Who here has a 20D or 'above' and doesn't use RAW?

Who here has a camera 'above' the entry-level dSLRs, knows the benefits of RAW, but doesn't use it?

I ask because I kind of want to get a 40D, but don't really want to do all that processing or take up that much HD space - Would I really be missing out that much? How many people are totally satisfied with JPEG performance?

I wanted to ask for those that had an above entry level - generally speaking people who find the usefulness and features of a higher-end body will probably know about the benefits of shooting RAW, but I was wondering how many people know about it, but still don't use it.

I used to shoot my 20D and 1dmk2 in jpg all the time for event coverage and sports as it gives me a bigger buffer to play with and the resolution was enough for me to do up to A2 sized prints with ease. I now do a lot more nature work where there is a lot of cropping and lighting can be a bit tricky at times so i've started shooting RAW.

just using JPEGs is like having your film developed at walmart instead of doing it yourself in the darkroom

I find RAW to be a necessity just because it's so versatile. It's not going to be make a crappy composition better, but you can do so much in terms of sharpening, saturation, and noise reduction that's just not possible with JPEGs.

My RAW workflow typically takes about 2 minutes per picture using photoshop CS2. It'd probably be quicker through lightroom.

Also, if you've got the money for a 40D, then you can shell out $125 for a 200GB hard drive

mrkgoo wrote in post #3957852
Who here has a camera 'above' the entry-level dSLRs, knows the benefits of RAW, but doesn't use it?

I ask because I kind of want to get a 40D, but don't really want to do all that processing or take up that much HD space - Would I really be missing out that much? How many people are totally satisfied with JPEG performance?

I wanted to ask for those that had an above entry level - generally speaking people who find the usefulness and features of a higher-end body will probably know about the benefits of shooting RAW, but I was wondering how many people know about it, but still don't use it.

there's nothing wrong with JPEG especially if you do a little post processing...

but the big advantage of raw is being able to correct wb balance and exposure after the fact, and that may not be important to you now or ever.

plenty of pros don't use RAW. just get the camera you want and use it how you want. you never know where it will lead you .

ed rader

Im lazy so I shoot mostly JPG's for snapshots but if its something im doing as a project Ill shoot raw. Payed work outside raw, studio work JPG's. Havent had a problem yet knock on wood.

ed rader wrote in post #3957984
there's nothing wrong with JPEG especially if you do a little post processing...

but the big advantage of raw is being able to correct wb balance and exposure after the fact, and that may not be important to you now or ever.

plenty of pros don't use RAW. just get the camera you want and use it how you want. you never know where it will lead you .

ed rader

I think maybe that's what I'm interested in hearing in the responses - as you say, the main advantages are exposure and WB control. I try to get these as correct as I can at the time of shooting. Yes, there are always going to be those images that I wish I could correct further, but most of the time, the minor adjustments I can make to JPEGS are sufficient. While I realise repeated JPEG editing is destructive, I think the effect is negligible, unless you're pixel-peeping, or excessive in your editing (kind of ironic seeing as I'm fairly neurotic about lens focus and sharpness).

And no, I'm not one of those that believes post-processing is 'cheating', but I just like to concentrate on getting it right in the camera first.

ed rader wrote in post #3957984
but the big advantage of raw is being able to correct wb balance and exposure after the fact, and that may not be important to you now or ever.

I have no difficulty adjusting WB on jpegs. A week or two ago I did a test for another POTN thread where I shot a jpeg with flash using tungsten WB. PSP did the job pretty well, I thought, for such an extreme correction.

For less extreme (more normal) unbalance I can adjust jpegs just the same as I'd adjust RAW shots.

-js

angryhampster wrote in post #3957937
just using JPEGs is like having your film developed at walmart instead of doing it yourself in the darkroom

I find RAW to be a necessity just because it's so versatile. It's not going to be make a crappy composition better, but you can do so much in terms of sharpening, saturation, and noise reduction that's just not possible with JPEGs.

My RAW workflow typically takes about 2 minutes per picture using photoshop CS2. It'd probably be quicker through lightroom.

