You really trust yourself if you shoot raw don't you?

I'm afraid if I shoot RAW that my skills may not be good enough to make the pictures great like they are on here. I know practice makes perfect but I'm a little timid about it.

edit: I don't want to lose that great shot.

You have it backwards. I only shoot in jpeg when I know for sure that my exposure and white balance are perfect.

That's right...you got it backwards.
Ya' still gotta make good exposures or at least a range of exposures to blend together but how it all winds up looking is in your hands, not the camera

Shoot both until you are comfortable.

Lightroom can take a lot of the worry out of shooting RAW.

RAW will give you more room to correct the picture.

For those just learning and starting with Raw, the Canon Raw processing software Digital Photo Professional is a "must have" -- not just because it is free, but because it gives you a jpeg-like image preview as a "starting point" in developing your Raw photos and from there you are free to play around to learn to enhance the photos.

Take your time! Raw processing is superior to just having jpegs if you understand what you are doing and are shooting scenes that benefit from the strengths of the Raw format, just take your time to read up on things and practice. In DPP it can be as quick as just applying a Picture Style (either in your camera or in your computer) and then doing a quick conversion to a needed output, but keep playing around to get the best.

If you haven't already, check out our RAW Conversion Thread for some cool samples of what can be done.

No, but I trust the camera even less.

If you are worried, you will have two safety nets. First, DPP at default settings will produce exactly the same jpg that the camera would have made. And second, within every RAW file there is an embedded jpg and there are lots of applications, some of them free, that will extract it. Its size depends on the model, in my 40D it is half (linearly) the native size while in my 5D2 it is full sized (which I consider unfortunate but others appreciate it).

bexi20 wrote in post #11984962
RAW will give you more room to correct the picture.

It's not just to "correct" the picture, it's PROCESSING the raw data from the bayer sensor and demosaicing it into a proper viewable image.

The camera's JPG processor can do this for you, but I prefer to retain control over this process.

It's like dropping your film off at the drug store (in-camera JPGs) vs. developing it yourself in your darkroom (raw)

I think that one thing we all assume is that everyone with a digital camera even CARES about quality to the same degree that we (who frequent POTN) care about it.

I went to Yosemite in January, as part of a large group of 'extended family'...close friends from college with small children enjoying the snow back 30 years ago, and now close friends with grown children who have small children of their own. Lots of picture taking, and electronic sharing via web or CD/DVD. Due to the snow conditions and the lack of using EC to compensate for the bright scene, many shots that were posted by people were underexposed and posted exactly as shot, without PP adjustment -- because the shooter simply did not care and did not have PP software to brighten the shots before posting!

If you care about IQ, RAW gives more range of adjustment to correct errors, than JPG does.

Wilt wrote in post #11987345
I think that one thing we all assume is that everyone with a digital camera even CARES about quality to the same degree that we (who frequent POTN) care about it.

I went to Yosemite in January, as part of a large group of 'extended family'...close friends from college with small children enjoying the snow back 30 years ago, and now close friends with grown children who have small children of their own. Lots of picture taking, and electronic sharing via web or CD/DVD. Due to the snow conditions and the lack of using EC to compensate for the bright scene, many shots that were posted by people were underexposed and posted exactly as shot, without PP adjustment -- because the shooter simply did not care and did not have PP software to brighten the shots before posting!

If you care about IQ, RAW gives more range of adjustment to correct errors, than JPG does.

As a long time photo enthusiast I feel so very sad seeing how, with cameras now pocketable and included everywhere - from mobile phones to ballpoint pens - the weight has switched from image quality to image availability.

What counts now, is being able to shoot just anything, anywhere, at any moment. That's all the fun. A true inflation in the photographic world. The pictures are being proudly sent around in the same horrible state they came out, straight from whatever produced them.

With my young ones, I'm endeavouring to change that, but nobody listens (of course!).

agedbriar wrote in post #11989321
As a long time photo enthusiast I feel so very sad seeing how, with cameras now pocketable and included everywhere - from mobile phones to ballpoint pens - the weight has switched from image quality to image availability.

Does "long time" go back to the '70s and '80s? I'd say that the mix of P&S cameras vs SLR cameras was about the same then as it it today. I'd also say that a very large percentage of people back then were shooting consumer grade film and taking it to the local drug store or Fotomat to be developed and printed at 4x6" regardless of whether they were using a P&S or an SLR.

set your camera to "RAW + JPEG" and slowly transition yourself. you'll still have your JPEG, but you'll also have a RAW file to play around with, and then compare to the JPEG.

it will eat up your memory card in terms of storing duplicate files, but then memory is cheap, and moments can be fleeting.

PWard wrote in post #11989539
set your camera to "RAW + JPEG" and slowly transition yourself. you'll still have your JPEG, but you'll also have a RAW file to play around with, and then compare to the JPEG.

it will eat up your memory card in terms of storing duplicate files, but then memory is cheap, and moments can be fleeting.

To me the solution to Raw/jpeg clutter is simple shoot Raw only and use DPP for a quick conversion of shots that you want to share.

krb wrote in post #11989447
Does "long time" go back to the '70s and '80s? I'd say that the mix of P&S cameras vs SLR cameras was about the same then as it it today. I'd also say that a very large percentage of people back then were shooting consumer grade film and taking it to the local drug store or Fotomat to be developed and printed at 4x6" regardless of whether they were using a P&S or an SLR.

I think one significant difference between back then and now, is that the majority of errors in exposure or bad color balance with exposing color negative film were generally fixed during printing by the automated processing and printing systems and the attendants operating them. Junk went in, and came out looking reasonably good. Now there is no attempt to fix...junk goes in, and junk comes out and gets sent to friends or posted on Facebook and Twitter.