No more RAW for me!

After years of using jpg, raw and jpg+raw settings I have concluded jpg is the mode for me. Why?

1- I hate processing. I come from the film days and spent ages in the darkroom, but I don't like tweaking files. I hated trying to rescue poor photos in the darkroom as well. I find an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. I would rather focus my energy on the best possible original than on salvaging files with issues.

2- I don't care about rescuing poor photos. Nobody is paying me for them so I prefer to just delete them. The overhead that comes with shooting everything raw just in case I need it is a cost to me which is far too high.

3- raw files take up too much space on the camera and computer. Space is cheap but not free and the huge file size differential does not justify it. This is why I didn't like raw+jpg setting either.

4-raw format has issues with sharing and long term conversion.

5- I really prefer the in camera jpg conversion for speed and convenience, including fps speed.

Thanks!

Hmm -- you haven't invited input or discussion, so I won't wade in, but to give the impression that Raw is just about "fixing"/"rescuing poor photos" is just...wrong and misleading.

There, I said, it, no quibbling from me, it's your choice and your photography.

With camera and lenses you have - I'm not surprised.

I actually love RAW format, and really hate JPEG. It's everyone's opinion. I like that tweak ability of RAW format and then you can save to JPEG and delete all the RAW files after you are done with tweaking and editing. For me to edit one pic (mostly color tweak a bit and some other stuff) takes 2-5 mins tops which is not a lot.

I think they both have their place, but whatever works

I want maximum and backed control of every image. I need to be able to change camera profiles to find the best fit for an image and it matters in my work.

After years of cooking, I have concluded cooking is not for me. I only eat raw foods now. If they are not fresh, I will not eat. In fact, I have no kitchen or toilet. All waste go to the soil directly.

The jpeg conversion got a lot better in newer cameras. It used to to very wacky things. Some pictures could look like a very had eventone mod had been applied. These days are mostly over, but there are edge cases where the jpeg conversion still tries to do you favors you don't want.

The major problem I have that I will use raws on if if I'm unsure what the correct white balance will be, if I think there might be image areas at the edge of overexposure but I can't dial down exposure because I figure I might want to recover dark areas later. A jpeg that has incorrect white balance but has near-clipped exposure somewhere is very hard to fix.

My major problem with raw is that I think dpp's UI is bad, but if I use anything else I don't get Canon's noise reduction. Canon's noise reduction is the best I have ever seen, I wish I could have that in a standalone program. In any case, this lead me drift back to using the 5d2 more, because with that body you can often live without NR.

wlachan, what's the purpose of that junk post? Trying to make a name as a troll? Or is that some attempt at being funny? Didn't work.

turbo_911 wrote in post #13312241
I actually love RAW format, and really hate JPEG. It's everyone's opinion.

I don't think that absolutely everyone shares that opinion, certainly not the OP.

There is a time and place for both formats. I've never understood the reason for shooting RAW and JPG at the same time other than it can save you some time.

Certainly RAW can and is used to save less than stellar photos but it goes much beyond this. It is really a personal choice and the OP has made his and I don't believe that he should be chastised for it. I shoot JPG when I know I only have a short period of time after the conclusion of the shoot to deliver the images. I doubt that you will find very many experienced press photographers shooting RAW. They have tight deadlines and having to do the conversion process just ads to that. I shoot most of my weddings in JPG. I am comfortable in exposure and other settings. If I don't have to spend the time to make the conversion it saves me lots of time I can be doing other things. However, if I am i a difficult lighting situation I will switch over to RAW so that I can play with the temperature and other sliders without any loss. I know I can do this in JPG too but in RAW it is just better.

The key to a smart photographer is knowing when to use which format. I personally don't agree with those that say I will never shoot RAW or vice versus but I respect their opinion to do so.

wlachan wrote in post #13312744
After years of cooking, I have concluded cooking is not for me. I only eat raw foods now. If they are not fresh, I will not eat. In fact, I have no kitchen or toilet. All waste go to the soil directly.

I don't "get" the analogy here.