Also, if you've got the money for a 40D, then you can shell out $125 for a 200GB hard drive

Those are excellent points. I have neither photoshop nor lightroom, however. I'm not sure how well my computer can handle them at the moment. I think - if I get a 40D, it will be sometime before I can get a new computer and bits for it (software and hardware). Arguably, I should just upgrade my computer, and I'd see more results that way - but it's a new camera! I guess I just want new toys...

mrkgoo,
Some users don't need raw to get excellent print results or even web displays of there photos. It's just like slide film, you create what you want, and development doesn't fix your errors. With many many prints of 16 x 20" or smaller with excellent results (to my eyes and many others).
I can say raw isn't needed to achieve beautiful photographs!
I try to put the effort to obtain the correct photo.
ex. correct white balance, ex2. correct exposure, ex3. correct saturation, tone, sharpness, contrast settings in camera.
But I don't mind, I like to claim I took the photo not the camera (or software)
However many things can also be corrected in jpeg files just like raw files. ex. white balance can easily be corrected, so can saturation, color tone, noise reduction and sharpening.
But see for yourself, set your camera for raw + large jpeg and take some photos and do a comparison in software and prints then see if jpeg can cut it for you.

number six wrote in post #3958073
I have no difficulty adjusting WB on jpegs. A week or two ago I did a test for another POTN thread where I shot a jpeg with flash using tungsten WB. PSP did the job pretty well, I thought, for such an extreme correction.

For less extreme (more normal) unbalance I can adjust jpegs just the same as I'd adjust RAW shots.

-js

Funny you should mention - I was playing with RAW in Aperture, compared to JPEG, just to see what I could do. Maybe I got the exposure pretty ok, and wasn't really pushing the capabilities of RAW, but it seemed I could get close enough with a JPEG (though probably more destructive).

You might take a look at Paint Shop Pro XI - it's got lots of features and looks very much like Photoshop. But much cheaper...

-js

I don't officially fit your criteria as I use an XT/350D, but I certainly understand the benefits of shooting Raw.

After a year of shooting Raw almost exclusively, I made the switch to JPEG. It took me about three months to get comfortable with exactly how I wanted my settings and how to control the white balance. A year ago I finished the switch to maybe 98-99% JPEG with the occasional Raw+JPEG shot for tricky lighting or critical captures.

My motivation was to eliminate post-processing. And in the year since I made the switch, I haven't post-processed a single picture aside from resizing, so I consider that a complete success. I personally don't miss Raw at all.

Others have different views and different needs. Some people can't figure out white balance. Some have no confidence in their exposure abilities. Some need or want the extra "dynamic range" available in Raw. Many enjoy the flexibility and freedom in post-processing that Raw provides. Many just feel better retaining the numerical superiority of additional bits and avoiding lossy compression.

And there are probably a very few who dislike the camera's JPEG conversion, although I can't say that I've ever heard anyone actually complain about the color conversions. I'm certainly satisfied with the color JPEG output from my XT, and it doesn't even have the picture style choices that the more recent cameras—including the 40D—have. I'd like better monochrome processing, though.

mrkgoo wrote in post #3958092
Funny you should mention - I was playing with RAW in Aperture, compared to JPEG, just to see what I could do. Maybe I got the exposure pretty ok, and wasn't really pushing the capabilities of RAW, but it seemed I could get close enough with a JPEG (though probably more destructive).

in more extreme cases RAW is clearly superior. i'd probably never use raw were it not for superior WB and exposure correction.

ed rader

Doug Pardee wrote in post #3958178
I don't officially fit your criteria as I use an XT/350D, but I certainly understand the benefits of shooting Raw.

After a year of shooting Raw almost exclusively, I made the switch to JPEG. It took me about three months to get comfortable with exactly how I wanted my settings and how to control the white balance. A year ago I finished the switch to maybe 98-99% JPEG with the occasional Raw+JPEG shot for tricky lighting or critical captures.

My motivation was to eliminate post-processing. And in the year since I made the switch, I haven't post-processed a single picture aside from resizing, so I consider that a complete success. I personally don't miss Raw at all.

Others have different views and different needs. Some people can't figure out white balance. Some have no confidence in their exposure abilities. Some need or want the extra "dynamic range" available in Raw. Many enjoy the flexibility and freedom in post-processing that Raw provides. Many just feel better retaining the numerical superiority of additional bits and avoiding lossy compression.

And there are probably a very few who dislike the camera's JPEG conversion, although I can't say that I've ever heard anyone actually complain about the color conversions. I'm certainly satisfied with the color JPEG output from my XT, and it doesn't even have the picture style choices that the more recent cameras—including the 40D—have. I'd like better monochrome processing, though.

Well, actually you fit my criteria - I just wanted to know about those who knew about RAW, yet forsaked (forsook?) it for some reason or other. In fact, you're probably the exact comments I was wondering existed or not! I guess each person is different - RAW certainly is powerful, but to some the level of power granted just doesn't warrant the effort.

Thanks for the comments.

And then there are the RAW snobs. Just like the L snobs.

And of course those who shoot RAW so they won't have to learn how to expose correctly - so they think.

-js