really never managed to convince anyone of those "I'm for sure just as fast with raw as you are with jpeg" to go and actually try this and show me this. It's easy to be done, but once when it comes a bit further then just talking, people get scared that it might not be exactly like they say. I'm still ready to this challenge anytime someone wants to try it. It's easy one... shoot 300-500 photos, run back to press center (or if you don't have access to this, do it from home), pick 15-20 best ones, crop them and do basic color correction and transmit them (yes you can try to with cell phone too, not just through 100mbps fiber optics). And on the end let me know your time... mine is usually under 15mins (without shooting of course). And btw... consider doing this from slow laptop (laptops are always slow anyway even if they are top of the line) while driving in press shuttle, not from home computer.
But if someone feels like shooting raw for everything then feel free. And once again (I might just add this into my signature :) )... both raw and jpeg has their own benefits, and jpeg is better then raw for some things, while raw is better then jpeg for other things.
PS: UncleDoug... it all depends on what you want. First $2500 for whole winter shooting is nothing that great. Second... original files of my 1d are about 3500pix on longest (raw or jpeg), and yes they can be used for posters too even if shoot in jpeg. Been there done that... even with old 1d. Posters are not looked from 10cm, but usually from few meters. To be honest, you can easier shoot billboard with pocket camera, then magazine cover with 1d. Billboards are so ****ty quality when you look them from close that pretty much anything is good... even few 100% resize. From 10 meters it sure looks great. And you usually look at magazine cover from few centimeters, which means it needs to be much better quality.

[stevefossimages]

Doug: Primos is right. An 8x10 300dpi Jpeg can be made into a fine poster the size you mentioned. I've seen it done. It does, however, take a lot more work to make a jpeg image look good under those circumstances than it would a RAW image. Now, I don't mean an 8x10 300ppi RAW, either, I mean the original RAW image. That's because on my 20D, photoshop will allow me to open a RAW image to 13x19 at 300ppi using its automatic interpolation, and I can enlarge it from there. And, anyway, as mentioned, the larger the image the lower the resolution can be, because you stand a lot farther away from a 24x36 poster than you do a 4x6 snapshot print.

Suzyview: I shoot RAW+largeJPEG a lot. On a 2Gb card with my 20D, that means from 150-200 pairs of images. While you'd still have had to dowload the paired-images on a computer to best burn a CD for the principal of only jpegs (either at home on the desktop or at the school if you had a CD-burning laptop), it would have solved your problem. It's something to consider. It does slow down your pace if you want to do a lot of burst shooting, though.

Primos: I agree with you that jpeg is vastly better for the fast, fast, fast needs of sports shooting, and when you're shooting ANYTHING on a tight deadline, processing RAW wastes seconds you may not have. I never shoot RAW for sports, because I can only get 6 images on burst before writing to the card, as opposed to 23 when shooting jpeg.

[SezzySue]

yesterday was my first day shooting in ALL RAW. It wasn't as scary as I thought.

[Rob612]

I always shoot RAW+Jpeg, the latter for quick viewing and selecting. Alla the seriorus stuff is done on RAW.

[Carzee]

We're going on a safari day to a set location with a set subject or two. Film and digi members of the local photography club.

Rules are 27 frames (1 roll) where the first frame is a mugshot of the entrant. The club collects up the roll or the CF card from each member at the end of the time period and then its a social feedbag session.

The cards are uploaded to a portable drive and the cards go back to the members on location. The film and the digi files are printed up in 6x4 by the club and a winning photo selected.

The drama is that the digi files all have to be JPG -no raw allowed, no PP allowed. And no deletions. So every shot counts--we are all back to the limits of film. I'll see how I do whitebal and at avoiding burnouts and such, it will be interesting.

Anyone else had to revert to JPG?

