OK, I'm sold. RAW.

I can't believe it took me so long. I wanted to believe that RAW didn't have much to offer me. I stayed away from it as long as I could.

About 3 months ago I did a photo-shoot and decided to use RAW because I knew that the lighting would be very difficult.

I have yet to switch the camera back to jpg.

It is truly amazing how much sharper the images can be, how much more depth they can have, and how I can manipulate images with no loss to the image quality.

Just incredible.

I apologize for waiting so long. Now I need a new CF card and faster computer.

i need to buy some sandisc, transcend or kingston stocks.

It's a great thing to explore... RAW certainly does have its perks over JPG.

Of course, with it comes increased post-processing time. If I could get away with shooting just JPG and have the same (or very close to the same) results I would.

^^ But that's like taking your film to Walmart or Target and have the "Photo Specialist" develop your film.

nontetheredbrain wrote in post #5359242
^^ But that's like taking your film to Walmart or Target and have the "Photo Specialist" develop your film.

HA!

nontetheredbrain wrote in post #5359242
^^ But that's like taking your film to Walmart or Target and have the "Photo Specialist" develop your film.

not really. you can process jpegs too but you just don't have have the same latitude for adjustment.

ed rader

I've always been too scared to even use JPEG. I don't want to get that "one in a million" shot, and not have the same flexibility I have with RAW. Besides, I don't like my camera telling me what I have just shot should look like. Enjoy.

I love using RAW + my Extreme IV. Works superb.

I shoot EVERYTHING in raw.... quick snapshots... insurance record shots...everything.

Mark1 wrote in post #5359526
I shoot EVERYTHING in raw.... quick snapshots... insurance record shots...everything.

Same here, I can't remember the last time I used the JPG option in my SLR.

mrr74 wrote in post #5359318
I've always been too scared to even use JPEG. I don't want to get that "one in a million" shot, and not have the same flexibility I have with RAW. Besides, I don't like my camera telling me what I have just shot should look like. Enjoy.

Agree. I was shooting RAW+JPEG and, after a few outings decided that I never used the JPEG. Besides, I always post process anyway as nothing ever comes out exactly as I would like it out of the camera without some fiddling around.

I went the other way. My processing time has been cut down so substantially I don't understand why I clung to raw for so long. It all depends on what you shoot. When you shoot in large volumes, and have deadlines, raw becomes a giant pain in the butt. If I think the light is going to be particularly odd or unpredictable, I'll make the switch back, but after years of religiously shooting raw I couldn't be happier with jpeg.

It helped that every professional I've encountered in my field (news/sports/events) shoots in jpeg. There's nothing wrong with either format, but just keep in mind that there are uses for both.

Here's my question about RAW:

Frequently at events or whatever I'm shooting, I may shoot away, taking hundreds of snapshots. The advantage to JPG is that the camera processes the photos and I don't have to worry about it.

What about RAW? If I were to take hundreds of RAW photos, would they be acceptable quality without any post processing? I'd hate to have to PP every single one of those photos. But if they were "good enough" or even "pretty good", then I could only worry about PPing the ones that were great shots and I wanted to print or something.

So, what's the buzz?

Thanks!

Hektor wrote in post #5360007
Here's my question about RAW:

Frequently at events or whatever I'm shooting, I may shoot away, taking hundreds of snapshots. The advantage to JPG is that the camera processes the photos and I don't have to worry about it.

What about RAW? If I were to take hundreds of RAW photos, would they be acceptable quality without any post processing? I'd hate to have to PP every single one of those photos. But if they were "good enough" or even "pretty good", then I could only worry about PPing the ones that were great shots and I wanted to print or something.

So, what's the buzz?

Thanks!

if you don't want to PP shoot jpeg. RAW files are meant to be PPed.

ed rader

Hektor wrote in post #5360007
Here's my question about RAW:

Frequently at events or whatever I'm shooting, I may shoot away, taking hundreds of snapshots. The advantage to JPG is that the camera processes the photos and I don't have to worry about it.

What about RAW? If I were to take hundreds of RAW photos, would they be acceptable quality without any post processing? I'd hate to have to PP every single one of those photos. But if they were "good enough" or even "pretty good", then I could only worry about PPing the ones that were great shots and I wanted to print or something.

So, what's the buzz?

Thanks!

With raw you do the lot yourself. and to me its worh it as I know what I want from a image unlike the camera. Jpeg is a losy file system so you lose data on compresion.