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

blueM wrote in post #3966060
I shot 500+ shots in JPEG. I filled 2 - 1GB cards. Raw would have given me about 200 shots only.

Buy more cards...(just kidding). Anyway, for events, I shoot mostly JPEG, but everything else is Raw. If I feel I'll have enough space (small events) I will shoot Raw+JPEG.

I look at it this way: Having never shot a single frame in RAW, I don't know what I'm missing.

Ergo, I don't miss it.

In all honesty, I use an old iPhoto program for editing photos; it won't handle RAW. I'm slowly getting into Photoshop so, in time, I suspect I'll try shooting RAW and start wading into it.

Up to now, though, I've not had a single complaint about the quality of images I've shot in JPEG...

I convert all photos to monochrome, and I use a process that requires Lab color, so I'm going into Photoshop regardless. Plus, working in 16-bit minimizes the potentially destructive effects of manipulating tones….

Also, I keep the master unsharpened, since the appropriate settings for the web may differ than those for print.

Finally, in regards to strained memory space, I hope folks are not just keeping their photos on one hard drive, as they will die, the hardware that is….

kmb wrote in post #3963878
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.

No axe to grind with u whatsoever so don't worry about it k?:p
I currently run a powermac g5 dual 2.7ghz, not the top of the end, but with 4gb of ram, its relatively fast, and i still take about a min to convert from raw to jpg even in batch mode.

Errrrrr?

I don't understand the advantage of shooting RAW and then batch processing them all to JPEG using the same settings. Surely the extra dynamic range and subtlety etc. of RAW is only recovered when each image is converted with its own unique settings. That needs someone adjusting the sliders on your RAW converter of choice by hand for each one. An average batch process conversion is pretty much what the camera does anyway.

all depends what im shooting.. events RAW!
sports/ school stuff...JPG

camo

Mark Kemp wrote in post #3969013
I don't understand the advantage of shooting RAW and then batch processing them all to JPEG using the same settings.

No advantage (except a slight improvement in quality, perhaps) as such, but you can, for instance:
1) go back later and do a better version of an image that was improperly exposed (maybe a clipped color channel), for example. In action shooting this may happen (improper exposure, that is), if there is some unexpected moment and you don't have time to meter/adjust correctly
2) if the white balance is off for all the pictures in the same way (or for instance, half of the pictures were shot in tungsten light and half of them in daylight and there was no time to capture custom white balance), you can do the correction to one pic and apply the correction to all of the series.

Of course, it'd be better to shoot RAW+JPG probably, but my point is that sometimes it is a good thing to have RAW-version of an image if you have to go back to it. But I'm not saying every situation/assignment requires it.

We probably have different cameras and positively have different software, but I tried this on my laptop (it says AMD Turion on the sticker, can't remeber about the processor power, and don't care to check right now :P - monocore anyways) with Canon Digital Photo Professional, and it took about 15 seconds per image to produce JPG:s (I tried it on 5D files).

<disclaimer>But anyways, even if it would take 15 seconds on your favorite software it is probably for many still an unnecessary step, just discussing the time it takes, not what any of you shoud do </disclaimer>

Doesn't a lot of this discussion depend on what you are going to do with your photos?

I can see that for those people here who need to get stuff published quickly, or perhaps are selling on to someone else, then you are not going to want to spend too much time on PP if it's not going to create any big return (not suggesting for a second here that this means the quality is any the less as a result).

I don't sell any of my pictures, and the majority of what I take is for my own pleasure, so therefore any PP I carry out is to make the picture what I want. As a result, I've started only taking RAW images, and then when I download these, I treat as I would negatives and only process to JPEG those I might want to print, or "show".

When I'm happy that I can get all the camera setting right, then maybe I will only shoot JPEG, but until that day......

I shot strickly jpeg when I first bought my 30d. A couple months later, I switched to RAW + jpeg. Finally, I realized I was never working with the jpeg images, so I switched to RAW only. I only wish I started with at least RAW+jpeg from the start, as there are a few shots that I'd love to have easier control of for a re-edit.

For those who think they are more work, I cannot understand that at all. Within seconds you can increase/decrease exposure levels when needed, and have loads more exposure latitude before it starts to effect the image adversely. To me, it is much quicker and a lot easier editing a RAW image.

For white balance adjustment capability alone, shooting RAW is worth it. This is important to me, as I cannot stand the Auto WB setting on the camera; I often feel the camera makes the wrong choice. Even knowing this, I often forget to set for particular shots. Thus, I usually keep it in auto and then reset in post processing and adust to my liking. Again, this is mere seconds for the initial shot, and then I copy and paste settings to the other images which need the same treatment.

