RAW Question?

[Applefanboy]

I always shoot to raw. Always.

 

[CanadianMe]

This has been a very interesting thread, I am only starting get into photography in any meaningful way but if you have the choice would it not be RAW, and then you save your master and export the copy. When I started doing reading and looking at programs I would like and what drew me to Aperture, it keeps your master and exports a copy and if you need to go back you still have the master. It is like when I would work in a dark room, you always kept the negative but you would make whatever adjustments in the dark room to your photo and printed it. At times once the photo was printed I would find a minor issue and then would go back to the negative and refix it, I would not think of destroying the negative, and it seems what you do if you don't keep the original RAW file. I just assumed most would do it this way with Digital photos, don't you want your negative which would be the RAW file? External HD's are cheap enough these days to expand your storage so you keep them hopefully for a very long time. Being a new to Digital I just assumed people shot in RAW and then made whatever adjustments they needed and kept the original.

 

[RacePhoto]

Boy do I hate to ruin a good debate, but I shoot both at the same time and if I need the RAW I have it, if the JPGs are OK I can make fast edits and get on to uploads without the extra steps.

When a website needs a small image in 15 minutes, it's pretty much a matter of speed winning over fine tuning. Heck it's for a website, so it's small anyway. JPG only.

News photos have to be uploaded as soon as possible after an event, including the metadata and sometimes story line plus specific information, along with it. Not later, when I get home or when I have time to open RAWs and spend loads of time. It's intense and fun. They get sent from the location.

But, if it's going to go on some marketing site later, as editorial, then I want that RAW so I can do as much as possible to make it attractive to a buyer.

Also RAW takes longer to process when it's being shot and takes more space on the card. If someone is shooting sports and needs to take fast shots, or a fast series of shots, then it's JPG only for speed.

Sports or fast edits, all JPGs no RAW. News without fast action or in the studio, it's both at the same time.

People don't shoot with the same setting on the camera all the time, they change depending on the subject and the requirements. Same goes for RAW and JPG. I can't agree with someone who says they shoot only RAW all the time any more than someone who says they shoot TV ISO 200 all the time. You need to be flexible according to the situation.

 

[kidchill]

Yah, I agree...It's speed vs quality. I don't think we're really in a debate, though. Hands-down we all know RAW is the greatest quality, but it doesn't necessarily mean we shoot it every single time...Hopefully the newbies give this a read and get something out of it...

 

[JerryPH]

I am under no time constraints, I just want to take the best picture I can and get the best results I can with the output. RAW is that choice, but if you are a professional and are more adept at getting what your mind's eye sees on the final picture, without the need to further process you are good. However, it takes the SAME amount of time to make a small adjustment on a RAW image and save to JPG as it does to go from JPG to JPG... and I skip the generational losses associated with each save of a JPG file.