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

chinch wrote in post #3979402
...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.

For what, a lot of4x6's stuffed in a photo binder that gets looked at 5 times? Then you own the copyright after the shoot is done? A jpeg can't do a great 11X17?
Equipment is only a small portion of the equation. Knowing how to pose and capture your subjects and having a good lighting understand will get you better pictures than the good ole XT vs 5D debate.
Anyhoo -
back OT
I'm moving to JPEG for sports, keeping RAW for artsy fartsy sorta stuff. It's just too time consuming to go through so many RAW's twice, once for keeper/tosser and once for processing.

When I bought my 30D, I shot in jpeg as I was learning the features of the camera. But as I learned more, I found out that my pictures can "pop" out a lot more with a little post processing. As for HD space, it's so cheap now. I just bought a 500GB HD for $100US.

I just discovered post processing using the free DPP that came with my XTi. It really does make a world of difference, and I am shooting JPG, not RAW. I have taken a few shots in RAW, and can see where I would use it for pro work or those "once in a lifetime" shots, but for the vast majority of my shots, I will go with JPG. I can still go back and fix WB, and add/subtract contrast, saturation, sharpness, etc with jpgs. It has made such a huge difference that I have gone back to post process a bunch of shots from a vacation we took a few months ago. It only took about a minute per picture to make the images really pop (and some of them were taken with an older P&S)

To me exposure and white balance are variables that are not fixed and should not be fixed when the shot is taken. In post process I might alter them to support message, style, context, media, taste. In time you will see your own work differently (like 10 years later when you might be building a public exhibition) and with RAW you have a chance to do your view while retaining quality. RAW can also be used to create your own look, so that photos from very different shoots will get similar visual preference to make your work unique and identifiable.

We are dealing with just file formats here. RAW advantages are so great I am puzzled why anyone would not use RAW. Photography is all about light. You spend years perfecting your skills to do that perfect exposure and WB each time (I doubt that), not to mention composition and capturing the moment, getting best lenses and gear. Why then would you want to store that light data to a file format with 256 color steps per channel, with fixed color space, with blown highlights and shadows lost forever, with fixed sharpening, with fixed contrast curve and noise reduction -- it tells me you really do not see the whole picture. It tells me you do not care about quality after all.

RAW converters get better all the time. You can redo your work with vastly better quality. What if your old photo is bought for a high quality magazine which requires AdobeRGB and 16-bit TIFF? You can of course fake that from a JPEG but if you do it with RAW you'd have actually AdobeRGB and 16-bit TIFF in your hands.

Jobs where instant delivery is required should of course use JPEG if that helps. But adjusting RAW does not take more than 30 secs per photo and the more you do it the faster and easier it gets. Actual conversion speed is governed by CPU power you can buy from nearest computer store. You don't have to convert all 3000 photos to deliver 100!

We're talking about two different issues. There is the issue of how a camera can affect the end result and then there is the issue of whether or not equipment affects a potential customer's decision-making process.

Regarding the 1st issue, I think most people would agree that the end result is what is important. Not much of an argument there. Whether and how equipment affects that end result is another issue. I would argue that it's "somewhat" of a moot point because you aren't going to find a great pro wedding photographer shooting with a "cheap" camera. I posted in another thread that in my research for wedding photographers, the really good ones all had great equipment. Sooo....I've already conceded that the end result matters, but what is reality is that most great pros all just happen to shoot with "great" equipment.

That leads to the other subject of how equipment affects a customer's selection process. Just in this thread alone, we've found at least two people for which equipment mattered. It's almost like a quick way of short-listing. There are SOOOOO many wedding shooters out there, one (I'm not saying the most important) of the ways of quickly choosing is via equipment. It might not matter to you, but it does matter to some.

Regarding pricing, I would argue that affordability most certainly does matter. Just a quick read of the threads in this forum and it's easy to spot the "I'm saving up for a 5D" or "If I had the money" or "...for the money..." subjects. Affordability is relative and for some, a 5D or 1D is just not affordable. If one can't afford it, it's likely that photographer isn't charging that much because they are not that well known or just aren't that good. I think it's fair to say there is some correlation between price and quality (not always, but definitely some link).

