Will RAW give me the abilities a JPEG does?

so you started shooting in RAW and then you dumbed down to shooting in JPG... I thought the whole point of a hobby was moving in the other direction... there's still hope though! go back to raw!

to me, the point of a hobby is to get better at it... post processing is just one part of photography... I didn't agree with it at all at first, but now I am all about it... especially since I can't afford really nice lenses... it's another aspect of photography that you can practice at and get better and pick up little tips here and there... and you can post process on a rainy day.

You do know that professional photographers (ie. sports photographers) shoot in jpeg right?

is photography a hobby for them?

professionals have other things to think about. Time is money, after all. I'm just saying that for me, post processing is just another part of photography that I want to get better at. If you're a professional who shoots in JPG to save time, then more power to you.

Yeah, but you are claiming that RAW is the only way if you plan to grow. You think those pros started off as a pro or as a hobby? Not to mention that most of their photos are probably better than you or I could get with them shooting jpg and us shooting raw.....explain that if RAW is so much better.

To claim that going from RAW to JPG is going backwards is absurd. All that matters is the final image and MANY people can get that final image that is better than everybody else by shooting in jpg.

Personally, I am a RAW shooter. However, anytime that I see amazing photographers that shoot only in jpg, I have a TON more respect than I would if they were shooting raw. By getting brilliant images in jpg, they are showing that they are good enough to get things right during the shot instead of after. Us RAW shooters could be getting mediocore shots and making them great in post (missing exposure, white balance off, etc...) Shooting in jpg and getting it right proves that those people are good enough to not NEED to shoot raw.

Honestly, you should strive and hope to someday progress into a good enough photographer to where you don't need to shoot raw and are good with jpg. I know that I'm not there.
 
You do know that professional photographers (ie. sports photographers) shoot in jpeg right?

is photography a hobby for them?

professionals have other things to think about. Time is money, after all. I'm just saying that for me, post processing is just another part of photography that I want to get better at. If you're a professional who shoots in JPG to save time, then more power to you.

Yeah, but you are claiming that RAW is the only way if you plan to grow. You think those pros started off as a pro or as a hobby? Not to mention that most of their photos are probably better than you or I could get with them shooting jpg and us shooting raw.....explain that if RAW is so much better.

To claim that going from RAW to JPG is going backwards is absurd. All that matters is the final image and MANY people can get that final image that is better than everybody else by shooting in jpg.

Personally, I am a RAW shooter. However, anytime that I see amazing photographers that shoot only in jpg, I have a TON more respect than I would if they were shooting raw. By getting brilliant images in jpg, they are showing that they are good enough to get things right during the shot instead of after. Us RAW shooters could be getting mediocore shots and making them great in post (missing exposure, white balance off, etc...) Shooting in jpg and getting it right proves that those people are good enough to not NEED to shoot raw.

Honestly, you should strive and hope to someday progress into a good enough photographer to where you don't need to shoot raw and are good with jpg. I know that I'm not there.

lol I'd say it has more to do with the fact that pros are using 3+ cameras that cost $4,000+ and a lens on each one that is $2,000 plus... (I'm of course talking about sports photographers)... Why would you need to sharpen a picture taken on a 1ds with an L lens? it's going to be tack sharp anyway... and the color is going to be represented nearly perfectly. I am compensating for the fact that I have an entire setup that costs less than half of even 1 of the bodies they have slung around their persons. Also, as has already been explained, they're not shooting in JPG and getting it right, they're shooting in JPG and the camera is getting it right for them.

And as I have said already at least twice in this very thread, post processing is just 1 part of photography that I want to get better at.

and if you read the OP, I don't know why you'd be attacking me on this anyway... the question is there and the obvious answer is yes. End of story.
 
You shouldn't be using post processing to bridge a gap between levels of DSLRs. If you are... you're going about it the wrong way.
 
Here's the thing though, do pro's use Jpeg, as was mentioned yes sports photogs often use it. Why? probably because they take a huge amount of images, they don't need to modify the images as much as with other areas, and its really helpful in not filling up the buffer etc. Also, if you don't need the capabilities of a RAW then why should they spend an extra 8 hours in front of a compter downloading all of the huge images that then need to be processed when they could do so with Jpeg.

Now, that is sports photogs... but as a whole I would suggest that most other types of pro photogs use RAW.

Certainly wedding photographers primarily use raw, it's very helpful for tonemapping, saving details, etc. Also, these are shots that we'll go back on and edit in minute detail. There are jpeg wedding photogs, but they are rather rare.

Fashion photogs and I would suspect commercial photogs are most certainly shooting raw. (particularly the fashion). Why? they need every pixel that they can get. Jpeg is a lossy format, and they will edit the entire thing only at the very end saving to Jpeg if necessary. For them it would be ridiculous to save each image as a jpeg and then not be able to get the lost detail back because of the saved format.

I would assume that landscape photogs use primarily raw as well. Again there is something about being able to edit the whole image with that much information than being stuck with what the jpeg leaves you.

If your main concern is output and time, then yes, jpeg can be a viable option, but for those that have the extreme detail to worry about it is almost always raw that they choose.
 
I would think the main difference would be photographers who need to turn their work around quickly to get their photos published (sports, photo journalists, etc).

Part of a wedding photographers fee is devoting time to post processing, at least that's what I've read over and over again here.
 
To be honest, even Jpeg format I use right now demands a lot of editing. I have to edit every single photo. Almost all of them have not enough shadow, blown-out highlights, lack of necessary contrast, colors and so on. I'm just tired of that. :( How can I make my photos look perfect? Perhaps a different picture control setting (any recommendations)?
Also, I think the best solution would be to shoot in RAW with the picture control settings embedded. Is that even possible?
I use Aperture to edit my photos, and don't really like the NX's interface so I prefer to stick to what I'm familiar with.

Again, I appreciate your help very much.
 
. :( How can I make my photos look perfect? .
Will never happen, because perfection is at best, a concept with no relation to reality.....same for JPEGs.

Only a RAW image shows you exactly what the image sensor recorded.

The image sensor can't record what you see with your eyes.

So, any photograph is only an approximation of what we see and can never be .........perfect.
 
Hey,

I know the title may sound stupid, since we all know that that RAW gives more flexibility, but I'll get to the point. I've been shooting RAW since I got my D90 but at some point I switched to JPEG because the images simply looked better to me and required less editing. I currently use either standard or vivid picture control and often set the d-lighting to extra high as it helps minimise blown out highlights. Now that I'm getting into more proffesional lenses, I started wondering if RAW would bring any advantages. Is it possible to apply my settings (extra high d-lighting, vivid) instantly using software?

Not sure about the D90, but my camera has the ability to shoot RAW + JPEG. I like to shoot B&W in camera, and often I shoot both in case I want to go back to the colour mode or process differently.

I never liked working with RAW in photoshop or any other software the camera company provided but Lightroom has made my RAW workflow, so much more manageable. Presets can be applied to photos easily (even upon download if you wish).
 
What you really need to do SlimPaul is go through Lightroom, play with all the sliders to achieve the generic effect you like (and yes you can make it look like your JPEGs), and then just save the settings as default.

Volah "perfect" images, RAW flexibility, and no need to juggle 2 files around.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top