[gmen]

Well Pekka here's my answer why shooting raw is such a big deal for me. Speed and speed once again. Computers are fast, cards are cheap, converters are great etc. Agree... but computers are even faster with jpeg, there's no need for converters at all and cards are even cheaper when shooting jpeg. Once when you shoot for fun, it really doesn't matter if you spend $100 more for card or not. But when you count all your expenses and compare them to profits it does matter sometime... $100 is $100 on the end. And $100 here plus $100 there can be quite a bit on the end.
And when it comes to speed I really never managed to convince anyone of those "I'm for sure just as fast with raw as you are with jpeg" to go and actually try this and show me this. It's easy to be done, but once when it comes a bit further then just talking, people get scared that it might not be exactly like they say. I'm still ready to this challenge anytime someone wants to try it. It's easy one... shoot 300-500 photos, run back to press center (or if you don't have access to this, do it from home), pick 15-20 best ones, crop them and do basic color correction and transmit them (yes you can try to with cell phone too, not just through 100mbps fiber optics). And on the end let me know your time... mine is usually under 15mins (without shooting of course). And btw... consider doing this from slow laptop (laptops are always slow anyway even if they are top of the line) while driving in press shuttle, not from home computer.
But if someone feels like shooting raw for everything then feel free. And once again (I might just add this into my signature :) )... both raw and jpeg has their own benefits, and jpeg is better then raw for some things, while raw is better then jpeg for other things.
PS: UncleDoug... it all depends on what you want. First $2500 for whole winter shooting is nothing that great. Second... original files of my 1d are about 3500pix on longest (raw or jpeg), and yes they can be used for posters too even if shoot in jpeg. Been there done that... even with old 1d. Posters are not looked from 10cm, but usually from few meters. To be honest, you can easier shoot billboard with pocket camera, then magazine cover with 1d. Billboards are so ****ty quality when you look them from close that pretty much anything is good... even few 100% resize. From 10 meters it sure looks great. And you usually look at magazine cover from few centimeters, which means it needs to be much better quality.Here, here! Well said Primoz.

---- Gavin

[CyberDyneSystems]

G-Men and Primoz..

Let me ask you a quick question.

I understand that the line oif work you do has an emphasis on speed.. not only the camera's shooting speed,. but image turnaround to the clients.

But.. if in some parralelll universe you were asked to,. and agreed, to shoot scenic shots of a ski resort over the course of a winter,. no pressing time constraints.. all delicate tripod set ups on shooting.. where the final product would be used for advertising, commercial flyers, and posters etc of the sceneic shots. And you knew you had plenty of time to work on these images after shooting..

Would you still shoot jpeg?

I guess what I'm seeing from your excellent arguments is that as I allways beleived,. there are times and places where both jpeg and RAW have there advantages. The trick is being clever enough to know when to use one over the other.
In my humble opinion.. the Ski Resort scenic would be the perfect time to opt for RAW. By allways insisting that one file type is the best regardless of application,. I would suggest one could be missing out.

[gmen]

G-Men and Primoz..

Let me ask you a quick question.

I understand that the line oif work you do has an emphasis on speed.. not only the camera's shooting speed,. but image turnaround to the clients.

But.. if in some parralelll universe you were asked to,. and agreed, to shoot scenic shots of a ski resort over the course of a winter,. no pressing time constraints.. all delicate tripod set ups on shooting.. where the final product would be used for advertising, commercial flyers, and posters etc of the sceneic shots. And you knew you had plenty of time to work on these images after shooting..

Would you still shoot jpeg?

I guess what I'm seeing from your excellent arguments is that as I allways beleived,. there are times and places where both jpeg and RAW have there advantages. The trick is being clever enough to know when to use one over the other.
In my humble opinion.. the Ski Resort scenic would be the perfect time to opt for RAW. By allways insisting that one file type is the best regardless of application,. I would suggest one could be missing out.Hi CyberDyne... I don't that either of us are suggesting that... "By allways insisting that one file type is the best regardless of application,. I would suggest one could be missing out"... Primoz stated in his post that there is a place for both formats, which I agree with wholeheartedly. In the ski-resort scenario, RAW may well have been the way to go.