To me a better one would be "I quit cooking my own food -- I prefer now to head over to a nearby chain restaurant that serves good food -- I can put together an order that I know will make me happy".

Like most analogies not perfect...

One that I prefer: shooting and developing Raw files is a parallel to bringing undeveloped film into a darkroom and doing your own developing -- the darkroom was a big part of the Ansel Adams approach to photography, and for us Raw shooters, we get the full benefits of the "digital darkroom". Shooting jpeg is trusting an "automatic" process for developing your film, I mean, your Raw image, to produce a "cooked" jpeg. It's great when it works well, except it's not good in handling high dynamic range scenes, and you give up the flexibility of Raw and the Raw processors.

But, I have no problem supporting jpeg shooters, heck, I shot jpegs for years! And, I can help jpeg shooters with advice particular to jpeg shooting -- to "get it right in-camera"! Whether it be a newbie or a seasoned photographer who has fond good reason and use for shooting jpegs, I have no problem, and hope they are successful!

I have to say I rarely use raw,. dont know if its my older camera but even processed the images dont seem right.. another big reason I dont shoot raws is I would rather have 1000 photos on a card then 120... and that 120 would take longer to process then the said 1000 photos..

ssim wrote in post #13312869
I don't think that absolutely everyone shares that opinion, certainly not the OP.

There is a time and place for both formats. I've never understood the reason for shooting RAW and JPG at the same time other than it can save you some time.

Heh! A funny story -- I decided a couple times to shoot Raw+jpeg at a couple sports situations. I didn't have any kind of deadline so I figured "whatever". I normally (that is, always by habit) shoot Raw, and was quite comfortable with my Lightroom workflow. So, I import, well, for each occasion I had somewhere between 500 and 1,000 "duplicate" images. The first time they were all loaded on one CF card. Well, wht a mess! It didn't take long to just delete the jpegs. The second time was on a "backup" SD card, but once I loaded the Raw files into LR I quickly decided I didn't need the backups.

So, I figured "enough of that"!

And then, gosh, maybe just a couple days ago someone here was asking advice about approaching photos from a vacation where each evening the photos would need to be quickly uploaded to a Web site, preferably with no need for processing/converting, so my advice was to shoot Raw+Small jpeg, upload the jpegs, store the Raw file for safekeeping, and get some sleep!

It's funny -- a year ago I was asked to do a spur-of-the-moment trip to a friend's house to some casual shooting at a Halloween party. I grabbed my 1D3, a flash, and a couple lenses and dashed off. When I arrived, things were somewhat crowded and fast-moving, so I quickly set up my camera settings and just began firing away.

I got back home and did some quick processing, and then, at some point, I realized that I had done the shooting in jpeg! I had been testing out something with the camera and had forgot to reset it in Raw!

Now, the photos weren't "ruined", in fact I think they all came out nicely! In fact, for that type of shooting I could typically shoot jpegs, because even though I expose in manual for the ambient light and so indoor tungsten lamps can be "bright", they can at the same time be manageable! But, by habit, I just never even think of switching to jpeg. Most of the time my photography is outdoors in all types of conditions and Raw is my friend!

mikeb540 wrote in post #13312920
I have to say I rarely use raw,. dont know if its my older camera but even processed the images dont seem right.. another big reason I dont shoot raws is I would rather have 1000 photos on a card then 120... and that 120 would take longer to process then the said 1000 photos..

Hmm -- have you tried the Canon Raw processor Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? I ask, because by design DPP uses your in-camera Picture Style and other settings to render a "jpeg-like" preview, and then because it's Raw you have the full liberty to "play around" with things, or, if you like the default, all you have to do is Convert and Save (or Bath process) to come up with jpegs...

Surely the key points are

1. RAW is not compressed whereas JPG is.
2. JPG takes up less space.

So, if you are going to do a lot of post processing, RAW may result in fewer artifacts. If you get the exposure and WB right in camera then JPG has the advantage of smaller files thus taking up less space and being faster to write or download to a laptop.

That is probably why most studio photographers shoot RAW and most sports photographers shoot JPG.