RAW vs. JPG - A good read

egordon99 wrote in post #9942697
BTW - Your username is from the Gremlins, right? Mogwai was my fraternity "pledge name" in college

Ok thx. Maybe I should take a look at DPP.

Same here about the name (no frats here, but college friends - same idea).

You know they say if someone calls you a name and you don't like it to ignore them?

Well it doesn't work - I left college in 1987 and still have about 20 friends who call me Mags

White balance is enough of a reason for me to shot RAW (although there are plenty others). Sure, you can correct WB in a JPG, but correcting it in RAW gives you a lot more leeway.

tonylong wrote in post #9938664
Not to engage a debate, but a very interesting post showed up in our RAW Conversion Thread -- check it out!:

https://photography-on-the.net …?p=9937998&post​count=2058

I guess I'm not following you, is that the correct link?

MLphoto wrote in post #9938139
I shoot RAW rarely, I almost always shoot JPEG. With advanced editing programs like Photoshop CS4, Lightroom, I can edit basically everything the same as if it was a RAW file...

But Raw editing is non distructive..

shaftmaster wrote in post #9943267
I guess I'm not following you, is that the correct link?

Well, I thought that was a very good example of how much color info can be extracted from a Raw file. I seriously doubt that a jpeg would have given you nearly as usable results. Sorry if I wasn't clear!

It would have been better for the jpeg if the White Balance had been set (as a Custom WB) in-camera, of course.

I don't even know why people even argue this. RAW is superior. Period. I think the "I shoot jpeg" crowd is just pure lazy.

Shoot RAW. Case closed.

Razeus wrote in post #9945176
I don't even know why people even argue this. RAW is superior. Period. I think the "I shoot jpeg" crowd is just pure lazy.

Shoot RAW. Case closed.

Heh! Careful now -- there are serious and accomplished photogs who shoot jpegs for various valid reasons. That doesn't invalidate the arguments for Raw shooting but if you are serious about the above statement (I didn't see a smiley) then you would be well advised to rethink things before you get some "back atcha"...

Hm. Everybody has an opinion. Jus how well established this opinion might be is another question.
I recently read an interesting article on RAW/JPG where the writer was completely happy with the JPG flow he got from his 5D mk II once he had it correctly set up.

Which was a bit complicated to recent 5Dist like me.
His argument was that to tweak a photoshoot of 300 pictures, he should use at least 5 minutes per shot on screen. 1500 minutes is 25 hours.
He being a professional making his living on photos, he might have a point there.
Unless you really enjoy PP or have somebody else doing it for you, it would certainly make sense to have a technique that requires the least of non-paid work.

I am not interested in different religious views on the subject.
What interests me is HOW do JPG shooters set up their cameras and how do they know what they are getting...I cannot see how you could judge color casts etc. on the camera screen.
So, to get print-perfect JPGs, how do you do it?

doctorgonzo wrote in post #9943052
White balance is enough of a reason for me to shot RAW (although there are plenty others). Sure, you can correct WB in a JPG, but correcting it in RAW gives you a lot more leeway.

This is a life saver for me as I rarely remember to change white balance when shooting (its usually on awb) and if I didn't shoot in raw my photos would end up with strange color casts.

When i first got into digital.I had no clue about raw.Till one day i decided to give it a try shooting RAW and Jpeg. Now all i will shoot is RAW. Only way i can explain it. Driving a true sports car with a convertible top and never letting the top down and doing some spirited driving.

82NoMe wrote in post #9940041
i can't think of a reason why not to shoot RAW with how cheap storage is now.

The only time I shoot JPEG is when I'm shooting for time lapse use. Cheap storage may be, but when you need to shoot 1,000 to 2,000 frames in fairly rapid succession, and each of those frames will be seen for less than a tenth of a second, RAW is overkill

garbidz wrote in post #11953318
I recently read an interesting article on RAW/JPG where the writer was completely happy with the JPG flow he got from his 5D mk II once he had it correctly set up.
His argument was that to tweak a photoshoot of 300 pictures, he should use at least 5 minutes per shot on screen. 1500 minutes is 25 hours.
He being a professional making his living on photos, he might have a point there.

His argument is entirely specious. If today he is satisfied with 0 minutes of tweaking, why would he jump to 5 minutes with RAW? Maybe 1/2 a minute would be enough? Or he could do a batch conversion in DPP at default settings (no tweaking) and, at 5 seconds per conversion, in 25 minutes, while he's drinking coffee, have RAWs plus the same jpgs, which leaves him the option of doing selected tweaks where his wonderful camera setup let him down. Or using the same time and effort he put into the camera setup he could probably design a custom preset in LR/ACR that even batch applied blindly would give him better quality than the camera can and, once again, leave him the option of additional tweaks.
IMO, failure to leave yourself with the maximum options to do as good a job as is possible is an indicator of a lack of professionalism.

RAW til I die

Let this demonstrate what can be achieved A) via JPG edit, what can be done with a B) photo editor with RAW conversion added as an afterthought, and with C) dedicated RAW conversions software. The merits of RAW over JPG speak for themselves.

https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=7862196&pos​tcount=176

Shooting in a gym that has a different WB from right,center and left. ( I guess they replace bulbs with whatever they get the bset price on) Shooting RAW and changing the WB in LR3 is the best way for me.