anyone gone back to jpeg after shooting raw

picturecrazy wrote in post #3319683
Hard Drive serial numbers in RAW? Ugly wiring setups in RAW? Quick snaps for email in RAW? Are you joking??

So the term L-snob has been coined here.

Is there such a thing as RAW-snob?? LOL

No joking here. You said it yourself that you have forgotten to set your camera back to RAW after shooting something in JPEG. Why take that chance? So I have a couple pics in RAW that I most likely will never do anything with. Oh no, a couple megs of hard disk space, gone forever. Better than a whole shoot shot in JPEG and wishing I would have shot RAW. Call me a RAW snob if you like, I don't mind.

lightingup wrote in post #3319701
I went out and took some Raw pics... and then I found that my computer let me download them, but I couldn't even view them. I tried opening them in Adobe Photoshop Elements 3.0 and it would only let me change basic things... (color and contrast) couldn't edit them to the extent I need to. I have only shot jpeg and I REALLY want to swich after reading this forum! Is there something vital I need to change? Someone help please.

You need software that can read the RAW files. Your camera came with a program called DPP (Digtial Photo Professional). Install that and you should be able to view your images now.

In2Photos wrote in post #3319796
No joking here. You said it yourself that you have forgotten to set your camera back to RAW after shooting something in JPEG. Why take that chance? So I have a couple pics in RAW that I most likely will never do anything with. Oh no, a couple megs of hard disk space, gone forever. Better than a whole shoot shot in JPEG and wishing I would have shot RAW. Call me a RAW snob if you like, I don't mind.

Ditto...I KNOW I'd make that mistake too many times to be worth the trouble of shooting a couple of extra RAW shots that could have been jpegs.

I even shoot my f22 sky sensor check shots in raw.

Yes there is such a thing as a RAW-snob - count me into the RAW-snob group.

But wait, I have reasons:

1) I'm too lazy to go back and forth, changing the camera,

2) If an image is worth capturing, it's worth putting the best into it,

3) If an image isn't worth capturing, the shutter button doesn't get pressed (I often look in the viewfinder first).

4) Why waste shutter actuations? In 45 years of film, every shot cost something - it still does.

Personally I don't care if someone uses JPEG, or throws snowballs at airplanes, or uses Nikons. It's not my fault - so there.:p

LightInspire wrote in post #3321040
Exactly. I now use CS3 and open my jpeg's in the RAW module and you can make the same adustments without hurting the original image, just like Raw..I did a test in raw and jpeg and in CS3 I was able to do a +4 exposure adjustment to my purposely underexposed jpeg file, to bring out the detail and highlights..and again I could use the Light Recovery selection to recover any washed out highlights. My exposures are not perfect but don't need to be with CS3 now. I will only do raw in very dark situations if I think I will need more than a +4 adjustment but other than that, I'm shooting jpeg..I love the way the camera processes the image. I paid good money for my camera and the technology in it so why not use it all? I opened and saved the same file up to 7 times without seeing any problems..it is jpeg for me, bye bye RAW..why shoot raw to do all the processing yourself when with a few test shots your camera can do the same job if not better.

Well you really aren't using it all then. The sensor on your camera is capable of recording 12-bits of data, yet you use JPEG which only captures 8-bits. Are you sure you completely understand the RAW format?

For the last part I will refer you to my signature. The camera has yet to really make an image that comes anywhere close to what I can accomplish in a minute or two in LR.

In2Photos wrote in post #3323521
Well you really aren't using it all then. The sensor on your camera is capable of recording 12-bits of data, yet you use JPEG which only captures 8-bits.

...and then you reduce the image back down to 8 bits so that your lab can print it.

This is a never ending debate. I shoot professionally, and I shoot jpegs. This includes studio work. When testing for large prints (24x30) we tested RAW, jpeg large, medium and small. At 24x30 we could see NO difference between RAW, large and medium. We chose to go with jpeg medium because it saves space, processes faster, and the lab does not get bogged down with huge file sizes.

But, that is me. I am not going to try and tell a RAW shooter that he/she needs to shoot in jpeg. For my own personal work I still shoot RAW. It is all a matter of need.

rabidcow wrote in post #3323604
...and then you reduce the image back down to 8 bits so that your lab can print it.