I can't speak on behalf of Primoz... but I agreed with his post because I did not agree with these earlier statements:
Agree with you, but you could really start wondering how many "pro's" shoot jpg just for the sake of saying "i don't need to shoot raw - my photos are good without post-processing".
Good lesson. I always wonder why selecting RAW is such a big deal for some. Computers are fast, cards are cheap, converters are fluent, you have maximum control over presenting your work with wide variety of output formats. Why not?

The flipside of UncleDoug's original scenario is the tog who is unable to deliver a set of image on deadline because his RAW files are 'still converting' ;) "Needless to say, the paper has a new photographer now..." :lol:

---- Gavin

[defordphoto]

I shoot JPEG and RAW. They both have their places. Personally I think people put too much in the bank when shooting RAW, thinking they can fix almost anything in post-processing. That is just simply not true. If your original exposure is off you can get some back, but the colors will not be true as if you shot it right the first time. Detail will be lost.

That being said I shoot all my sports JPEG. I have produced excellent 20x30 & 30x40 prints that are just dazzling and have totally convinced me that in my world, film is definitely dead.

Now, if I go out shooting landscapes, sceneries, portraits, etc, then I do shoot RAW as I want the highest bit-rate my camera can produce. It's more likely that I would be producing more fine-quality enlargements in this situation than with a sports shot.

I like the safari scenario above. It'd be a good lesson/challenge for us all, especially now with digital, to make every shot count like we used to do with film.

When I was a digital newbie I was at my first ChampCar shoot at Portland International Raceway. Talking with the guys I had been shooting side-by-side with film for years I asked: "Do you guys shoot RAW or JPEG?"

Then I got that newbie look. ;) They collectively said: "If you have to shoot RAW to shoot right, you don't belong out here." And then after our first outing I also got some JPEG post-processing lessons that have proved invaluable.

Moral of the story: JPEG and RAW both have their advantages. There is no right or wrong. Shoot what's best for you, and if in doubt then yes, shoot with RAW+Large-Fine and you have all worlds covered! :)

[primoz]

I never said "shoot jpeg. it's best for everything", but I always said jpeg is best for some things, while raw is best for other. Jpeg is best for this what I usually do, and that's why I shoot jpeg. If I would go do this what you said, I would choose raw. Of course if I would know jpeg wouldn't be good enough. And mostly I do know wha I can produce from jpegs and what I can't.
It's same as choosing 15mm fish or 300mm tele. You choose what fits best for that particular job. And just as you can't shoot 15mm fish (or 300mm lens) for everything, you can't, or at least you shouldn't, shoot jpeg (or raw) for everything. Everything has it's purpose and it's up to photographer to be able to choose best tool for particular job. If you are good, you will choose best one and produce best result. If you are not good, then you will shoot raw or jpeg for everything, and you will use 300mm lens for everything because you will look cooler then you would with fish, and then complain that conditions weren't right.

[cjsa]

I've been shooting raw+jpeg, even though i still don't do much PP, I want to know I can.

[TaylorAtCTS]

raw always seems to work for me...jpegs have already been proccessed by the camera...why would i trust it to do a good job?

i use JPEG if im shooting sports and i need to use my 20ds burst mode...thats about it...otherwise why not shoot RAW where i can make my own WB adjustments and not let the camera make any desisions...

[defordphoto]

raw always seems to work for me...jpegs have already been proccessed by the camera...why would i trust it to do a good job?

RAW files have quite a bit of processing done too. The camera has to convert it from "actual" raw, analog data right off the sensor into digital data that can be read by your software.

And, BTW, Canon cameras do an excellent job processing both RAW and JPEG data.

[TaylorAtCTS]

thats true but I still have a better chance of comming out with the result i want from the RAW file. Even though its proccessed it is not as much so as a jpeg...even though we dont really know the full extent of the proccessing done....

ill stick by RAW any day! probly also due to my OCD...if i dont shoot in the RAW my head hurts!

