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

Well, I did it...

For the OP, if you want to use jpeg, you certainly do not need to garner the approbation of POTN members to do so. Besides, as mentioned, numerous pros use JPEG for a variety of tasks, ranging from advertisement, sports, and wedding; and even if they didn't, there's always room for mavericks…

That said, I'm baffled by this attitude that RAW is viewed as some sort of presumed elixir that induces lazy habits upon it users. God help us if Canon releases a CMOS sensor with a 12-stop dynamic range.

Yes, getting it right in the camera is divinely crucial, but since when did this coveted mantra render post processing as some sort of con? If you use JPEG, you are using your camera's software to configure the post processing perimeters before the shot…if you use RAW, you are using the computer's software to post process after the shot (tautologically so)…both options rely on a form of manipulation to achieve the photographer's desired results, none of which necessarily preclude the utmost importance of getting it right in the camera….

mrkgoo wrote in post #3962112
Well, I did it...

Congrats.

Raw, whats raw? Raw is nothign but a pain in the ass. One of my bosses asked "You shoot raw right"? haha I was like no...? I shoot sports, not Playboy budy I almost told him. I later had a card corrupt on me shooting for him, he asked "Did you shoot Jpeg or Raw?" I replied jpeg. "Ok...good!" he said. Jpeg is just simple and simpler. Converting is more tiem at the pc.The senior pics, wedding pics and sports pics still come out good, thats all I care. I shoot large Jpeg and still astonished to this day and say "Why didn't I go to canon in the first place?".

szekiat wrote in post #3961424
Just to correct a few misconceptions. 2mins per file is just way too long when half time is 15mins and i need to get out all the pictures to the desk and onwards to the website. Its much faster to send out the jpg straight as those can be uploaded immediately. If i had 30 RAW files to send out to clients, that'd put me back 1hr even if i didn't have to do any tweaking. Compared to a direct upload, time is money.

I'm slightly confused. If you do a "select all" and press the convert button, that should take less than 2 minutes per image, yes?

I used to shoot raw+JPEG but since getting Aperture I have found that I can now process raw files easily enough to move to RAW almost exclusively. I understand the benefits of JPEG and would never criticize anyone for using it, but RAW works for me. It is especially helpful when doing available light shots. Most of the time I could probably use JPEG without it making a difference, but if I switch too many settings around I tend to mess things up; consistency is good for me.

kmb wrote in post #3962857
I'm slightly confused. If you do a "select all" and press the convert button, that should take less than 2 minutes per image, yes?

Yup, so assuming u take 1.5mins per image, if u have to do it for a 100 images, that'd take about 150mins or 2.5hrs. Thats on top of the time u'd take to upload them.

If i shoot jpg, this can be uploaded immediately and so i save the 2.5hrs. 2.5hrs can matter between backpage or lost in the middle.

szekiat wrote in post #3963043
Yup, so assuming u take 1.5mins per image, if u have to do it for a 100 images, that'd take about 150mins or 2.5hrs. Thats on top of the time u'd take to upload them.

If i shoot jpg, this can be uploaded immediately and so i save the 2.5hrs. 2.5hrs can matter between backpage or lost in the middle.

I wasn't trying to comment on what you should do (I'm positive you know better your own needs than I do), but I think RAW to JPG conversion takes less than that, in the ballpark of ten seconds or so, on a moderately modern computer.

I probably shoot 70% JPEG, and 30% RAW.

I shoot JPEG for anything that is indoors with good lighting, and no severe black/white contrasting subjects. These need to be turned around quickly and uploaded to our website.

For outdoor shots, I generally use RAW, because I'm dealing with harsh lighting, and often black & white subjects.

Yea when shooting natural light only, I sometime find that shoot -1 exposer (in Tv or Av, or M) and use RAW to bring out the +1...

kinda of a lame tatic IMO, but it works sometimes... and sometimes that means the difference between having to use ISO1600 and sticking with 1000

Hi,

I don't have a 20D. However, I do have a 10D and a 30D. If I subtract one from the other, can I participate here too?

I usually shoot RAW files.

But, on occasion when I'm working with a team at an event *and* we are doing onsite print sales, our workflow requires JPEGs, so I have to provide JPEGs.

The 10D is set to JPEG-only and the 30D is set to RAW + JPEG.

The 10D cannot shoot RAW + JPEG, unfortunately, or I would use it (yes, I know there is an embedded JPEG in even the 10D's RAW files, but we don't have time or resources onsite to un-embed it).

Later, after the event, I prefer to work with RAW files. Exposure, WB and such are important, but not the biggest issue. Speed is.

