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

DDan wrote in post #4023407
How does exposure affect a proper sharpness setting? I'm not sure how it would apply to saturation either now that I think about it.Contrast, yeah I suppose.

Proper sharpness setting?...
Saturation?...


Seriously, leave it at neutral and just edit it in Photoshop or Lightroom if you feel the need.

Youre not going to change my mind on it. Some people love RAW, some people hate it. Id bet my entire kit that 99.997% of people couldnt tell the difference between the two when printed for sale so its less of a headache for me if I leave it out. Not to mention I get a larger buffer, more shots on a card, and more space on my HD.

EDIT: And not to sound like a jerk, but I think rotating your horizons to level would be more beneficial to your photography than shooting RAW over JPG.
EDIT2: You apparently really love to saturate and sharpen to the point you lose detail..So remind me again why you would bother with RAW? ( Of course Im just assuming you do. If Im wrong, I apologize )

AdamLewis wrote in post #4023432
Proper sharpness setting?...
Saturation?...


Seriously, leave it at neutral and just edit it in Photoshop or Lightroom if you feel the need.

Youre not going to change my mind on it. Some people love RAW, some people hate it. Id bet my entire kit that 99.997% of people couldnt tell the difference between the two when printed for sale so its less of a headache for me if I leave it out. Not to mention I get a larger buffer, more shots on a card, and more space on my HD.

EDIT: And not to sound like a jerk, but I think rotating your horizons to level would be more beneficial to your photography than shooting RAW over JPG.
EDIT2: You apparently really love to saturate and sharpen to the point you lose detail..So remind me again why you would bother with RAW? ( Of course Im just assuming you do. If Im wrong, I apologize )

If your mind is made up that is fine. I have no problem with that. Everyone should do what works for them. I've never sold anything for sale so I don't know anything about that. More buffer and memory space is cool.

I do have a problem with horizons and am working on it. How is that relevant to what I said? I can always crop them straight. I think.

Am I really blowing the saturation and sharpness that bad? Some of my stuff is kind of plastic looking, I admit. I am aware of that and am kind of surprised that no one has called me on it yet. I just turn up the controls to a point that I like and sometimes it does look a little over processed.

DDan wrote in post #4023497
If your mind is made up that is fine. I have no problem with that. Everyone should do what works for them. I've never sold anything for sale so I don't know anything about that. More buffer and memory space is cool.

I do have a problem with horizons and am working on it. How is that relevant to what I said? I can always crop them straight. I think.

Am I really blowing the saturation and sharpness that bad? Some of my stuff is kind of plastic looking, I admit. I am aware of that and am kind of surprised that no one has called me on it yet. I just turn up the controls to a point that I like and sometimes it does look a little over processed.

On the boat ones, it just looks like too much IMO. Horizon was tilted on a couple of them.

If you like heavily saturated images, thats your own thing and I say go for it. However, saturating and sharpening to that degree really kinda nullifies any potential benefit you could have gotten from working in RAW.

The ONLY reason I can see for shooting in RAW is if you really think that you MUST have information for every single pixel and want to save the file in some lossless format. Other than that, I just dont see the benefit. WB and exposure can be corrected just as well on a JPG as a RAW in Lightroom. I suppose theoretically, sharpening can be better since you have more information to work from, but again, I dont think its anything that anyone aside from you zooming into 500% of the original full size picture will notice.

I like it RAW baby! I do use L jpeg once in a while tho.

AdamLewis wrote in post #4023540
However, saturating and sharpening to that degree really kinda nullifies any potential benefit you could have gotten from working in RAW.

Since I have the RAW files, I could go back and give it another try if you were to specify the images where I went overboard.

sjones wrote in post #4023127
I might have pointed this out earlier in this thread, but I still don't understand the vilification of RAW's extended dynamic range; as though it were a dubious cheat. Honestly, when digital sensors attain a range of 10 to 12 stops, if not more, will traditionalists shun them as well?

Yes, those who use RAW can cop an elitist attitude, but I do not detect any palpable humbleness when I hear the argument, 'I don't need RAW, I get it right in the camera." On too many levels is that a spurious rejoinder. Legitimate arguments for JPEG include its convenience and quality, which for many professionals, is more than adequate.

I use RAW. I have the time to post process, and I even enjoy it, viewing it as an integral part of the creative process. Plus, frankly, I'm retentive; I'll never buy compressed music…I'll use it on a portable device, but the original source needs to be lossless…Likewise, I just feel more comfortable knowing my photo file contains as much information as possible, potentially benefiting even further from future software. But once again, I'm an amateur, I have the time to mess with this stuff.

Very well written. (You should be a writer. I'm assuming you're not native to Japan?)

AdamLewis wrote in post #4023355
Learn to properly expose and youll never need it IMO.

What does this even mean? Correct exposure is required under both JPEG and RAW formats; it's just that RAW extends the dynamic range by a stop or so. RAW is not a corrective agent but simply a format that extracts greater information from the sensor.

Really, what are people going to do after the introduction of an affordable point & shoot with a dynamic range that exceeds that of the human eye: 'Well, these folks are just cheating. If they would learn to expose right under the constraints of a six to eight stop dynamic range limit, they wouldn't need these fancy new P&S cameras…it ain't real photography, I tell ya!'

The benefits of RAW, for some people, certainly not all, go beyond that of just extended dynamic range, which, by the way, is a nice feature for street and urban photography….

SunTsu wrote in post #4023602
Very well written. (You should be a writer. I'm assuming you're not native to Japan?)

Thank you…yes, managed to crawl out of the US education system somewhat literate, but even as late as undergrad (which was many years ago), I had a professor accuse me of writing as though English was a second language…

I have an opinion from the other side of this argument which favors shooting raw when 'it really counts' and shooting jpeg for practice or knock off shots. Obviously if you are getting paid to shoot, you might as well use raw because of all the options available - a positive as long time isn't a critical issue, as jpegs are more user-ready. Overall, If you have a large capacity card (1-8 gigs) then why not shoot in Raw? But I will not jump to the conclusion that it should become the standard. Digital is getting better anyway and soon the loss in compression for jpeg will compensate by the programs that will develop to handling them better.

I have an opinion from the other side of this argument which favors shooting raw when 'it really counts' and shooting jpeg for practice or knock off shots. Obviously if you are getting paid to shoot, you might as well use raw because of all the options available - a positive as long time isn't a critical issue, as jpegs are more user-ready. Overall, If you have a large capacity card (1-8 gigs) then why not shoot in Raw? But I will not jump to the conclusion that it should become the standard. Digital is getting better anyway and soon the loss in compression for jpeg will compensate by the programs that will develop to handling them better.