[defordphoto]

You're really missing this boat though by ignoring JPEG out of the camera as there are many cases where it works just fine. These cameras produce stellar JPEG files.

[Zepher]

I haven't shot in RAW yet, and I don't really see a need either as the jpegs come out great.
One of the photographers I work with shoots all jpeg, and another one shoots all RAW.
The one shooting all RAW ends up using gigabytes upon gigabytes of hard drive space, especially since she shoots on average about 800 shots at weddings. Her main complaints are the time working with all those files, how does she store them effeciently, and photoshop CS2 is sooooooo slow. btw, she shoots with a 5D.

[VanceW]

First, I'm not a pro, but hoping to develop my skills to where someday I can.

I shoot all RAW, and the main reason, security.

To me, going out and shooting anything other than RAW would be like going out on a pro shoot with only one camera, and one lens, you just don't do it.

If the reason you shoot jpeg is so that you can get more images at one go, kewl, but then ask yourself... why do you need to shoot so many images ?
You more than likely do it for the security to get that one or two shots out of the 23 images you machine-gunned. :D

Recently, after working all night, I had a chance to shoot some wildlife that I've been trying for the longest time to get. Because I was tired, I didn't check my images or the histogram. Shot 30+ images, and when I got home I found that all but three were completely blown out. But, because I shot RAW, I was able to bring them down a couple stops and did a half decent save.

http://users4.ev1.net/~txcowboy/IMAGES/080small.jpg

But hey .. if you're more comfortable with jpeg, go for it!

Does anyone else get the feeling this is going to be the new disagreement between photographers, where it used to be film or digital? :)

[stevefossimages]

Vance, sports shooters in particular and deadline shooters everywhere tend to prefer jepg because of the reasons already mentioned in this thread. People can argue raw/jpeg all day long, and will, because to some degree it's a personal preference, and personal preference means opinion. But there are times when it simply makes no sense to shoot raw, as pointed out by several people. I shoot raw + jpeg for everything but sports, because I'm wanting to make large fine art nature prints, and raw is the way to go for that.

If you took raw images that were completely blown out, as you said in your post, you would not have been able to save them using raw pp. Completely blown out means there's no data in that part of the image. Jpeg or raw, no data means no data. If you got no data, you got nothing for pp to fix. I imagine what you really mean is you had some shots overexposed a stop or two.

[Pekka]

I agree that there are situations where you might prefer JPEG, like sports where delivery speed is preferred over image quality. In my line of shooting it is very different.

But still, RAW is without question a vastly better file format. Even in fast delivery environment, could it be possible that you'd deliver the RAW/DGN instead of JPEG's and the conversion would be done by client for best possible print result, right? Imagine: you could just send a RAW with sidenote "underxposed 1.3 stops, needs noise NR and WB correction" as delivery note - in this way you would be delivering photos faster than with JPEG. :)

[stevefossimages]

Pekka: Good point about RAW delivery. But such nasty deadline issues generally involve daily newspapers, and if you deliver them a RAW image, even with notes, you're just passing the increased time factor for pp on down the line. If you're shooting an evening game for an a.m. daily and the whole sports section front is hingeing on that one or two images to be transmitted on deadline, moments count. Now, if the photo toner at the paper has a powerful enough computer and a solid knowledge of RAW, it shouldn't matter much, but papers vary widely in the sophistication of not only their people, but their equipment.

If I'm toning those photos on a beefed up G4 or a G5 with a fast processor and lots of RAM, I'll say go ahead and gimme the RAW, because previewing and altering the RAW to an 8-bit file with proper white balance, exposure and size will only take a moment. If I have an older/slower computer, however, I don't have the time on deadline to twiddle my thumbs while that's all going on.

