Does anyone NOT shoot RAW???

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18460473
It was nearly 100 deg, and the lady's feet already were hurting, so I didn't mess with metering or settings to adjust for the sky in the background, or flash, I just made sure they walked down the path, and I took several shots as they approached, knowing that I would need to go to the raw. This isn't my first rodeo. I use raw as a tool, sometimes it's faster just to know I can rely on the raw instead of adjusting my settings, especially since it was a long hot day, and we needed to get inside. Again, I ALWAYS shoot both, so that I have the raw to fall back on, especially if I have high DR scenes and am pushing up against the right side as it is.

I certainly see no reason to run a tool on my raw files to extract JPGs out, I fail to see why I should introduce such an arbitrary step in my processing. There is no advantage for me to do so. I am still trying to figure that one out. I suppose if I was on a long trip and didn't have the ability to pull files off onto a laptop, then I would shoot just raw to save space. However, I would probably bring about 20 cards with me as well, so I am back to square one on that topic.

Here is the JPG from the camera settings, and then some quick tweaks in DPP on the raw. It took less time to run a few sliders and a curve on about 4 images from that part of the venue, then it would have to try to nail it exactly right in the camera. I always juggle whether I want to play with settings during the shoot or whether I want to fix up things in post, as I shoot. That works for me, may not for others. I could have fixed the left JPG in post, but it is faster and I seem to get better results fixing things in raw, then slight modifications in JPG/post. I wanted to keep the blue sky, and I actually plan on going back to the raw later tonight to do a bit more tweaking.

Hosted photo: posted by TeamSpeed in
./showthread.php?p=184​60473&i=i77682336
forum: RAW, Post Processing & Printing

I hated sunny days with lots of trees around and sometimes there was just not enough time to work around it.

I learned about RAW around 2007 and have never taken my cameras out of RAW.

I got my wife an S100 and make her shoot out of green box (mostly P) because I was fed up of losing shots or having shots that looked crap and I couldn't do anything with. Yea, maybe a crutch for her, but actually a lot of those shots were not exposed incorrectly - after all she could see the LCD and I showed her exposure compensation. But you know what, she wanted shots of the kids etc.. in very unoptimal light. Gosh the nerve of not carrying a flash and diffuser.

I shoot old cameras with old JPG engines. So I shoot RAW.

I have however been looking for a modern every-day-camera to do simple JPG shots, to minimize processing/workflow for personal purposes. But my 10+ year old JPG engine cameras are not for that.

When in doubt, shoot RAW+JPG. I look back and wish I had done that on many occasions when I shot a bunch of JPG's early on. Could have saved some memories.

Very best,

I bought a little G12 in Dec of 2010. I didn't even know it could shoot RAW until I stumbled across POTN in May of 2011 and a few very nice people here took me under their wing and helped me figure things out.

I've been shooting raw since then. For a while, I was shooting both RAW and .jpg but just RAW for a while now, I guess. I don't have to deliver professional photographs to clients so I have more time than some people, I'm sure. Post Processing can get tedious sometimes but the results are more pleasing to me than when I was just shooting .jpg. Of course, I do hope I've grown a bit since then so perhaps my .jpgs would be better now.

I end up making a .jpg file when I'm done editing a photograph anyway so I can email it, post it, what have you. I keep a final .tiff and .jpg file of my keepers as well as the original .dng file. Well, I guess .dng files aren't the actual originals.

I've become "jpeg tolerant" in the last few years.

I used to shoot only raw, but the truth is that I was shooting with older cameras in difficult conditions, and felt that I NEEDED every byte of data for the best results.

Now I am shooting 5D4 primarily with a nice dose of 7D2 thrwn in, and frankly the 5D4 is so far beyond the old 1D2s etc.. I used to shoot, that I can absolutely "get by" just fine with jpeg.

I still shoot RAW when I am truly invested.

Phoenixkh wrote in post #18472291
I bought a little G12 in Dec of 2010. I didn't even know it could shoot RAW until I stumbled across POTN in May of 2011 and a few very nice people here took me under their wing and helped me figure things out.

I've been shooting raw since then. For a while, I was shooting both RAW and .jpg but just RAW for a while now, I guess. I don't have to deliver professional photographs to clients so I have more time than some people, I'm sure. Post Processing can get tedious sometimes but the results are more pleasing to me than when I was just shooting .jpg. Of course, I do hope I've grown a bit since then so perhaps my .jpgs would be better now.

I end up making a .jpg file when I'm done editing a photograph anyway so I can email it, post it, what have you. I keep a final .tiff and .jpg file of my keepers as well as the original .dng file. Well, I guess .dng files aren't the actual originals.

I would be very careful about converting RAW files to DNG. DNG is not necessarily as widely supported as Adobe would like. I remember that in the early days a lot of software would only support DNG's that had been created in camera. I just downloaded the free version of DXO 11 that is currently on offer. DXO doesn't support DNG full stop. I recently shot the Duxford airshow, and I used Magic Lanterns DualISO feature, which requires pre-processing to a DNG before conversion. They just show up in DXO as white, all 5000+ of them from the two days. I'll be converting in Lr so it's not really a problem, but it would have been nice to see what DXO could offer. So personally even if I were using dng as my working format I would also keep the original RAW file archived. They may well have better general compatibility than a converted DNG.

Alan

BigAl007 wrote in post #18472378
I would be very careful about converting RAW files to DNG. DNG is not necessarily as widely supported as Adobe would like. I remember that in the early days a lot of software would only support DNG's that had been created in camera. I just downloaded the free version of DXO 11 that is currently on offer. DXO doesn't support DNG full stop. I recently shot the Duxford airshow, and I used Magic Lanterns DualISO feature, which requires pre-processing to a DNG before conversion. They just show up in DXO as white, all 5000+ of them from the two days. I'll be converting in Lr so it's not really a problem, but it would have been nice to see what DXO could offer. So personally even if I were using dng as my working format I would also keep the original RAW file archived. They may well have better general compatibility than a converted DNG.

Alan

You're probably right. I started doing the .dng conversion because I bought several books about lightroom and photoshop and all the authors made that suggestion. Of course, they either work for Adobe or are on friendly terms with them so I should have taken that with a grain of salt.

Thanks

BigAl007 wrote in post #18472378
I would be very careful about converting RAW files to DNG. DNG is not necessarily as widely supported as Adobe would like. ..

Also, DNG is not yet a standard as tiff of jpeg are. It looks to be headed that way but funny things happen along the standard process as everyone weighs in with their needs.