This is a never ending debate. I shoot professionally, and I shoot jpegs. This includes studio work. When testing for large prints (24x30) we tested RAW, jpeg large, medium and small. At 24x30 we could see NO difference between RAW, large and medium. We chose to go with jpeg medium because it saves space, processes faster, and the lab does not get bogged down with huge file sizes.

But, that is me. I am not going to try and tell a RAW shooter that he/she needs to shoot in jpeg. For my own personal work I still shoot RAW. It is all a matter of need.

I agree with all of your points. I was merely pointing out that the previous poster said they were wanting to get what they paid for from their camera.

I would also point out that shooting studio work is a controlled environment. I don't know if you shoot other types of work but this can play a huge role in the decision to shoot RAW or jpeg. I do not shoot professionally. My shooting typically goes from indoors to outside, back to indoors, outside to shade, back to indoors, etc. Changing the WB or setting a custom WB is not an option for me as these can occur rather quickly. So as you mentioned it is all a mtter of need.

Dan-o wrote in post #3320150
I even shoot my f22 sky sensor check shots in raw.

And I thought I was the only one that did that!

davidcrebelxt wrote in post #3318620
Get happy with the post button there?

Alot of times I'm shooting family/vacation/etc where others want to see the images right away. I find using jpeg to be much quicker (for me) for several reasons:

1) RAW in ACR/LR often needs processed to get colors/contrast, etc right... Jpeg from camera already has most of this right for quick viewing. Even in DPP the initial conversion can seem "flat" without a little bit of boost.

2) Easier to set up a simple slideshow for others to view, using almost any slideshow software.

3) When shooting at friend/relative's house who does not have RAW processing software already installed, and we wish to review the pictures.

While most of us here can probably look at a RAW image without adjustment and visualize how we can develop it... I don't expect others to be able to do that... they may often look at it and say the colors look off, or flat etc, and be distracted by that.

My browser was just spinning its wheels not posting so I hit the submit button a few more times Took me like 20 minutes to delete the extra messages things were going so slow.

Your points are quite valid. It has been so long since I used adobe bridge to look at my raw pics that I forgot about the flat look and goofy colours it chooses. But you are absolutely right, I remember it frustrating me and it was also slow to go from one pic to the next. I been using Digikam now for awhile and not only is it MUCH faster than bridge in viewing the photos, it also renders them very nicely in the preview with good colours and contrast.

Sathi wrote in post #3325846
My browser was just spinning its wheels not posting so I hit the submit button a few more times Took me like 20 minutes to delete the extra messages things were going so slow.

I been using Digikam now for awhile and not only is it MUCH faster than bridge in viewing the photos, it also renders them very nicely in the preview with good colours and contrast.

I noticed server busy errors that day too; I've done the same thing.

Ahh... linux.
Just wish it was colormanaged!

Maybe one day the labs will accept DNG files.... then you could convert RAW to DNG and get it printed, bypassing JPG.

A lot of people here seem to have the impression that doing RAW-like operations on jpegs in LR/CS3 is exactly the same as performing them on RAW files. This is not the case.

From my understanding, in the jpeg case, all the program is doing is tweaking the curves on the 8-bit data from the jpegs. However, in the RAW case, the program is actually adjusting the sensor data from the RAW file.

Example 1: Changing exposure
JPEG: Edit the curves to remap the tones.
RAW: Adjusts the gain from the sensor data. (In effect, changing the ISO).

Example 2: Adjusting WB
JPEG: Edit the curves to eliminate colour casts.
RAW: Adjusts the white point from the sensor data.

What's the advantage of adjusting sensor data? First of all, you have more bits to play with (12 instead of 8) which means posterisation issues are reduced. Also, every time you adjust the curves, you're losing tonal information. More importantly, adjusting RAW data means you're not adjusting lossy data. You're not adjusting curves on jpeg artifacts.

Now, I agree that for all intents and purposes, you can stick with whatever you're comfortable with (jpeg or raw), and only experience will determine what you can/cannot do in PP. However, there will be times when you come across a difficult/pathological scenario and it's in times like these that I'll always stick with RAW.