[Mullet]

I shot RAW + jpeg and often if it is just a simple picture and I see nothing wrong with the jpeg, I will use it. Then again I will sometime not like the look of the jpeg and work with the RAW file. I use both formats frequently

[VanceW]

Hey Steve,

Yeah, your right. Working graveyards, sometimes the brain isn't quite up to the fingers speed. :D Yes, my images were about 2 - 21/2 stops overexposed, but I was able to make a quick adjustment in FileViewer and bring them back, of sorts. :)

I also agree that depending on what your shooting requirements are should dictate your preferred mode of capture.

Best example I guess I can give. Here in Texas, one of the state's monthly magazines will take digital images, but they must be RAW aRGB. Whereas, the oldest newspaper in Texas requires any images submitted be in JPEG. So, I've told myself that if I find myself in a situation where I feel I might be able to sell those images, I've got my 10D set to take RAW aRGB and Large Fine jpg. (all bases covered :) )

It's also like I put at the very end. I think the "RAW or JPEG" discussion is going to be the new Film vs Digital. ;)

[stevefossimages]

Vance, if you've got the cards big enough, RAW+large jpeg is the best of both worlds, tho it does fill the buffer too quickly when you're all wrapped up in the furball. No surprise the monthly glossy mag only wants RAW images with Adobe RGB, because they have the high 300 ppi print standard and, as a monthly, the time to play with them. Also no surprise the newspaper, with screaming daily deadline issues and 180 ppi resolution, only wants jpegs.

And, well, I think the RAW vs JPEG gig is great for people who like to argue, but it's pretty well established already which is best when.

On another note, if you're shooting RAW and you don't have deadline issues, why are you shooting RAW+large jpeg? That just eats up card memory.

[VanceW]

On another note, if you're shooting RAW and you don't have deadline issues, why are you shooting RAW+large jpeg? That just eats up card memory

Actually, currently I've got my 10D set up to take RAW Small jpeg. But I've also got a 2 gig card in it, with 3 1/2 gigs waiting in the bag. :D

I'd only go RAW/Large if I were in a situation where I'd need it. Like you said, the situation dictates the need. :)

One of the things I'm liking about the 5D is the ability to shoot just RAW. Something I wished my 10D would do. If/when I start making more $$$ I'll invest in atleast the 5D.

Also wanted to add, that I just checked out your page. Very nice work! :)

[stevefossimages]

Thanks Vance. Somethin's gotta keep me off the streets. :rolleyes:

[dmp-potn]

Hello,

I shot RAW + jpeg and often if it is just a simple picture and I see nothing wrong with the jpeg, I will use it. Then again I will sometime not like the look of the jpeg and work with the RAW file. I use both formats frequently It's been ages since I shot a jpeg file, and my thinking has been that if I need jpeg files quickly, I can just batch convert them with CFV, DPP, ACR, or Capture One LE using the defaults and get something that's very close to what the in-camera jpeg would have looked like.

If I have some time tomorrow, I may take some raw+jpeg shots and compare the in-camera jpeg's with jpegs that are batch converted from my various raw processing tools with no adjustments. I'm curious to know if anyone else has made this comparison.

If it doesn't take very long to batch convert say 100 raw's to jpeg's and the image quality is the same as in-camera jpegs, just shooting RAW and being able to batch convert later seems to provide most of the advantages of shooting raw+jpeg without the wasted flash card space. Just a thought.

I do agree that if you need images fast in the field, it's probably best to shoot jpeg's. It really depends on the industry.

Our portrait customers are fine with 3 to 7 days turnaround, but comparitively little of time we spend on a client's photos is used for raw conversion. Most of the time is spent culling/ranking/sorting the captures, and cropping/retouching, etc. We'd have to do the same thing for jpeg images, so I don't believe that a jpeg-only workflow would save us much time or disk space.

[TaylorAtCTS]

I suppose if i needed to get some images out very quickly...jpeg might be the way to go. but just as dmp said its not very difficult to batch convert raw files to jpeg for print. I still think thats a better option bc what if your client calls a week later and says: "I LOVE picture #blah but i think its to dark (underexposed), can you please fix that and send me an 8x10 print?"

sure...with a jpeg you could probly help the problem some in photoshop...but with a RAW file you could be able to do so much more...

i dont mind disk space usuage, DVD-Rs arent CHEAP but they arent that bad...

