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

number six wrote in post #3958599
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

Sounds like there are snobs on both sides of the fence.

So long as you are reasonably close in exposure (within about a half stop either way), there are few benefits to shooting RAW, and just as many cons.

RAW has become the greatest thing to happen to digital photography and also the worst, as many have already alluded to in this thread...

But, thankfully, we live a time of choices - if you want RAW, it's there for you. If you don't, JPEG offers a quality option.

Shoot what you want.

Lightroom really makes RAW just as fast as jpeg to me... I can breeze thru 80 RAW shots in about 30 mins...

Granted, all I do to my RAWs, is apply WB, sharping, noise reduction when nessary. I don't spend much time fixing exposer, im getting better, and find more and more of my shots are on target most of the time.

No I just need to work on composition, there nothing you can do about that but retake the picture.

Event work is in JPEG and work that is not time critical is in RAW.

Scott6 wrote in post #3958927
Lightroom really makes RAW just as fast as jpeg to me... I can breeze thru 80 RAW shots in about 30 mins...

Granted, all I do to my RAWs, is apply WB, sharping, noise reduction when nessary. I don't spend much time fixing exposer, im getting better, and find more and more of my shots are on target most of the time.

No I just need to work on composition, there nothing you can do about that but retake the picture.

If you have high enough resolution, you could crop your picture to fix composition.

Thanks for the comments, guys. I was wondering if it was stupid to 'upgrade' to a 40D, yet only stick with JPEG. I just like the features such as faster, more accurate autofocus and dial on the back. That big screen is also gorgeous. I went to the shop and had a play -took a few snaps. The controls are quite different than the 350D I have now, but I found iso adjustments and stuff very intuitive - without reading the manual, I was able to adjust iso, drive and so on.

i hardly ever shoot raw.. why should I? I dont need to correct my shots, I dont need to correct WB... lol (sure i dont)

seriously, I hardly shoot raw unless its a paying job or something i might not get a chance to re-do.. I use raw as an Insurance policy of sorts.. I like the JPEG because it make me have to think before i shoot.. and the fact that i can open my thumbs just by clicking on them and not have to open some viewer program that tkaes forever to open because it searches my whole HD for files like the &#%@* zoom browser does!!!! lol

Thus far I've shot exclusively in jpeg because I usually get the white balance right the first time. If my exposure is off, I can usually still correct that well enough. I've also used bracketing as a strategy for getting exposures right.

If I'm going to extensively edit a file, I'll save it as a tiff file or as a photoshop file to avoid undesireable lossy results. I don't rule out ever using RAW. If I have any while balance problems or exposure problems that I'm not effectively dealing with, I'll give RAW a shot.

I second that. Paint Shop Pro is an excellent product. I use it extensively. I also use Ulead PhotoImpact, which I've found extremely useful. For years I only used these two programs because Photoshop is so much more expensive. You can get both PSP and PI for far less that PS. I finally ponied up and got Photoshop recently because all the articles in photography magazines that cover image editing are written for Photoshop. However, I still use PSP and PI more that Photoshop. If it's a money issue, get PSP and/or PI. If need be you can do what I did and get Photoshop later.

zacker wrote in post #3959032
and the fact that i can open my thumbs just by clicking on them and not have to open some viewer program that tkaes forever to open because it searches my whole HD for files like the &#%@* zoom browser does!!!! lol

When you get time sometime, open a picture in DPP, Zoom, Photoshop, lightroom... then open the same picture in the windows viewer and check out crappy the color is that windows built in pic viewer is. It will make you sick..

Light room is nice because it builds a index, and caches small thumbs, so browsing thru your entire library is super fast.. Its help that my computer is fast as hell too..

MRKGOO

You and I are in the same boat. I have a rebel xt, I want a 40d, I only shoot jpg, and I wonder if I am somehow doing my shots an injustice by not shooting raw. I am under the impression (please somebody correct me if I am wrong) that shooting Raw adds double the PP time. That you have to play with it in the raw converter, then do your pp in your regular pp program. Someone elluded above to only using their raw converter for pp and nothing else. Another reason why I don't is because my 6-7 year old computer is really showing it's age. Just processing the highest resolution jpg on my computer is a tedious activity because of my computer freezing up. So, those are the main 2 reasons why I don't shoot raw. But I have to say, that fact has not even entered my mind in my decision to by a 40d or not. The thing holding me back is the old need vs. want argument (but that's for another thread).

