White balance and the wildlife photographer

[jsinon]

How many of you actually use a gray card etc. to set white balance while out shooting wildlife/nature? I ask because I'm happy with the way the "cloudy" WB I have my 40D set to makes my pictures look. The other reason I ask is because I'm contemplating switching to jpeg for some of my wildlife shooting. Before it get out of hand like I know it will, I know the "benefits" of raw and that is all I've shot since I got my camera but I want to see if I can simplify my workflow a little and speed things up and increase the number of images I can get on a card while shooting some fast moving critters.

[scrumpy]

I too like the "Cloudy" effect, seems to warm-up the image, but I have never used a grey/gray cards. I think I would if the Whibal was available in UK.

(Just read you can order Whibal from their website to be shipped to UK)

As for shooting in jpeg, I never have done. But when the better weather arrives I might give it a go.

[jsinon]

I was just looking at the images here, http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=530472&highlight=jpeg+july and reading the related thread http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=530499&highlight=jpeg+july and it is really pushing me to the dark(jpeg) side.:D

[condyk]

With cards so cheap I see zero benefit of shooting JPG unless you want simple/bulk processing ... but then the quality of each shot becomes potentially compromised. Personally, I find WB to be the most important adjustment to a RAW file once you have good gear ... sharpness is often not needed with good exposure and sharp lenses. I imported the Whi-Bal and it is very easy and useful and I wouldn't shoot jpg without it, but I shoot RAW only these days and adjust by eye so not needed. I guess the only way for you to know is to try shooting jpg. I just think there are too many downers.

[BradM]

I have shot raw and I have shot jpeg and with the exception of pulling up an exposure or adjusting WB then there is no real benefit. So if I get it right to begin with then I see no real benefit in raw for the prints or shots I put up on the web.

Some might say I am losing detail or handicapping myself by shooting jpeg, I don't see it and if one looks through my wildlife shots I think they might be challenged to find an image that might have been better shot as raw.

On the WB question I adjust to the conditions but have never used the gray card for wildlife.

[Tom Reichner]

Hello, jsinon!
I used to shoot only jpeg because my old laptop didn't accept RAW files. Bad choice on my part. I should have figured out what software I needed and gotten it so that my pc could handle RAW. Now I regret having shot jpegs. There are so many images that I simply can't use now because of loss of detail and sharpness.
If you view your images on a very large high resolution monitor or print them out nice and big (16x20, 20x30, etc) to enter in competitions or to frame and sell in galleries, then jpeg just won't do it - especially if you're competing against other images that were shot in RAW. I could never go back to jpegs unless it's just for shooting high school/college sports for my local newspaper or something like that.

[Dave 1942]

I started out shooting jpeg files. Then I went to RAW files and immeadiately noticed that my images looked better once I processed them.. In addition, a lot of publishers want RAW or TIFF files for their submissions. Some will take jpeg, but I think that is going to change..

Dave