If you could find some guy that took exactly the style of shots you wanted and he uses a Rebel, then by all means, go for it. I'm pretty confident that a really great pro just doesn't use a Rebel as their main tool. I looked at all the well-kwown shooters in the Vancouver area and I didn't come across ONE that shot with a Rebel.

Back to the OP's subject. I always shoot RAW+S because for most shots, the JPEG is adequate. That said, if I don't want to use the RAW, I don't have to. It's there if I need it, but I don't worry about the expense or minimal time it takes to transfer it and store it. If you're not worried about the cost of storage, then why not keep it? It doesn't hurt, does it?

MazerRakhm wrote in post #4020147
I think unfortunately in the photography business, this is only partially true. While I think it can help, I think when it comes to photography looking at the end results is what matters, not what equipment the person used.

Your example of the formula 1 team is perfect for this, formula 1 is extremely expensive. So much so that it's prohibitive. The average gear head can't go online and pick up a car, and take it to the track on the weekends.

The way cameras are priced, most people can easily get the top of the line on a credit card. Them having the equipment can have little to no bearing on their ability to shoot.

Which brings me to my point of equipment mattering being only partially true. If I were to judge several photographers for someones wedding, it would be based on photography style, portfolio, price, then what kind of equipment do they have.

If the guy with the digital rebel takes exactly the type of pictures I want and does it well, the guy with the multiple 5D's and MF camera is not getting the job.

I read Pekka's post, and agree with his point of view - I approach RAW from another point of view:

I've spent over $8,000 on gear since last September - I thinks it's the best gear available in the world (I might be biased towards Canon).

I spent this kind of money to get the best I can afford.

Why would I compromise it all to save a few megs or a few minutes?


EDIT: I come from a music background - we use WAV files and MP3 files. When we want quality we use WAV files - always. If someone is not fussy, he will use MP3 files. MP3 files are compressed WAV files and are what we call "lossy". You can figure out what "lossy" means. JPEG's are the equivalent of MP3 files (they are lossy).

I have been trying to decide on RAW or Jpeg myself, while I am doing so I am shooting on RAW. Personally I can't see the need to shoot JPEG when it is not that hard to just convert everything once you put it on your disk. I actually think that you will push less buttons to convert a Raw file then you would to get the camera settings right (the way you want them) while shooting Jpeg.

The way I kind of look at is.....If I were still shooting film and I took an important roll to get developed would I just tell them I want the prints and toss the negatives? They will take up space but I will always have the means to repint or edit.

Pekka wrote in post #4020651
We are dealing with just file formats here. RAW advantages are so great I am puzzled why anyone would not use RAW. Photography is all about light. You spend years perfecting your skills to do that perfect exposure and WB each time (I doubt that), not to mention composition and capturing the moment, getting best lenses and gear. Why then would you want to store that light data to a file format with 256 color steps per channel, with fixed color space, with blown highlights and shadows lost forever, with fixed sharpening, with fixed contrast curve and noise reduction -- it tells me you really do not see the whole picture. It tells me you do not care about quality after all.

Of course your entitled to your opinion on your forum, but do you remember film? The way you seem to not understand jpeg is like the way many didn't understand slide film vs. negative film or 35mm format vs. medium (or larger) formats. If someone shot in 35mm film did they not see the whole picture or don't care about quality compared to someone who shot medium or larger? Did someone who shot in slide film not care about quality compared to someone who used negative?
Honestly its kind of a (trying to be polite on your forum) negative comment you make! Its not like no one on this planet ever took a quality photo, a published photo, even known for a photo in jpeg format. You are also wrong in that you can't control sharpness, contrast and noise reduction. Many things can be altered or corrected to a jpeg file. I have used many of my photos for commercial reason (along with private reasons) and they are acceptable in prints to my eyes and many others eyes. So if it tells you that I really do not see the whole picture or that I do not care about quality after all. I strongly disagree! You of course are entitled to your opinion on your forum but its not accurate to me.