Stefan

Stefan A wrote in post #3959375
MRKGOO

You and I are in the same boat. I have a rebel xt, I want a 40d, I only shoot jpg, and I wonder if I am somehow doing my shots an injustice by not shooting raw. I am under the impression (please somebody correct me if I am wrong) that shooting Raw adds double the PP time. That you have to play with it in the raw converter, then do your pp in your regular pp program. Someone elluded above to only using their raw converter for pp and nothing else. Another reason why I don't is because my 6-7 year old computer is really showing it's age. Just processing the highest resolution jpg on my computer is a tedious activity because of my computer freezing up. So, those are the main 2 reasons why I don't shoot raw. But I have to say, that fact has not even entered my mind in my decision to by a 40d or not. The thing holding me back is the old need vs. want argument (but that's for another thread).

Stefan

Yes. It's a little hypocritical of me to fuss about small details in my hardware (lens quality etc), yet kind of ignore the powers of post processing. I understand that RAW processing is just that - you process everything on the raw data from your sensor, and essentially do the conversion to JPEG yourself. I'm not sure it adds THAT much more time to your flow (unless you have an age old computer) - you do the same processing things like adjust whitebalance, exposure, colours etc...then convert to JPEG. But it will be more processor intensive, and if you keep the RAW file, then it will take up around 4-5 times as much disc space.

For me, as someone else said, I also like to know that I 'shot' the picture rather than just be the person pushing the shutter, and fixing up things later. I'm not a snob like that - I do believe that photography has evolved from what it used to be - technology has advanced and given us new tools, so as enthusiasts we should follow it as much as we are able. I just like to take pride in myself that I'm able to take shots like that in the field. I would also like to advance my abilities on that side of the image, rather than the after side (at least for now).

I know about the argument. The money itself isn't so much an issue - it's do I really need such an upgrade? Photography really is never ending. There're a few things I'm not happy about my 350D, but none of it warrants buying a new body.

I shoot jpeg about 90% of the time...I also spent most of my film career shooting slides...I guess I would rather get it right in camera than spend hours trying to manipulate an image into something it isn't.

I use RAW in places where I'm not in control of the light (i.e. gigs and the like) or where I want to give myself the maximum number of options for developing a shot into what I see. I use jpg for snapshots and stuff where I'm confident I'm getting it right in-camera and any small errors will be easily correctable. As it stands, I shoot RAW the vast majority of the time.

I know quite a few pros who are confident that they're nailing exposure and white balance every time and thus shoot jpg - 1dsII users. Surprised me at first but then again, a few seconds saved PP'ing every shot adds up to quite a large amount of time in the long run.

I ALWAYS shoot RAW and add Jpeg if the body allows. I never know when something is just so great when I shoot that I MIGHT want to do some serious post processing work. Rarely will I fire up DPP, but there are times when I'm glad I have RAW to work with. It's only a little more storage and download time and I have the drive space so no big deal.

Stew

I shoot JPG about 98%+ of the time. I don't have the time or experience to make adjustments. I've NEVER gone over 4x6 prints. The camera does a good job at getting the correct exposure, and if anything, I just need to tweak it a little bit on the next shot. I do have some troubles with getting the perfect WB, but the way I see it is that unless someone is looking at two prints of the same scene side-by-side, most people won't notice small to even medium discrepancies in WB. A lot of the pictures I take are of a middle school that I work for, and using these pictures in the classroom. It's amazing how much your pictures can be appreciated even poor WB, focus, and composition. It's not only about rules and artistic value, but also your audience, and subjects.

I know this sounds fake, but I just enjoy shooting. Carrying the camera around, manually changing ISO and apeture, composing (trying to), having people smile, showing my tiny LCD screen to them. Even though it's usually just walk around candids, I think a lot of people get pleasure from the pics I take and show them, including myself.

Not to downplay the importance of RAW. Once I have the time (maybe next summer), I will NEED to learn to properly use Photoshop. I envy people with mad PP skills and hope to one day become one of them.

segasaturn wrote in post #3960138
Not to downplay the importance of RAW. Once I have the time (maybe next summer), I will NEED to learn to properly use Photoshop. I envy people with mad PP skills and hope to one day become one of them.

I'm exactly the same way.

I've had my 20D for a little over a year and a half, and have yet to shoot a single frame in RAW...