Is RAW really worth it?

[TCampbell]

Real men also search the forums before posting a thread asking about RAW for the 87,000th time.

But yes, RAW is worth it.

But if people search the forums, there wont be any new threads.

 

[KmH]

Yes don't ever shoot a paid wedding etc with jpag only

Quite a few of the best wedding photographers in the world shoot weddings in JPEG.

 

[rexbobcat]

Quite a few of the best wedding photographers in the world shoot weddings in JPEG.

You seem to misinterpret his words.

I don't think he's referring to the JPEG format.

He's clearly talking about the less popular JPAG format. It's like the Betamax of the digital format realm.

 

[spacefuzz]

Maybe a shameless plug...but it seemed on topic for this. An article I wrote which shows just how much you can recover using RAW.

Why Shoot with RAW? - pictureline

 

[STIC]

...

 

[panblue]

Jpeg for obviously great images with immediacy and impact. Raw for BS that needs massaging and beautification.

 

[panblue]

lol

 

[bratkinson]

For those too young to remember Betamax...it had -and still has- better image quality than VHS could EVER deliver! It's only because Sony got 'greedy' and charged everyone to license Beta format to build equipment or even make blank tapes that killed Beta. VHS was their first video tape attempt and they sold/gave away the whole kit and kaboodle making it 'public domain', effectively. And as of 8-10 years ago, TV studios STILL used 1" Beta format tape machines. It was only the change to digital broadcasting that put an end to their Beta machines.

 

[slow231]

if you're just using raw as insurance for an f-up, you're only realizing part of the game. bit depth is everything. color control (huge + here), precise tonal manipulation, and being able to reign in information from past both ends of the histogram (which can easily happen on a single same shot)... this all works to generate substantially better images, even for perfectly exposed, perfectly WB-ed shots. This is especially useful for area specific adjustments. not all parts of your frame are going to be colored the same, or optimally lit, why limit your adjustment range to rendering that is just averaged for your entire frame?

camera's are so good now, auto exposure, auto wb, etc is usually spot on. and the times when they're not are usually pretty easy to recognize beforehand (and compensate for). Yet still plenty of people prefer to shoot raw. it's not just an insurance thing.

another note. i shoot purely raw, and don't see a reason to save a jpg with it (aside from adding file clutter). i have to go through my images anyways, anything i want to keep but not edit i can just toss into a batch conversion with some default settings. takes me no more work than any other file drag + drop (at least for me, my computer has to do more work though!).

 

[greybeard33 5]

Yes don't ever shoot a paid wedding etc with jpag only

Quite a few of the best wedding photographers in the world shoot weddings in JPEG.

I have a few friends who are long time pro's and they all shoot in JPEG. To them, time is money and the extra time needed to edit and process RAW isn't necessary for them. These guys shot film for 30 yrs with Mamiya 6x7 monsters and had to take whatever the lab gave them. They know what they are doing and how to get what their client wants and JPEG gives it to them. If I were a pro (which I am not) I would shoot both and work mainly with the JPEGS as long as they didn't need a lot of editing, keeping the RAW's in case something really needs a lot of editing. (jmho)

 

[unpopular]

Jpeg for obviously great images with immediacy and impact. Raw for BS that needs massaging and beautification.

I like plastic, inferior, low resolution processors too!! They really make my digital photographs have that digital look to them! Oh, and the way my camera handles noise! Just love me some smeary, gooey ick!

 

[unpopular]

Yes don't ever shoot a paid wedding etc with jpag only

Quite a few of the best wedding photographers in the world shoot weddings in JPEG.

I have a few friends who are long time pro's and they all shoot in JPEG. To them, time is money and the extra time needed to edit and process RAW isn't necessary for them. These guys shot film for 30 yrs with Mamiya 6x7 monsters and had to take whatever the lab gave them. They know what they are doing and how to get what their client wants and JPEG gives it to them. If I were a pro (which I am not) I would shoot both and work mainly with the JPEGS as long as they didn't need a lot of editing, keeping the RAW's in case something really needs a lot of editing. (jmho)

Don't your friends know about batch processing? There are good reasons to shoot JPEG, laziness isn't one of them.

 

[STIC]

...

 

[RacePhoto]

IChances are I'll use both and look at the difference in LR4 when I get home...

If you're going to shoot both anyway, why bother starting an argument on the forum?





View attachment 26264

Like shooting Polariods compared to processing in a darkroom. Hardly more than a shallow snobish evaluation.

Here's the real answer. It Depends...

I can make a whole long list of reasons why some situations you would want to shoot JPG and some where you would want to shoot RAW. It Depends!

I agree with Chris: and also...

"Can we all get along?"

 

[bunny99123]

If you're going to shoot both anyway, why bother starting an argument on the forum?

<img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=26264"/>

That's funny!