Who shoots in Jpeg?

I'm not the photographer, but my wedding was shot entirely in jpeg and I'm very happy with the results. It really depends on the shooter

http://alpha314.net/we​dding/

elrey2375 wrote in post #14583302
People who shoot JPEG are generally looked down on in this forum.

I don't think so. There are legitimate reasons to shoot JPEG, for certain kinds of work in certain situations. Sometimes speed is more important than quality.

Like the high-priced equipment we shoot with, RAW files and conversion software are tools that can help make better images, but only in the hands of someone with the right skills.

Curtis N wrote in post #14584318
I don't think so. There are legitimate reasons to shoot JPEG, for certain kinds of work in certain situations. Sometimes speed is more important than quality.

Like the high-priced equipment we shoot with, RAW files and conversion software are tools that can help make better images, but only in the hands of someone with the right skills.

I don't think you're giving up that much quality. It's all going to end up a JPEG in the end anyway

Oh, God...the RAW religion pops up every few weeks or so. I was a PPA Ceritifed photographer and I only shot JPEG. Gary Fong, who charges $120,000 per wedding, shoots in JPEG with a Fuji point and shoot. You should SEE his enlargements - he doesn't even shoot on FINE quality, he shoots MEDIUM. Another PPA Certified photog I know in Atlanta charges a measly $25,000 per event and HE shoots JPEG. If spoons don't make you fat, RAW doesn't make your photos better. It's just another way for amateurs to try to differentiate themselves from someone else OTHER than their photographic ability. "Your not a PRO if you don't shoot RAW!" is the slogan, and the sheeple believe it.

It shouldn't be a religion. It should be a choice. Now the OP here asked a legitimate question in the hopes that he can make an informed choice.

Like a lot of things in the digital image world (like a color temp shift from a strobe), the differences are measurable. Whether or not they're noticeable by the client is something else entirely.

And certainly plenty of photogs make plenty of money shooting JPEG and using Alienbees. But Profoto strobes and RAW format exist for a reason.

Curtis N wrote in post #14586215
It shouldn't be a religion. It should be a choice. Now the OP here asked a legitimate question in the hopes that he can make an informed choice.

Like a lot of things in the digital image world (like a color temp shift from a strobe), the differences are measurable. Whether or not they're noticeable by the client is something else entirely.

And certainly plenty of photogs make plenty of money shooting JPEG and using Alienbees. But Profoto strobes and RAW format exist for a reason.

Yes, they do. Mostly for those who have more money than sense I don't have anything against RAW, but I won't stand by and be told that people who shoot JPEG are somehow less as a photographer, because that's crap.

Surely there is a place and reason for both.
I usually shooti in RAW, but when I'm shooting local football (soccer) to get pics for the local press and clubs I shoot jpeg, as I am going to have a few hundred shots to wade through and little time to submit.

Surely it is about capturing the image, the method is secondary to the result.

The attitude of those RAW shooters who look down on JPEG users is utterly insulting - I get the feeling that in their eyes we're nothing more than garbage and shouldn't even be allowed near a camera.

Well guess what - who cares what you think? RAW has its advantages, but using it doesn't give you the right to treat JPEG shooters like some lower life form. JPEG is what works for us, RAW is what works for you, so deal with it and stop calling us stupid or ignorant.

This constant RAW vs. JPEG argument just makes me sick.

Tessa wrote in post #14586497
The attitude of those RAW shooters who look down on JPEG users is utterly insulting - I get the feeling that in their eyes we're nothing more than garbage and shouldn't even be allowed near a camera.

Well guess what - who cares what you think? RAW has its advantages, but using it doesn't give you the right to treat JPEG shooters like some lower life form. JPEG is what works for us, RAW is what works for you, so deal with it and stop calling us stupid or ignorant.

This constant RAW vs. JPEG argument just makes me sick.

Reinforcements, finally. Where the hell you guys been

elrey2375 wrote in post #14586546
Reinforcements, finally. Where the hell you guys been

Pretty early on actually.
Tessa joined this thread before you and I was only a couple of posts after that.
I just chose not to get embroiled in a pointless bunfight on a topic that gets rehashed time and again with the same result - I made my point.
I said what I shoot - jpeg - and I don't have to justify it to anyone except myself and I don't care what anyone else shoots. It doesn't affect my images.

I'll care about whether an image is shot in jpeg or raw the nano second I can look at an image in print and say unequivoccally what format it originally started as.
Until then, I don't give a toss.

Now, would anyone like some popcorn.
Someone else get the drinks and choc-tops.
If someone feels they are better off shooting raw, more power to them. If somebody else feels they are better off with jpeg, more power to them.

I just want to point out that this discussion was a perfectly reasonable discussion of the merits of both RAW and JPEG until "Raw is a crutch"

I shoot what serves my purpose. RAW allows me more latitude in post. JPEG lets me shoot faster, store more, and have to process less.

Sorry didn't mean to start a war lol
From my personal experience with what I opened with, I won't have any issue switching to Jpeg in the future when runnin low on memory, results speak for themselves

MattPharmD wrote in post #14587053
I just want to point out that this discussion was a perfectly reasonable discussion of the merits of both RAW and JPEG until "Raw is a crutch"

I shoot what serves my purpose. RAW allows me more latitude in post. JPEG lets me shoot faster, store more, and have to process less.

perfect answer.

MattPharmD wrote in post #14587053
I just want to point out that this discussion was a perfectly reasonable discussion of the merits of both RAW and JPEG until "Raw is a crutch"

I shoot what serves my purpose. RAW allows me more latitude in post. JPEG lets me shoot faster, store more, and have to process less.

A perfectly 'reasonable' discussion about RAW and Jpeg is like the Easter Bunny, doesn't exist. You can blame me if you wish, but it was going south anyway, they always do.

philwillmedia wrote in post #14587046
Pretty early on actually.
Tessa joined this thread before you and I was only a couple of posts after that.
I just chose not to get embroiled in a pointless bunfight on a topic that gets rehashed time and again with the same result - I made my point.
I said what I shoot - jpeg - and I don't have to justify it to anyone except myself and I don't care what anyone else shoots. It doesn't affect my images.

I'll care about whether an image is shot in jpeg or raw the nano second I can look at an image in print and say unequivoccally what format it originally started as.
Until then, I don't give a toss.

Now, would anyone like some popcorn.
Someone else get the drinks and choc-tops.
If someone feels they are better off shooting raw, more power to them. If somebody else feels they are better off with jpeg, more power to them.

THIS is the perfect answer. I don't give a crap what anyone shoots either.