anyone gone back to jpeg after shooting raw

LightInspire wrote in post #3350582
Nothing different than shooting jpeg that is processed by the camera or a jpeg resulting from processed raw that you did yourself..it is all the same..

Except that I would never convert a special image to jpg, only 16 bit tif. Sure, routine stuff gets a few tweaks and then is batched to jpg, but the things I really care about get the treatment they deserve.

ssim wrote in post #3316496
If you nail your exposure then shooting RAW doesn't have as much value.

That's what photograghy is all about. Working to get that perfect shot. Not fixing the shot after you mess it up.

Reading through the responses here it is evident that in most cases, which it should be, the choice to shoot RAW provides a peace of mind and it is a personal choice.

Is one person more right because they shoot RAW, certainly not in my books. Just like the JPG shooter is not more correct. In the end it is what works for you and the intended final audience. If shooting RAW gives the photographer that peace of mind or that extra little bit of confidence then that is what they should do.

However, don't shoot RAW with the attitude that I will get it close and fix it later in post processing. You will not progress as a photographer with this approach. You will however become very experienced at RAW conversions and photoshop. I maintain that if you do get it right at the time of exposure it really doesn't matter what format you shoot in.

I shot my last wedding in all JPG. It requires a little more attention to your exposures but was quite nice that I didn't have to go through the effort of the conversions. Due to the package that the couple bought from me, they recieved a 20X24 print and this came from a shot that was done in JPG. It was just as good as the ones I had done in other jobs that were shot in RAW.

It's a personal choice and while it is always great to get opinions you should not feel bullied into shooting in a format that you are not comfortable working in.

Me : I went back to jpg today and converted my CR2 files to high quality jpg with Lightroom (I only had 400 CR2 files as I had only been experimenting with RAW for 2 months)

To produce JPGS, I compared output from DPP and lightroom, and decided to use the jpgs that were processed from lightroom. Then I deleted all the CR2 files, and never regretted it once ...well, so far no regrets ...

The JPG output files from DPP seemed to be ever so slightly more crisp at the edges when zoomed at 100%, but i liked the overall JPGs output from Lightroom a bit better. There seemed to be a bit more noise in the DPP output JPGs compared to LR.

I am also trying to knock Lightroom out of my work flow after 2 months of experimentation also. I find Adobe Bridge/Photoshop combination works better for me and about 600x faster than LR, and for the volume and style of work that I have been doing lately (not high volume and mainly snap shots that I only edit singularly; about 1 out of 50 shots I edit, and I edit that shot only once normally and save it [Hence, I am not constantly re-editing' the same JPG image on multiple occasions] so JPG articles in a 'one-off save' are no issue for me).

So, I deemed it not necessary to use RAW any more. Plus it saves me disk space.

Things may change next year, or in years to come, if the products (Lightroom and DPP) become faster and more suited to my needs, [[or if I get a digital back for a medium format camera that will only shoot RAW - but I'd need a whole stack of cash for that!]]

So thanks to everyone here for answering all my RAW questions (and DPP and Lightroom) and I will keep on reading developments/news here, and helping out were I can.

Boa Noite,
jpg andrew

ps. sorry for all those 'smileys' - additive yellow suckers they are