Why shoot in RAW?

Cherokee_Dad wrote in post #9651489
So, it's that 10% of the time that rules your life....WOW.

When Noah check the weather report, there was a 10% chance of rain. He built his ark anyway.

20droger wrote in post #9654174
When Noah check the weather report, there was a 10% chance of rain. He built his ark anyway.

I'm pretty sure he believed it was a 100% chance.

YankeeMom wrote in post #9651437
I understand that you can edit TIFFS but -- SURPRISE! -- you can edit jpegs, too. Jpeg files can be very large and handle a decent amount of touchups if necessary (I expect that since most of you work on jpegs in Photoshop you know what I mean.) So much for the "Polaroid" comparison.

I am working hard to learn more about RAW and using DPP, but I'm not going to be ridiculous about it. Again, modern (large file) jpegs would have had you all doing cartwheels 10 years ago.

The raw data is all the data captured by the cam, the jpeg is missing a couple f/stops of WB and exposure data.

A 5D image:

Original RAW file 11.5 MB
Conversion by DPP, no editing 8.42
Edited version from RAW 10.8

The jpeg pales in comparison to the RAW file in terms of stored data; the Canon RAW file system is efficient and uses only a 1 or 2 MBs more than a large jpep for the same image.

YankeeMom wrote in post #9651437
Again, modern (large file) jpegs would have had you all doing cartwheels 10 years ago.

By that logic we should be happy with a 110 cartridge camera, since 200 years ago we would have done cartwheels to be able to shoot actual photographs.

I honestly don't understand why anyone would argue this. Not even sure why this thread is 11 pgs long. RAW is WWWWAAAAAAAYYY better than jpgs, it's not even close.

Chairman7w wrote in post #9655188
By that logic we should be happy with a 110 cartridge camera, since 200 years ago we would have done cartwheels to be able to shoot actual photographs.

I honestly don't understand why anyone would argue this. Not even sure why this thread is 11 pgs long. RAW is WWWWAAAAAAAYYY better than jpgs, it's not even close.

I'm not arguing that jpegs are better. Not following the conversations is the obvious disadvantage of these long threads.

YankeeMom wrote in post #9655277
I'm not arguing that jpegs are better. Not following the conversations is the obvious disadvantage of these long threads.

What?!! You expect people to READ a thread before they post?!!! How alien in concept!!!

Tom Reichner wrote in post #9647724
I've heard it summed up this way:
Lightroom and Aperture are photo-management programs, with some basic editing capabilities.
Photoshop is a powerful editing program, with no photo-management capabilities.

Actually the way i look at it is LR and Aperture are photomanagement with LIMITED editing capabilities, Photoshop is an editing program with LIMITED photomanagement capabilities (Bridge is fairly capable in its latest form CS4)

Cherokee_Dad wrote in post #9651489
So, it's that 10% of the time that rules your life....WOW.

I was taught years ago - If you fail to plan, you plan to fail. Rather than rely on my skills being perfect 100% of the time (which they arent - I know that for a fact), I would rather plan for the times my skill is lacking or an unforseen event screws up a setting.

For me the balance is as follows:
Advantages:
Ability to rescue images that I havent exposed perfectly (bringing up shadow detail etc)
Ability to adjust WB.
Disadvantages:
Larger file size (storage is cheap)
Extra time to process (only minor extra time involved maybe 10-20 secs over a Jpeg)

IMHO the advantages of RAW far outweigh any drawbacks in my personal circumstances. YMMV

An analogy - when driving a car, do you wear a seatbelt? If so you are letting the 0.01% of having a crash rule your life! Or are you taking reasonable precautions for the worst case scenario? Me, I think I will use the seatbelt!

Life is full of activities where the odds of success are very much in your favor. However, quite a few of those activities are such that you only get to fail once.

Like skydiving. Only a fool would fail to check his parachute, even though 99.9% of the time it is perfectly okay.

That's why I could never sky dive. I would have to check the chute before I took off. The only way to really check it is to pull the cord. Then I would have to repack it. Then I would have to check it again. The only way to check it is to ......... well you get the point. I would never get off the ground.

Is that a sign of OCD, or am I just being reasonable?

To me, the only reason to jump out of an aircraft is if it is crashing!

Reasonable and jumping out of a perfectly working aircraft just dont go together!

blackhawk wrote in post #9648108
Yeap, lots can and does go wrong. There's also many variables.
Shooting RAW gives you greater artistic control... by having all the shot data as you point out.

Why shoot Polaroids when you can shoot complete negatives?

Andy Warhol shot Polaroids, it was a bunch of cr*p tho'.

neilwood32 wrote in post #9658573
To me, the only reason to jump out of an aircraft is if it is crashing!

Reasonable and jumping out of a perfectly working aircraft just dont go together!

I concur fully.

rral22 wrote in post #9657578
That's why I could never sky dive. I would have to check the chute before I took off. The only way to really check it is to pull the cord. Then I would have to repack it. Then I would have to check it again. The only way to check it is to ......... well you get the point. I would never get off the ground.

Is that a sign of OCD, or am I just being reasonable?

Reasonable? I think not.

OK, this, and several other threads, convinced me to try (and keep at) RAW. It's been a few months and I have finally become quite comfortable with DPP, thus I have completely switched. I am now doing cartwheels over RAW. Thanks for all the great feedback!