John_B wrote in post #4021040
Of course your entitled to your opinion on your forum, but do you remember film? The way you seem to not understand jpeg is like the way many didn't understand slide film vs. negative film or 35mm format vs. medium (or larger) formats. If someone shot in 35mm film did they not see the whole picture or don't care about quality compared to someone who shot medium or larger? Did someone who shot in slide film not care about quality compared to someone who used negative?
Honestly its kind of a (trying to be polite on your forum) negative comment you make! Its not like no one on this planet ever took a quality photo, a published photo, even known for a photo in jpeg format. You are also wrong in that you can't control sharpness, contrast and noise reduction. Many things can be altered or corrected to a jpeg file. I have used many of my photos for commercial reason (along with private reasons) and they are acceptable in prints to my eyes and many others eyes. So if it tells you that I really do not see the whole picture or that I do not care about quality after all. I strongly disagree! You of course are entitled to your opinion on your forum but its not accurate to me.

On the same hand, do you remember darkrooms? Same diff really...

Strick wrote in post #4020774
I have been trying to decide on RAW or Jpeg myself, while I am doing so I am shooting on RAW. Personally I can't see the need to shoot JPEG when it is not that hard to just convert everything once you put it on your disk. I actually think that you will push less buttons to convert a Raw file then you would to get the camera settings right (the way you want them) while shooting Jpeg.

The way I kind of look at is.....If I were still shooting film and I took an important roll to get developed would I just tell them I want the prints and toss the negatives? They will take up space but I will always have the means to repint or edit.

you see this is the recurring argument that i don't understand which leads me to believe that shooting JPEG has come to mean relying on the camera's setting for output.

NOT SO!

i process a jpeg file much the same way i do a RAW file. i do not rely on the camera settings and in fact i prefer them to be neutral or i just use factory default.

i would never recommend to anyone to not process a jpeg file. in fact if you are not post processing your images you might as well be using a P&S camera, imo.

the reasons to use JPEG are there really isn't much difference in the final product for my purposes IN MOST CASES and i can view jpegs on any computer with any viewer....not so with a RAW files. filrs are much smaller and processing takes less time.

the big advantages for me for shooting RAW is WB and exposure....i don't have to get either right when shooting RAW and this is a huge advantage when shooting indoors and other tricky lighting conditions.

certainly RAW is superior but not always necessary or desirable. if i'm putting together an ebay ad i sure don't break out my 5d and shoot RAW.

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #4021120
you see this is the recurring argument that i don't understand which leads me to believe that shooting JPEG has come to mean relying on the camera's setting for output.

NOT SO!

i process a jpeg file much the same way i do a RAW file. i do not rely on the camera settings and in fact i prefer them to be neutral or i just use factory default.

i would never recommend to anyone to not process a jpeg file. in fact if you are not post processing your images you might as well be using a P&S camera, imo.

the reasons to use JPEG are there really isn't much difference in the final product for my purposes IN MOST CASES and i can view jpegs on any computer with any viewer....not so with a RAW files. filrs are much smaller and processing takes less time.

the big advantages for me for shooting RAW is WB and exposure....i don't have to get either right when shooting RAW and this is a huge advantage when shooting indoors and other tricky lighting conditions.

certainly RAW is superior but not always necessary or desirable. if i'm putting together an ebay ad i sure don't break out my 5d and shoot RAW.

ed rader

Other than not being able to see them right away on any computer then why not just shoot RAW if in fact you are going to be doing basically the same PP. I use LR and with that there is a good bit of PP'ing that can be done to a JPEG, basically what you can do to a RAW file.

I will confess I haven't read through this whole thread, but I've read enough to not want to read a lot more. The photography world has a few concepts that seem to cause people to be bigotted about their choices, and make them take on a superiority that people that don't share their choices are somehow inferior or stupid. A couple that come to mind are full frame and RAW. I find it comical sometimes that people just automatically assume everyone else is an idiot and have such a closed mind.

I fit the criteria of the original poster's quest. I currently have a 20D, 2 x 1DMk2N, and a 1Dmk3. I also have lenses such as the 400 f/2.8 and 200 f/1.8 that produce incredible results. I even had a 5D at one point but got rid of it because it didn't fit my needs (lets not start on that one).

