jpeg or raw

I want to focus on and improve my landscape shots. Should I shoot in raw or large jpeg? Just got my Lee filter kit which includes holder, both hard and soft .6 GND and a CPL so I think I am ready to go. I will be focusing mostly with seascapes to start using my new 10-22 and my 17-55. Appreciate your thooughts and comments.

Always get the most data you can in your images files That means shot raw files from which you can easily make JPG, TIFF, PSD, or other formats using post processing tools.

With the gear and lenses you have, if you want to get the most out of your images I would suggest investing in a decent raw converter such as LR and shooting raw.

Personally I can't stand DPP and if it were the only option I'd think twice about shooting raw.

Do you sell your photos or print them on large posters?

If they're mostly for the web, I wouldn't deal with the hassle of RAW. JPG are small, fast, and ready to edit/send/etc.

I would just shoot in raw simply because there is no good reason anymore not to. The time it takes to process them is negligible and memory is cheap these days. I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

ejenner wrote in post #14272747
Personally I can't stand DPP and if it were the only option I'd think twice about shooting raw.

Funny, I can't stand how complicated LR makes managing and editing my images. To top it off, LR makes worse looking images than even the built in JPEG engine. Good thing we have options, but I'd recommend people at least start with the free stuff.

As to the OP, it's all up to you if you want to shoot RAW. With the filters, etc, you plan to use, it seems you are going to take great care to maximize quality. IF that is the case, extend it all the way to the end image with a RAW editor that lets you get the best quality.

That said, I have recently switched to using JPEG for most shots and save RAW for the ones that I know will need editing. I hate having to manage multiple versions and formats for day-to-day shots that are just going on flickr or facebook, or nowhere. Sister's engagement shoot was RAW, kids outing at the park, JPEG. That kind of stuff. If I made a special hike and got up at 6am for a sunrise, I'd be shooting RAW.

I have about 6000 jpg's that just pi$$ me off every time I need one of them. I wish someone would have hit me over the head and said "Hey idiot! You're going to regret this later." I convert RAW's to jpg all the time but, I will never shoot in jpg again. If you need proof, shoot a scene with some great contrasty clouds in raw+jpg. Try to recover the blown highlites in the jpg. After that doesn't work, try it with the raw image. Look at all the detail you can recover with a little PP on a raw.

Bob

tkbslc wrote in post #14274799
Funny, I can't stand how complicated LR makes managing and editing my images. To top it off, LR makes worse looking images than even the built in JPEG engine.

Well, I don't have LR, but Bibble which is (I think) even more clunky.

But I did get into digital BECAUSE of the ability to PP and am not PP-ing just because I'm shooting digital. If you find the SOOC .jpegs OK, then well, fine. I'm guessing it has much to do with your subject matter. I often find I'm either right on the edge of DR trying to recover highlights or also often with limited DR in the image so the shot comes out very, very flat without PP (IMO they really need an auto-levels and auto-contrast option in SOOC .jpegs - true for compacts too).

An advantage to being in the Mac world...you can go either for with the Adobe set (PSE, LR, PS5) or you can do Aperture from Apple as your basic raw processor and organizer. To either you can add plugins from Nik, Topaz...etc.

Compared to the cost of camera bodies and good lenses, post processing software (i.e. LR and Aperture) are relatively inexpensive. With PS5 the cost starts to get serious.

RAW RAW RAW ONLY!

ejenner wrote in post #14272747
With the gear and lenses you have, if you want to get the most out of your images I would suggest investing in a decent raw converter such as LR and shooting raw.

Personally I can't stand DPP and if it were the only option I'd think twice about shooting raw.

At least you still have the option of adjusting WB, contrast, saturation and exposure in DPP in the event any or all of those were not what you wanted in camera.

letsbewild wrote in post #14274766
I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

That's my philosophy too. I'm still learning to PP, but I figure at least I can always go back later once I learn more and use newly learned techniques on old RAW files.

windpig wrote in post #14285883
At least you still have the option of adjusting WB, contrast, saturation and exposure in DPP in the event any or all of those were not what you wanted in camera.

Yea, I lied. I would still shoot raw if all I had was DPP. I just don't really want to think about actually doing it.