[primoz]

Ok once again, and this time from begining with really basic stuff.... Put lets say 300 photos to card. With jpeg it's one 1gb cards, with raw it's at least 3 cards (at least for my 1dmk2). Copying 1 card takes x seconds, while copying 3 cards takes 3 times x seconds. So without anything else, shooting raw is 3 times slower already. Opening 1mb file takes some time, while opening 10mb file takes a lot more, which on the end adds another x minutes to process. Batch conversion takes another few minutes, which are not neccessary when shooting raw. And on the end you are pretty easy at least half an hour slower, but probably more then just half hour. So when it comes to speed, raw is never option, but it sure is if speed is not main concern.

[tim]

These threads are always funny to watch ;) Just about everyone knows the advantages and disadvantages of each format, the key is choosing the appropriate format for your situation. For me RAW is usually better, since I work in difficult conditions, mixed lighting, and have flexible deadlines from my customers (well, I set the deadlines really). For sports JPG is obviously going to be just about essential for your workflow.

[primoz]

That's what I'm trying too tell. There's no best of all format which would fit every occassion. For something raw is better while jpeg is better for other things. And it's up to photographer to be able to choose right one. And if photographer is good, he (or she) will choose right one for that assignment. If not he (or she) will always use same one and miss lot of stuff.
It really is same thing as question if 15mm lens is better then 300mm lens. It is, if you want wide angle shoots, but I don't think it is, if you want closeup from subject 20m away. Every lens is best for specific shoot, just like every format is best for specific shoot.

[forsaken]

shot RAW for the first time yesterday and I have to say that the flexibilty in post processing is amazing. Time to buy some more cards and shoot RAW exclusively

[UncleDoug]

Wow this blossomed into something over night....
Sport shooters like primoz do definitely have a point regarding file size and speed of delivery right out of the camera. And if JPEG's will undoubtedly cover all of your needs, right on! If you are a "pro" you already know this and have taylored your scenario to fit your exact need. But allot of people are not "pro" and could benefit from RAW, and benefit from knowing what the pros and cons of RAW are, as exemplified by my first post.

Now I have to disagree with some things.

Steve and primoz, not to be snoby here or anything but allot of the clients we deal with would not be satisfied with the JPEG you would provide them for a poster, especially the ski resort referenced above. Heck we can up-rez things no problem, and have even though I've hated it. I print posters and photo enlargements all day, that is my portion of this biz. I'm locked in the cage all day while my partner is "out in the field". So been there and done it for some time as well.;) Viewing distance, intended audience, corporate requirements, etc... all taken into account.

My point was and still is that RAW offers the greatest flexibilty for the widest range of applications. IF the photographer I had referenced above had been shooting RAW this would not have been posted....

[UncleDoug]

Was just talking with a friend that brought up another angle on this.

In his experience shooting snowsports, and golf he has become more aware of clients wanting logo colors spot-on. He prefers RAW bacause of the ability to fulfill corporate colateral requirements for color with a minimum of adjustments. He has found that JPEG's actually take more time to adjust than RAW files in this case.

[PhotosGuy]

I shoot 3 gigs of RAW this weekend & near the end had to switch to jpg to squeeze a few more shots out. Otherwise I'd have had to drive back 150 miles one way to finish the shoot. No big deal as the jpgs are fine.

But I've become lazy with digital & sometimes I screw up. (All together now, every one say "Nooooo!") :D
So, here's one of the reasons why I love RAW! '53 Ford Sunliner (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43761&highlight=sunliner)

[DocFrankenstein]

Good lesson. I always wonder why selecting RAW is such a big deal for some. Computers are fast, cards are cheap, converters are fluent, you have maximum control over presenting your work with wide variety of output formats. Why not?
Because the proud one can get it right "in camera" ;)

Shmancy conversters - who needs them?