Shooting JPG format?

The only time I shoot JPEG

The only time I shoot JPEG is when I need to down load and/or print from a place where I don't have the availability of Photoshop CS3 and its wonderful Adobe Bridge.

I actually consider RAW an easier format with which to work...

Seriously, when you're just starting out you simply will not notice the difference. If you have a good body and lens, which you do, then composition and exposure/lighting etc will do the job very nicely with JPEG.

The kind of changes the guys above are talking about with RAW will just not be noticable until you really get into it and start analysing on your comp into the wee hours at 100% crop. You ain't gonna do that silly nonsense are ya? Not at that stage of addiction yet, give it a few months

Me too.
Some of these people claim they can do it all in camera with no post processing.
Fantastic claims require fantastic proof..........

Now here is a 100% crop, first as shot in the camera...

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

Considerable difference, thanks for the comparison.

Wilt wrote in post #5307114
Now here is a 100% crop, first as shot in the camera...

Note the detail lost in the highlight area of the breast feathers.

Now here is the same shot with detail recovered during the RAW conversion process...

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO

Note the increase detail which is captured in the breast feathers in the highlight. The extreme highlight area is still lost, but much more detail can be nevertheless seen.

kona77 wrote in post #5307042
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.

Yea, I guess that COULD be an issue if you were shooting high speed - like 5 pics per second or something. But if you're primarly just shooting single image shots, it really is unnoticeable with the new faster CF cards; at least with my camera gear. I can shoot high speed with no problems "buffering" to card. YMMV

I shoot RAW for everything except for sports shooting when I shoot JPEG. The benefits of RAW are that you have greater control over your final image and for me, it is easier to go through 600+ RAW files than it is to go through 600+ JPEGs as I will always want to apply basic pp at the very least. Of course, with sport shooting, I use JPEGs to get the most of my buffer etc.
I shot JPEGs for at least the first 6 months when I got my first DSLR and when I made the jump to RAW I was glad. Let's not forget that a RAW file is just that - it is everything that the camera's sensor records. The JPEG is compressed and in that compression it throws away a lot of data which is why there's always more scope for correcting images shot in RAW.

Me too ... I found RAW and will never go back ...

jpg is famous for blown highlights........

RAW has been good to me, but I have no aversion to sitting at my computer for countless hours processing images. It's something I enjoy and is just as fun for me as taking the picture. Sometimes I take pictures just so I'll have something to process. I know, I'm a freak.

Wow!!!

I've been gone for a couple of days and just got back to check on my post!

Thanks to all for sharing your POV on shooting JPG or RAW as it gives me a lot of info right from the start.

A lot has been said here on both sides of the table and I have listened very carefully.

I appreciate all the insight that you have presented me and it seems to me that either way, my #1 Goal has always been to NAIL it in-camera regardless of PP in JPG or RAW...

I now understand its a matter of individual preference more than anything...

I've seen many incredible images that have inspired me by TWO photographers that shoot JPG Format and I have seen countless photographers who shoot incredible images in RAW.

Based on skill level I have seen both "camps" produce EXCELLENT professional quality images that fascinate me and captivate me with sheer envy.

However, I will announce that I have already decided that my individual preference is to shoot incredibly professional quality images in JPG format.

As I learn to become more proficient with my newly acquired "hobby" I hope that I will be able to impress you one day with my images as much as many of you on this great forum have impressed me, regardless of the format I have preferred.

Thanks again for all your input as I have learned much in this post!

Aloha!

Roland

In terms of exposure, you have to "get in right" in the camera for both JPEG and RAW. The difference is that RAW extrapolates and reads a considerable more amount of information from the sensor than does JPEG, rendering about an additional stop worth of detail.

"Getting it right in the camera" does not mean exposing for a six to seven stop dynamic range; it means exposing within the context of the camera's dynamic range, whether it is five stops or 15 stops. That is, the argument that you don't need RAW if you "get it right in the camera" is somewhat misleading, as it assumes the photographer is working in an environment where that additional stop of detail would not be beneficial.

poloman wrote in post #5307078
...Some of these people claim they can do it all in camera with no post processing.
Fantastic claims require fantastic proof..........

Yeah, really, as though the world's great photographers never used a darkroom to improve their images. And of course, everyone realizes that setting the camera's contrast, sharpness, saturation, white balance, and color tone parameters is an act of post processing, as digital manipulation occurs after the exposure, albeit damn quick…

sjones wrote in post #5312841
In terms of exposure, you have to "get in right" in the camera for both JPEG and RAW. The difference is that RAW extrapolates and reads a considerable more amount of information from the sensor than does JPEG, rendering about an additional stop worth of detail.

"Getting it right in the camera" does not mean exposing for a six to seven stop dynamic range; it means exposing within the context of the camera's dynamic range, whether it is five stops or 15 stops. That is, the argument that you don't need RAW if you "get it right in the camera" is somewhat misleading, as it assumes the photographer is working in an environment where that additional stop of detail would not be beneficial.…

Agreed. That was the point of my post with the comparison. The exposure was identical for the'as-shot' and for the RAW converted file...nailed. With the as-shot, I lost both highlight detail and and had some poorly seen shadow detail. With RAW I was able extract more detail from both areas of the shot. The exposure level seen in #11 and #19 was not altered, I merely played with the balance of the shadow area to base exposure, and the balance of the highlight area to base exposure.

poloman wrote in post #5309645
jpg is famous for blown highlights........

Photographers are famous for not properly metering for the highlights.

I love these debates, I need some popcorn and a beer

Seriously, RAW vs JPEG is more like slide film vs print film.

It is a matter of preference, how much time do you want to take developing? How much storage space do you have? What will happen to the image? Are you going to store it on your hard drive and post on line maybe? Are you going to printing from them? If so how big?

I shoot based on my desired output and current need.

Seniors? JPEG medium, more than 2 people in the shot? JPEG large, Wall of Fame image for 30x40 enlargement? RAW.

rabidcow wrote in post #5313274
It is a matter of preference, how much time do you want to take developing? How much storage space do you have? What will happen to the image? Are you going to store it on your hard drive and post on line maybe? Are you going to printing from them? If so how big?

I shoot based on my desired output and current need..

I used to have a similar approach, choosing RAW for the 'more demanding' situations and relying upon JPG of varying levels for the 'less demanding'. But since the camera could store both, I decided to have it do that! So I could have instant JPG that I could email to someone yet also have high res shots for exhibition.

What I discovered was that extracting the small JPG from RAW was so fast and so easy, that I never ever bothered with actually using the in-camera JPG. And quick tweaks were so fast and so easy in the RAW convertor that it was no work at all even to do some gross adjustments to quickly improve upon what the camera had recorded...the in-camera JPG might be just fine, but a RAW conversion could reveal things so much better, that the in-camera JPG was just too 'ho hum' to send out! So my camera is set to store RAW only, now.