Shooting JPG format?

I'm a new photographer and it was suggested by one that I should start off shooting in "JPG/Fine"...

And that I could do a decent job in [PS Elements 6] to edit my photos.

As I got more familiar with the hobby then I should be able to determine when I would like to begin shooting RAW...

I want to shoot Wildlife & Landscape images primarily.

I purchased a XTi with 18-55mm kit lens and a 70-200mm f/4L IS USM + 1.4/TC for now...

Do you think I should be able to get reasonable quality images with my equipment providing I expose each image correctly?

In other words, will I be severely handicapped in shooting JPG/Fine if I learn to do my part?

I'm not really interested in spending hours on the computer post-processing at this particular point shooting RAW...

Any insight and guidance would be greatly appreciated!

No, you won't be handicapped by shooting jpeg but jpeg doesn't mean post production is really any less to get the best out of your images. Get the focus, exposure and composition right and those are the important parts of a good image.

If you look at my zenfolio site linked below you will see 98% of the shots done in jpeg and I really don't think they would have been better shot in raw but each shot does involve from a few to many minutes in post.

RAW does give you more options, especially if you are shooting landscapes. I use JPEG, but only because I get a 5x larger buffer. RAW gives you the ability to further bring down highlights and boost shadows, and gives you total control over white balance.
The post processing aspect of RAW is basically the same as jpeg, and indeed can reduce the time you spend on it significantly. The difference is you have to convert the RAW to JPEG, which involved telling the computer how you want the JPEG to 'look,' which can save you a lot of time in PS.
But JPEG will not handicap your shooting. Many pros use JPEG simply because they don't need the extra stuff RAW offers. If you've got the time, why not just trial using RAW for a few weeks, and see what you think of it.

The equipment you've got will give excellent images, but you might want to look into investing some more money into lenses. Especially faster, longer ones and wider ones. 450mm might not be enough for wildlife, and the lens will be fairly slow. Likewise, you might find that 28mm isn't wide enough for your style of landscapes. But once again, go out and take some photos, and then look at what you need.

BradM- PM sent!

Thank you to the both of you for your expertise and insight!

I'll do more studying in getting down the basics...

I appreciate your wisdom and time...

I was told the same thing starting.....I was mislead.
Shoot Raw and learn to do your post processing.

I shot raw for 2 years and it is not needed. Get it right in the camera and you will not have any need for raw. Your camera can sharpen, color saturation, etc..all the things you have to do manually with raw, are done in camera automatically. All you have to do is tweak them if you want. My camera processes my jpegs exactly the way I want, I don't need raw. All I have to do is sharpen and remove any noise, crop and I'm done..your raw will require every little thing to be adjusted by you. I never shoot landscapes digital. I still shoot landscapes with film. I have yet to find any raw or jpeg image match the depth of about anything that film offers. You have to sharpen about all images that are digital. You don't have to sharpen film. It is tick-tack sharp already and digs into the shadows and colors. In my book, film still beats digital in the landscape realm I just use my T-90 and take 5 or 6 spot readings, the camera averages all readings together for a setting that gives a premium shot. NO digital camera does that. NO Digital camera will let you take 5 or 6 spot readings and put them all together for the premium exposure...think before you jump. If you get photoshop CS3 you can process any jpegs in the raw editor so raw is not needed for anything if you learn your craft and get it right in the camera. Raw makes you lazy, makes you think you can always make up for mistakes in a program. Learn to get it right the first time in camera and you will be better off processing wise and photographically wise.

I agree that one should do as much during the time of exposure as possible. Shooting RAW gives you much more artistic freedom than shooting jpegs. I don't even like all that people do but the point is.........it is possible. Because of compression, a jpeg is already missing data.

Booju,

As you can probably tell, this is a subject that boils down to personal preferences, and can spark some real debate.

Shooting in RAW is similar to developing your own film -- you have total creative control in things like contrast, saturation, sharpening, and white balance, instead of giving it to your camera to figure out for you. If you shoot jpegs, you tell the camera to follow some guidelines. If you don't like the result, you can make adjustments with your computer software, but you don't have as much latitude in those adjustments as you do with RAW.

So, many people prefer jpeg because it's convenient and allows many more shots to be stored on their cards and hard drives. Many other people, on the other hand, prefer RAW because of the desire for the creative control RAW gives.

It's up to you! I'd suggest, though, before jumping into RAW, that you do some reading, search this forum and Google for discussions and tutorials about the RAW workflow -- there is a need for special software (some comes with your camera) and there's a little bit of a learning curve, but not that much. There are also good books out that cover things like Adobe Camera Raw (that comes with Adobe CSx) and Adobe Lightroom that, once you've gone through one of them, should get you up to speed!

In the meantime, take pictures and get to know your camera and gear, and have fun!

When to begin shooting in RAW?

poloman wrote in post #5304107
I agree that one should do as much during the time of exposure as possible. Shooting RAW gives you much more artistic freedom than shooting jpegs. I don't even like all that people do but the point is.........it is possible. Because of compression, a jpeg is already missing data.

What artistic freedom? It allows one to change or adjust the white balance or exposure if the shot was taken incorrectly. That is it over a jpeg.

Contrast, Sharpening, saturation can either be controlled by the camera in jpeg or not, that is why there are settings or styles to adjust it. I shoot primarily jpegs in a neutral style and have complete control over my images.

I may lose a bit of data but to be honest you or no one else can tell the difference from my prints and web shots are useless for image quality. The tonality, the graduation and smoothness of the color, the depth of shadows and brillance of the highlights are all there. Not because of the format I shoot but because of the care taken in capturing the image.

The benefit of RAW is a screwed up white balance and missed exposures. Get it right and it doesn't make a difference.

RAW gives you much more flexibility, not only for artistic interpretation, but also for alleviating some of the technical limitations imposed by the scene. Here is a shot taken while I was on vacation, not particular meant to be the artistic epitome, but to illustrate the value of RAW...

If I had exposed this shot a bit brighter, I would have blown out feather detail in the highlight area.

Just shoot it right and you don't need to do any post processing. Expo disc keeps your white balance correct and you don't need to fix your WB in post.

Better yet - set you camera settings to shoot BOTH - RAW+JPEG. That way, if you're in a hurry, you can simply get access to your JPEGs right away (e.g., copy or send to friends, etc.) Then if there are specific JPEGs that require some PP, you have the RAW images for those adjustments. Todays large CF cards allow so many pictures that this works well for me. For instance, on my 4GB CF-III, I can get something like 300 RAW+JPEG images before filling it ... If I were on vacation, I would only shoot RAW to save some space - as well as have an additonal 1 or 2 CF cards.

Sure! He could just have asked the bird to hold still while he got out the reflector or flash to provide fill for the exposure.

Cody21 wrote in post #5307007
Better yet - set you camera settings to shoot BOTH - RAW+JPEG. That way, if you're in a hurry, you can simply get access to your JPEGs right away (e.g., copy or send to friends, etc.) Then if there are specific JPEGs that require some PP, you have the RAW images for those adjustments. Todays large CF cards allow so many pictures that this works well for me. For instance, on my 4GB CF-III, I can get something like 300 RAW+JPEG images before filling it ... If I were on vacation, I would only shoot RAW to save some space - as well as have an additonal 1 or 2 CF cards.

I think the issue for some was the buffer time. Now you are cramming more onto the card which will slow the buffer time. I think the RAW vs JPEG is dependent on what you are shooting as well as your technical camera skills. I am getting better on the technical side and see myself making less adjustments in RAW, but I still love the flexibility of RAW.