Photoshoots...JPEG or RAW ?

[AceCo55]

Nevermind ... RAW, in the OP's situation, is the best choice.
(Not to say RAW is always the best choice in every situation.)

It says you quoted me... but I don't see what it is you quoted!

Sorry - I edited out my original reply after thinking what I had said was not relevant in THIS thread.

What I was saying was that not all photographs are "art" - which is the point you had made. The example I was going to illustrate was sports photography with deadlines. So one might have 800 - 1000 keepers which need to be processed and uploaded the next day - or submissions that day.
In THIS situation, it makes more sense to shoot in JPEG ... which is what a lot of sports photographers do (me included).

However, I then went back to the OP's original message and in their situation RAW made a lot more sense. So what I was going to say, was not really relevant in this thread.

I was just going to point out that, in some situations, it makes more sense to shoot JPEG rather than RAW. I shoot JPEG for my sports but RAW for my personal stuff.

Oh great. Fights have started around here over lesser concepts. Usually revolving around what is or is not art. This may get good now..........

"Keep Calm and Carry On" ... nothing to see here!

 

[DGMPhotography]

Nevermind ... RAW, in the OP's situation, is the best choice.
(Not to say RAW is always the best choice in every situation.)

It says you quoted me... but I don't see what it is you quoted!

Sorry - I edited out my original reply after thinking what I had said was not relevant in THIS thread.

What I was saying was that not all photographs are "art" - which is the point you had made. The example I was going to illustrate was sports photography with deadlines. So one might have 800 - 1000 keepers which need to be processed and uploaded the next day - or submissions that day.
In THIS situation, it makes more sense to shoot in JPEG ... which is what a lot of sports photographers do (me included).

However, I then went back to the OP's original message and in their situation RAW made a lot more sense. So what I was going to say, was not really relevant in this thread.

I was just going to point out that, in some situations, it makes more sense to shoot JPEG rather than RAW. I shoot JPEG for my sports but RAW for my personal stuff.

Oh great. Fights have started around here over lesser concepts. Usually revolving around what is or is not art. This may get good now..........

Nonsense, I see no fight here.

I think you make a perfectly valid point, Ace. I'm sure not all photographs would be considered art. That would depend on the photographer, and the eye of the beholder.

 

[table1349]

Ah to be young again seeing the world with rose colored glasses.

For fun use the search function regarding "is it art" . That topic around here is third only to the subjects of religion and politics for its volitility.

 

[cbarnard7]

Poor OP- looks like (again) ego and weird comments derailed your original question. I would suggest you shoot in RAW and become more confident in your editing abilities. Eventually, you'll be able to batch/sync things to speed editing up a lot. Check youtube for tutorials. There's no reason (in my opinion) to shoot RAW+Jpeg...you'll either be editing a lot or not. Good luck!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G850A using Tapatalk

 

[manicmike]

I was a bit surprised when you commented that it would take "hours upon hours" to process each image if you shoot RAW. This made me wonder what you could possibly be doing that would take so long. I can edit RAW images FASTER than JPEG. RAW is easier to adjust. Tools such as Lightroom really streamline the process even faster because you can sync global adjustments to an entire shoot (everything shot in the same lighting) at once.

This is what I was going to say. Basic edits are much quicker, especially when you need to adjust things like white balance. IMO.