POLL: RAW vs. Jpeg

For what you're doing Mom I'm sure JPG will give you fine results that you'll be happy with. This is especially true due to your small print size.

But if you get into fine art photography or really want to push the tonal range of the file, recover some blown highlights or muddied shadow detail, then you should experiment with RAW.

Either way nobody will consider you an oddball . - Stu

YankeeMom wrote in post #7986697
I have been reading a ton of posts and having some conversations on the board about RAW lately and I was wondering where most people (here) fit in (since I am 100% jpeg.) I am testing RAW for me, but unsure about switching (I mainly take candids of my family and don't print above 5X7.)

Anyway, wondering if I'll be an oddball here if I don't switch!

Mom, in general how do you feel your exposures are?

If you are pretty good at evaluating a scene and getting good exposures most of the time, then your JPG's will probably look excellent. But if you tend to under/overexpose a lot of images, RAW processors will allow you to recover much more from the less than ideal file simply because there is more data there. - Stu

YankeeMom wrote in post #7987758
There are a few reasons I am interested in knowing what others do. If, for example, most of the members here use RAW and I don't, that might affect my participation in some threads. Also, I will feel more compelled to look into RAW if it is overwhelmingly popular because it is not something I've heard much about outside this board. But you are right -- ultimately, I will shoot with what works best for ME.

RAW - 100%

i shoot raw + jpeg

could this be a biased poll since after all it is posted in a post production subforum. =]

raw for everything but sports....

Not necessarily - many folks use post production on their JPG's. Where would you suggest it be placed?

c2thew wrote in post #7988577
could this be a biased poll since after all it is posted in a post production subforum. =]

I only shoot RAW because I get maximum adjustments without losing quality!

RAW, a 100% of the time.

I'll be shooting 100% raw until I'm a good enough photographer to get everything 100% correct in the camera every time. At the same time I'll pop down to Hell for a snowball fight.

c2thew wrote in post #7988577
could this be a biased poll since after all it is posted in a post production subforum. =]

Ugh, I hope not! I thought it made sense to post it here, but you may be right -- there could be a more balanced place.

sapearl wrote in post #7987782
For what you're doing Mom I'm sure JPG will give you fine results that you'll be happy with. This is especially true due to your small print size.

But if you get into fine art photography or really want to push the tonal range of the file, recover some blown highlights or muddied shadow detail, then you should experiment with RAW.

Either way nobody will consider you an oddball . - Stu

Thanks, Stu. That's the big question for me -- will I notice WITH MY EYES a big difference between Jpeg and RAW when I PRINT them off? That is what I am going to experiment with. If I don't see a big difference, then I am sticking with Jpeg, mainly due to the humongous files and storage space. I take thousands of photos a year and I have a hard enough time keeping THEM (all jpeg) organized!

Yes, I am mostly a candid shooter, but I DO love the artistic side as well. I love taking photos of scenery, foliage, and other things purely for asthetic reasons, so I may have found a place for RAW in my practice. (I also do a lot of portrait-type photos and will experiment with that as well.)

sapearl wrote in post #7987808
Mom, in general how do you feel your exposures are?

If you are pretty good at evaluating a scene and getting good exposures most of the time, then your JPG's will probably look excellent. But if you tend to under/overexpose a lot of images, RAW processors will allow you to recover much more from the less than ideal file simply because there is more data there. - Stu

I'm getting better! But I usually have to "tweak" at least a little in post-production. (Usually a little sharpening and maybe some light adjustments.) I know that with jpeg, the less I mess with a photo, the better and this board has been a huge help in getting me there.

Raw for anything that must be a quality shot that would be post-processed to perfection. When I shoot jpeg, I consider it the exception. They're either snap-shotty kinds of family things on which I don't want to expend a great deal of post-processing effort, or if the client wants an immediate download of those same kind of snap-shotty kinds of images. An example of the latter would be images of the 500 finishers in a 5k race for a non-profit organization.

RAW FTW, because with that I know I can pretty much fix or tune most of the stuff afterward and spend more time on composing and take more shots ^^b

hollis_f wrote in post #7990136
I'll be shooting 100% raw until I'm a good enough photographer to get everything 100% correct in the camera every time. At the same time I'll pop down to Hell for a snowball fight.

+1. I've only recently started shooting raw, but it has already saved my bacon a few times.

Most recently, I was shooting a 'going away' party for one of my co-workers, which took place in the enclosed outdoor patio of a restaurant. Lighting was very erratic - the interior was fairly dark, while the tables next to the large windows were very brightly lit by sunlight. I was shooting in manual mode and blew a few shots pretty badly by turning for quick shots and not catching the exposure changes with my settings. I was able to salvage them in PP, but I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't have had the same luck if they'd been .jpgs.

I'll still use jpg for casual snapshot kind of stuff where I don't really care that much about my "keeper" ratio, or when just experimenting with the camera and am more concerned with the technical aspects of my shots rather than the content. But since I'm far from being an expert photographer, I'll opt for the "forgiveness" of raw if I'm shooting something where I care about being as sure as possible that I get the maximal amount of "keepers".