Why "only" shoot RAW ?

lkb-28 wrote in post #3565878
Hi Stavhp;
I'm not questioning the massive advantages of RAW; I'm sold on that; only the "reasons" why you wouldn't shoot RAW AND JPEG !

Cheers;

Lee

You answer this question: why should you shoot JPG with a RAW?

If you get your exposure and lighting right most of the time, you could shoot RAW+JPG and use the JPG most of the time. You'd have the RAW file when your shot needs help. You'd then be able to delete all the RAW files where your JPG shot turned out good.

Hangerhead wrote in post #3566566
do people automatically assume that al their shots are going to require some extensive amounts of post-processing?
If you get it right 'in camera', then possibly apart from some minor levels, there's no benefit in RAW is there?

Ahh, not even remotely close to accurate.. but a discussion for elsewhere,. OT and has no bearing on the thread.
Do a search of RAW Vs. Jpeg in this forum and feel free to add your 2cents in any of the dozens of threads that come up though.

If this thread goes that direction I'll split the OT debate into one of the previous threads on that subject.

Hangerhead wrote in post #3566566
do people automatically assume that al their shots are going to require some extensive amounts of post-processing?
If you get it right 'in camera', then possibly apart from some minor levels, there's no benefit in RAW is there?

If you shoot JPEG, and print the file straight out of the camera, these are the things that need to be right in camera:

white balance
sharpening
contrast
saturation
exposure.

I try very hard to get the exposure right, because RAW only gives you a certain amount of lattitude. But the other things can be (and in my opinion should be) handled during post-processing.

Maybe you're better at this than I am, but I rarely know ahead of time how much contrast and saturation will be perfect for a given shot. It varies. A lot.

To answer your first question: I always assume that I will post-process my images before print or web presentation. It's a critical part of digital photography as much as darkroom work is part of film photography.

lkb-28 wrote in post #3565937
Hi Guys;
So, now I don't need all four 4Gb cards I have...

Anybody wanna buy one?

Thanks & cheers;

Lee

Are you still interested in selling one? How much you asking for it?

superdiver wrote in post #3567205
Are you still interested in selling one? How much you asking for it?

Only joking

I'm sure that when I get my 20 Mp body (it's gonna come...) I will need all the space I can get

Lee

All;

I see one other "advantage" of shooting RAW + JPEG, and that is that I can zip through the JPEG files for preview on my PC way faster than I can zip through RAW files...

Perhaps it's just a limitation in DPP; that's the only RAW converter I have used...

Zipping through the JPEGs then points me to the RAW files I want to use...

Just the way I have tended to work. Doesn't mean it won't change...

Cheers;

Lee

The advantage of RAW+jpg in my home is that my wife has no interest in learning LR or any other RAW tool. So if I think there is a chance that she will want any of the shots (for scrapbooking or to send to the grandparents), I make sure there is a jpg available. But who knows when one of the shots of my kids will be one I want to hang as an 8x10 on the wall, so I make sure that I also shoot in RAW to give me access to all of the benefits to help make that shot the best I can.

If I am going out for purely "hobby" shots where the wife has no interest, I shoot in RAW only.

That's what I have been thinking too. If the exposure and focus and composition are pleasing to me, then why bother PP'ing the RAW file? I normally shoot JPEG only, Large/Fine. I have playing with RAW a bit since getting LR. You can do so much more with the files, but if they look good in JPEG, does tweaking a RAW really make it THAT much better? I have had DPP ever since getting the camera, but never used it much. RAW would be hand to have shot in for that once-in-a-life-time shot if you totally screw up the shot--but for most of us, I think JPEG is likely fine. When I experimented, I shot Large RAW/Large-Fine JPEG. If the resulting images looked pretty good to me, I deleted the RAW file. RAW takes up a ton of space. Sure, it's a negative, but once you get a good shot, you change it to JPEG anyway, so if the JPEG image is good to start with, why bother with a RAW file? Sure, you get so much more info in the RAW file to tweak on the computer, and the computer has far more processing cabability than the camera, but lots of really smart people put a lot of thought into designing my camera. I paid for that input and I'm going to use it as much as I can. I hate sitting in front of a computer! I like using my camera!

I don't understand all this discussion. If a person shoots a certain way and is convinced it's right for him, why must he try to convince others? It seems most people on this thread know what is right for them and are not going to change. What is the point of the thread?

When you shoot jpeg, the camera does the processing, when you shoot RAW, you do the processing.

If you're a P&S kind of guy, then by all means shot jpeg. If you're a digital SLR person, shoot RAW and then you do the processing.

It depends on the quality you want from your images and the amount of work that you want to invest. Pros shoot RAW.

oh, i normally get it good i camera but then just know i can get it a lot better using photoshop

Hangerhead wrote in post #3566566
do people automatically assume that al their shots are going to require some extensive amounts of post-processing?
If you get it right 'in camera', then possibly apart from some minor levels, there's no benefit in RAW is there?

The only time I make jpg files is for use on the net with one side 800 pixels. Most of the time, if I will be sharing the file or having it professionally printed, I will produce a tif file as it isn't "losey" like jpgs are.

Jere Lee-why the hostility?

Jere Lee wrote in post #3574401
I don't understand all this discussion. If a person shoots a certain way and is convinced it's right for him, why must he try to convince others? It seems most people on this thread know what is right for them and are not going to change. What is the point of the thread?

The OP was asking the question "What is the perceived advantage in doing so" He never said he was "convinced it's right for him" In fact he said "Grateful for the insight that I'm clearly missing here!" - Therefore people will respond with their personal opinions and reasons, right or wrong...

Jere Lee wrote in post #3574401
I don't understand all this discussion. If a person shoots a certain way and is convinced it's right for him, why must he try to convince others? It seems most people on this thread know what is right for them and are not going to change. What is the point of the thread?

I switched to RAW based on the reasons stated by proponents in this forum. So I think there is some merit to threads like this.