I was timid at first, but now I love RAW!!

there are clear uses where JPG only makes sense and i can see using JPG if you have an old PC and/or are stuck with canon bundled software

but if you have any inclination at all to edit even slightly RAW really will be very, very, very useful.

plus you can find $99 500GB ext. drives nowadays on the tech bargain sites
ymmv

Chris&jess wrote in post #3961034
We shoot jpeg because we do weddings. To do otherwise would be insane. I can't imagine bringing home 1100 raw images and needing to PP them all and we're running a quad core.
The main thing is to get your settings correct and do a careful job in the first place
Chris

I build my own computers and keep pretty up to date. I'm surprised to hear that you have problems with RAW on a quad-core. I'm assuming you got gobs of RAM of course. I can transfer 8GB of CF to my PC in well under 10 minutes and working with a RAW vs JPEG file makes not significant difference in processing time. Hard drive space is dirty cheap too so I don't see any real advantages in shooting JPEG. I always shoot S+RAW so that I have some small JPEGs to view thumbnails and email out, etc. Again, if I have any great shots, I print 12x18 and put them in a portfolio. I always use RAW files for those.

I just went to an Adobe seminar on workflow and I was amazed at how fast Lightroom and Aperture could deal with huge amounts of RAW files. If you haven't tried either program, I would urge you to do so because they significantly cut down your work in post processing.

I'm putting on my flame suit for this one, but IMO, a great photographer today is going to be as strong on their PC with PP as they are out in the field. Sure, you have to get the shot right first in the field, but I don't think a photographer is complete if he/she does not have a strong if not thorough understanding of PP on the computer. In the days of film, I always thought dark room experience was important too.

I love the composition in your Hanna Gallery and I'll be the first to admit I can't take shots anywhere near as good. That said, I have recently seen what a master in PP can do with a RAW file and am convinced that RAW and PP skills are extremely helpful for weddings. The expert PP fellow showed how a ceiling was totally blown out. The shot was exposed for the room and not the ceiling. When he went into PS, he brought the RAW back and captured back the detail in the coffered ceilings. Prior to that, it looked like one white ceiling. Granted, the room got really really dark afterwards, but he went on to show us the improved smart wand and then just brought back the ceiling...wham....a wicked shot and now the ceiling and the room were exposed well.

Back to subject...Again...I'm not an expert, and I'm only going by what I saw from ONE seminar, but I do think some of the shots in Hanna gallery have blown out whites on the wedding dresses. For example, 9th row, 3rd column....maybe the effect was intended, but IMHO, the white dress would have looked a bit better if it was less exposed because then you could see a little more detail in the fabric, etc. Again, I don't intend to insult your shots because I think they are great, but I do think that high contrast shots like weddings could benefit from RAW because of the ability to bring back blown out whites.

What about the fact that theres on 256 tones in JPG and over 4k in a RAW? Dynamic range anyone? Shooting to the right has a real meaning with RAW....

Ninth row, third column? Yeah, her dress is just a touch blown, but shot with an old 60D with Digic zero.
I'll start shooting RAW when David Ziser starts shooting RAW.
Chris

Chris&jess wrote in post #3979337
Ninth row, third column? Yeah, her dress is just a touch blown, but shot with an old 60D with Digic zero.
I'll start shooting RAW when David Ziser starts shooting RAW.
Chris

While you can batch process RAW files (lightroom/ps) and HDDs are dirt cheap it sounds like you have no need nor desire. which is great if your clients are happy.

Path of least resistance. Digital & JPG are great for the photographer but do they benefit the customer?

I'm posting this as a potential client however...

Personally speaking if i were to recommend a photographer for a friend's wedding, after seeing their work and passing the personality test, i'd mandate they have a MF film otherwise minimum 5D or 1DsmkII being used with an assistant for lighting for the formals. None of this 40D/17-55is/550ex & bring their wife stuff. And i'd lean on him/her to shoot RAW (& negotiate a price to take ownsership of the RAW files after the orders are completed). Because most weddings (north east USA) are extravagant and people want a large portrait or two (family portrait and bride/groom) 11x17 or so RAW has possible benefits and no drawback to the customer.

ymmv.

Scott6 wrote in post #3959252
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..

oh i know.. i just cant stand waiting for all the pics to download to the program...my comp is a 3 or 4 y/o Dell 2400 with 1gb RAM..lol

i dont have LR but maybe the cs3 bridge will help..? oh the colors in Widows is terrible, even worse it adds alot of noise..i can look at a shot in PS then open it in the windows viewer and it looks like it snowed!