I shoot about 95% of the time JPEG, and on the rare cases that I do shoot RAW, I shoot RAW+JPEG and rarely actually need to go to the RAW image. The issue with me is time. If I had nothing else to do and actually enjoyed post processing... sure, I might consider shooting RAW all the time. But to me, time is in short supply and I hate sitting at the computer processing images. If you get the image right in the camera, then I have not seen the big advantage of taking the time to use RAW. True, if you mess up, then RAW gives you a little more lattitude for correcting, but otherwise, its not a fit for my needs. So the cases I choose to use it are few, and usually in situations where I can't get it right (i.e., like with wild lighting that is difficult to balance), or in cases where I'm dealing with a small number of images that have to be very high quality (i.e., I'm working on a project now that the images will be printed at 3'x5' in size and I'm using RAW for these).

But take a situation where I'm doing a tournament and need to shoot hundreds of images of each game and have proofs printed by the end of the game. There are people that do this with RAW, but for what benefit? I am going to be printing 5x7 and 8x10 prints and doing very little processing on them. You'd be hard pressed to justify the extra work of RAW for this type of shooting.

But I don't think less of people that shoot RAW... its their choice, and I'm sure it works for them. To me RAW and JPEG are like a wrench and a ratchet/socket. They each have cases where one works better than the other, and they also have a lot of overlap. To me personally, its a total waste of time in most cases because I have no intention of spending the time to go through each image and tweaking it.

Look at it this way, if you can prove that there is some minimal improvement in an image that you processed with RAW over JPEG, couldn't you also prove the same thing if you bought a more expensive camera, a more expensive lens, etc.? So why not do everything with a 39MP medium format camera? Because that camera cost a lot of money. So you accept that you are willing to get inferior quality to save money. Then why can't it be accepted that you forgo some small amount of quality to save time? In the prints I produce in most cases, I don't think you'd see a difference to justify the time.

ed rader wrote in post #4021120
i'm putting together an ebay ad i sure don't break out my 5d and shoot RAW.

Why not? Are you implying that they take more time to process?

With today's software, I really don't see a difference in PP time, unless you plan to upload the JPEG straight out of the camera without so much as a crop.

John_B wrote in post #4021040
Of course your entitled to your opinion on your forum, but do you remember film? The way you seem to not understand jpeg is like the way many didn't understand slide film vs. negative film or 35mm format vs. medium (or larger) formats. If someone shot in 35mm film did they not see the whole picture or don't care about quality compared to someone who shot medium or larger? Did someone who shot in slide film not care about quality compared to someone who used negative?
Honestly its kind of a (trying to be polite on your forum) negative comment you make! Its not like no one on this planet ever took a quality photo, a published photo, even known for a photo in jpeg format. You are also wrong in that you can't control sharpness, contrast and noise reduction. Many things can be altered or corrected to a jpeg file. I have used many of my photos for commercial reason (along with private reasons) and they are acceptable in prints to my eyes and many others eyes. So if it tells you that I really do not see the whole picture or that I do not care about quality after all. I strongly disagree! You of course are entitled to your opinion on your forum but its not accurate to me.

Maybe I was not clear. I am talking about file format here. NOT quality of someones work, NOT someone's eye, NOT someone's businesses. I said JPEG has its places.

I am simply wondering (a lot) why on earth one would not use RAW when you really care about quality of one's work and you have 30 secs to spare.

When you have RAW, you have also JPEG. But when you have only JPEG that's what you will have and there it is.

RAW is not same as film. When you buy film you choose what the film is capable of. You put that film in camera and shoot. Then you develop that film. RAW is equivalent of being able to select film you want to use after exposure, plus all the steps to final product.

Curtis N wrote in post #4021181
Why not? Are you implying that they take more time to process?

With today's software, I really don't see a difference in PP time, unless you plan to upload the JPEG straight out of the camera without so much as a crop.

more time to process, bigger files. maybe you can PP a RAW file as quickly but i think that's an exception. i can almost process a raw file as quickly but i prefer to use a program like irfanview -- which does not read RAW -- for simple processing.

RAW would be totally overkill for the purpose.

i'd most likely use my P&S for the or maybe my 30d and JPEG.

i think the guys who push out their chests and proclaim at every opportunity "i shoot RAW only!" are pretty much an internet chat board phenomena.

ed rader