Using Photoshop CS2, Adobe Raw Converter and Bridge, I can process RAW files into JPEGs almost 3 times as fast as I can finalize original JPEG files. All the finalized JPEG files are used to generate thumbnails, which are uploaded to a website. The full-size, finalized JPEGs are then kept on file for printing purposes.

With both the original RAWs and JPEGs, starting in Adobe Bridge, I first go into a single file containing all images shot that day, sort them by date/time shot, then do a batch rename with sequential file numbers. This combines the shots from two cameras into one long sequence.

Next I use Bridge to do a quick edit of all images to cull out the obviously bad shots and batch mark those I probably want to keep.

Then I start working on only the RAW images, opening 40 or 50 of them at a time in the ACR preview mode (Note: you need plenty of RAM on your computer to do this... I've currently got 2GB and may add a 3rd soon).

In ACR preview mode I can zoom in to check focus, edit them some more and mark those I definitely want to keep, do cropping, color balancing, minor sharpening, horizon line leveling, etc., as necessary. It speeds up the process a lot that I can simply apply the same tweaks to groups of similar images *and* that working on previews in ACR like this is much, much faster than opening each and every image (whether they be JPEG or RAW files).

Editing and tweaking done, I save the changes, but don't finish converting the RAW files until I've gone through all or most of them. Later I use Photoshop's Image Processor to batch convert all the edited/tweaked RAW images and save the relatively finished JPEGs into a new folder... Meanwhile I go get dinner, take in a movie or whatever. (Note: Some final sharpening, image sizing, watermark/signature and perhaps a few other things are done to these "final" JPEGs later, but only if and when a reprint is ordered. If more extensive work is necessary, such as HDR, I can always go back to the original RAW files for that purpose.)

Thanks to Bridge, ACR and Image Processor, this process is far, far faster than opening individual JPEGs, making adjustments to each of them, and then saving them (which is exactly what's necessary with the 10D's files). It's also nice having a complete set of "original" RAW files as backup without having to remember to make duplicates (granted, I burn a DVD of all the originals anyway, before starting the editing).

Last shoot done like this I had about 1200 images, with roughly 600 from each camera (one has a long zoom mounted, the other has a shorter zoom). This was edited down to about 550 final images, roughly half of which were RAW, half JPEGs. The RAW files took just about 8 hours to finalize. The JPEGs took more like 22 hours.

This is in addition to the fact that RAW files allow for much greater correction of exposure or white balance errors, than I can make with JPEG-only originals. (Hey, what can I say? Occasionally s%*t happens!)

I am looking forward to the not-too-distant day when I have two cameras that can do RAW + JPEG! I haven't rushed out to replace the 10D because these larger events with onsite printing only come up three or four times a year.

The only downside to RAW + JPEG is that CF cards fill up a whole lot faster. Onsite this means I have to swap cards and take them in for downloading more frequently. And I'll often end up with two DVDs at the end of the day, rather than one. This is only because the onsite crew handling the printing burns all the files to the DVD for me... Personally , I'd just trash any JPEGs that have matching RAW files.

So, my #1 reason for shooting RAW: I can do the post processing nearly 3X faster with PS CS2 (some other softwares might have better JPEG workflow). #2: Greater control over image, better ability to correct for those occasional problems.

I get tired of post-processing! Would rather spend two days at it, instead of four. If that makes me "lazy", so be it.

mcmadkat wrote in post #3961815
I shoot RAW+JPEG.

The best solution. JPEGs are there for quick stuff, and RAW is there if I need to get a little something more out of it.

Come on people, with CF cards so damn cheap there is no excuse not to shoot both!

Didn't know I needed an excuse.

-js

cdifoto wrote in post #3960498
I shoot RAW because I'm human.

Ditto. Sure I can set everything so I have the right exposure, but sometimes that D*&# QC Dial gets bumped . . .

mcmadkat wrote in post #3961815
I shoot RAW+JPEG.

The best solution. JPEGs are there for quick stuff, and RAW is there if I need to get a little something more out of it.

Yep. Takes forever for any app. I have to throw a RAW up on the screen, especially in Thumbnail.

I mostly shoot RAW. Once in a while when I know I will be taking lots of shots & don't feel like dragging my photo bank with me I will shoot JPEG. For example, a couple of weeks ago we went to the baseball game. I shot 500+ shots in JPEG. I filled 2 - 1GB cards. Raw would have given me about 200 shots only.

ACDCROCKS wrote in post #3962728
Raw, whats raw? Raw is nothign but a pain in the ass.

Unless you enjoy post processing, as I do….

By the way, was privileged to see AC/DC with Bon Scott when they opened for Cheap Trick in summer 1979….