-=JPG JULY DISCUSSION THREAD=-

Dan-o wrote in post #5844866
I only give up things that are harmful to me or have some sort of down side. I haven't found a down side to RAW yet.

While there is no down side to not ironing ones underwear and socks, do you do it? Why not? I don't, cuz it doesn't matter

I shot RAW for 18 months, never needed to 'save' WB, or an image that was a few stops over or under. About a month into JPG only and not regretting it.

When people come in my office or home they comment on the prints composition or lighting, NEVER ..... NEVER has someone said WOW is that JPG or RAW, no one would be able to tell anyway.

To each his own, I'm not trying to say it is for everyone, but I love the extra card space 700+ on a 4G, faster transfer and processing times too. Not to mention a non prepritary archive method that is editable in nearly every program ever made for images and will be much longer in the future.

I'm a rare breed, I know, I'd rather shoot pictures than sit in front of a computer processing for hours. Not to mention letting a $2000 camera $3000 if you count a mounted lens, process the images for me based, in 9 shots per second, with the conditions at the time of the shot rather than a $99 piece of software and me spending minutes per image.

Zazoh wrote in post #5845266
While there is no down side to not ironing ones underwear and socks, do you do it? Why not? I don't, cuz it doesn't matter

I shot RAW for 18 months, never needed to 'save' WB, or an image that was a few stops over or under. About a month into JPG only and not regretting it.

When people come in my office or home they comment on the prints composition or lighting, NEVER ..... NEVER has someone said WOW is that JPG or RAW, no one would be able to tell anyway.

To each his own, I'm not trying to say it is for everyone, but I love the extra card space 700+ on a 4G, faster transfer and processing times too. Not to mention a non prepritary archive method that is editable in nearly every program ever made for images and will be much longer in the future.

I'm a rare breed, I know, I'd rather shoot pictures than sit in front of a computer processing for hours. Not to mention letting a $2000 camera $3000 if you count a mounted lens, process the images for me based, in 9 shots per second, with the conditions at the time of the shot rather than a $99 piece of software and me spending minutes per image.

I like the cut of your jib.

JPEG has its place, but not on my cameras.

I'd be futzing with my JPEGs in Lightroom (I do with my P&S) anyway, so it may as well be a RAW with more latitude. My workflow wouldn't change and I have plenty of memory cards.

Anke wrote in post #5845313
I like the cut of your jib.

Me too.

I don't do it because my time is valuable and it is unnecessary. What kind of comparison is that?

Even if I do shoot JPEG on occasion the PP is the same. Import to Lightroom, batch adjust, export to CS3 sharpen droplet, done.

John_B wrote in post #5844625
I find shooting jpegs keep the photographer (me) more keen on the situation, like slide film did in the film days. Paying more attention to proper white balance, color settings in camera to match the look you want to achieve. Proper exposure which becomes easier when doing correct metering.......

Getting the camera to produce what you want is possible and its how I try

You have a good grasp of what this is all about. It does sharpen your skills. The problem here is too many people on the forum take themselves far too seriously. After hearing some of the foolish comments you would think that 99% of the people here shoot nothing but fine art photography 24/7 that is so critical that they absolutely, positively must shoot only RAW.....hehehe

Lighten up folks....this is a fun exercise...try something new...it won't hurt you, it won't kill you....and you sure as heck aren't going to lose a masterpiece because you attempted a few shots in JPEG. Nobody is asking you to shoot paid work in JPEG...this is strictly for fun.

hey wait....you mean it's not fine art? hmmmmm

Dan-o wrote in post #5845402
I don't do it because my time is valuable and it is unnecessary. What kind of comparison is that?

Exactly, just like RAW, which does take more time. More importantly, because it is unnecessary, NO one will see it but you, am I wrong?

So, it goes like this, one can shoot in RAW (iron Underwear) or one can just shoot JPG (put them on), the only one that will know you shot in RAW (Iron underwear) will be you. If you print or post to the web (JPG) no one will see RAW.

I thought a good comparison.

Zazoh wrote in post #5845762
Exactly, just like RAW, which does take more time. More importantly, because it is unnecessary, NO one will see it but you, am I wrong?

RAW only takes more time if

A) Your workflow is crap and/or
B) You think SOOC JPEGs are great therefore you do not do anything to them.

Anke wrote in post #5844893
Are you finding that you are chimping more shooting JPG?

Yes, I actually do chimp a whole lot more shooting jpeg. It's almost like I'm trying to analyze just how much I'm going to have to work to get the picture like I want it later!

For me, I'm really enjoying this challenge, it does make me think a lot more about what I'm seeing in the lens, I have found that I'm taking more time on my shots, for right now at least! Btw, I'm shooting only in jpeg, not in RAW and jpeg. I'm living on the edge here!!

I thought it was pretty clear. My workflow is the same RAW or JPEG. So where is the extra time spent? Must be that "NEW" math. I must be missing something.

Exactly.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to shoot RAW, shoot BMP for all I care. I'm not even one of those who will taught the benefits of increased control of WB and exposure because 95% of the time it really doesn't matter. To say RAW takes extra time just is a false statement. Like I wrote before. Insert card into card reader> delete obvious bad shots> adjust first image for color, white balance and exposure> batch convert the rest> export to CS3 sharpen droplet and save.

What part of that work flow would have been quicker with JPEG?

Ok.. Here's a puzzler.

I've been shooting in jpg and wondering why my shots look softer than usual, so I did a compare in LR.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Pete,
Because your Adobe software sharpens the photo (or so I have heard). Try the same test with DPP and you wont see the difference, as DPP will apply the camera settings to both photos unless you tell it otherwise.

John_B wrote in post #5848173
Pete,
Because your Adobe software sharpens the photo (or so I have heard). Try the same test with DPP and you wont see the difference, as DPP will apply the camera settings to both photos unless you tell it otherwise.

I've got sharpening in LR set to 0.

So why does it sharpen my CR2 files and not the JPG files?