RAW vs JPEG - Freedom Or Limiting

[smoke665]

I'll say I've saved mostly RAW for years, but the older I've become, the more I think the simplicity of going to JPEG offers advantages. Here's another view for switching to JPEG, any comments to agree or dispute? "Limitations" boost photographic creativity – here's why I ditched RAWs and zooms, and embraced JPEGs and prime lenses

 

[cgw133 158]

Always skeptical of Holy Writ in photography pertaining to choices like this. I enjoy Fuji film sims and shoot RAW+JPEG. Really like the High-Contrast B&W JPEG option on the Ricoh GR II. Never understood the virtue signalling of RAW-only blowhards. Shoot whatever format that ultimately works for you.
Am partial to the lens argument. Own no AF zooms. 24mm to 85mm primes only. Fuji and Ricoh p&s cameras are fixed 28mm and 35mm equiv. Habitually pre-visualize. Not much of a sniper, I guess.

 

[smoke665]

Shoot whatever format that ultimately works for you.

This^^^^^^ In my case I still do a lot of post editing creating, so RAW still works best for me, but I don't expect others to follow my choices. On the Zoom vs Prime debate, I shoot both, it's like the old adage...."use the tools in the toolbox appropriately". IE: I'm a woodworker, I can cut a 2x4 with my fine tooth Japanese pull saw.....but I can do it quicker with my Skill Saw, but I wouldn't use the Skill Saw to cut dovetails.

 

[Dale H. Cook127 21]

Never understood the virtue signalling of RAW-only blowhards.

Some of us shoot RAW because JPG deliberately degrades images by throwing away data which cannot be recovered.

I have a prime normally mounted on my body as my most used lens, but my 18-270mm is mt second most used lens.

 

[cgw133 158]

Some of us shoot RAW because JPG deliberately degrades images by throwing away data which cannot be recovered.
Breaking News???

 

[cgw133 158]

This^^^^^^ In my case I still do a lot of post editing creating, so RAW still works best for me, but I don't expect others to follow my choices. On the Zoom vs Prime debate, I shoot both, it's like the old adage...."use the tools in the toolbox appropriately". IE: I'm a woodworker, I can cut a 2x4 with my fine tooth Japanese pull saw.....but I can do it quicker with my Skill Saw, but I wouldn't use the Skill Saw to cut dovetails.

Can't live without pull saws!

 

[TJMcG129 12]

Always skeptical of Holy Writ in photography pertaining to choices like this. I enjoy Fuji film sims and shoot RAW+JPEG. Really like the High-Contrast B&W JPEG option on the Ricoh GR II. Never understood the virtue signalling of RAW-only blowhards. Shoot whatever format that ultimately works for you.
Am partial to the lens argument. Own no AF zooms. 24mm to 85mm primes only. Fuji and Ricoh p&s cameras are fixed 28mm and 35mm equiv. Habitually pre-visualize. Not much of a sniper, I guess.

A day or two ago, I made a comment in another place about the "manual-only snobs." Some nice person replied that my comment was "not valid," and noted that I must "have a serious chip on (my) shoulder." Talk bout "holy writ."

When someone asks for advice on improving their photos, there will always be a contingent that says"First, you must shoot only in manual mode. If you don't know how, learn, and never let the camera make decisions for you. (Note: Bird eye autofocus, a dozen focus and metering modes, and Auto ISO are not only okay, but it's the only way to go.)

I think the Raw/JPEG debate is similar, and likewise the zoom/prime stuff. Good Grief. This is supposed to be fun, why make it as stressful as possible with all the angst over whether you're getting approval from a bunch of opinionated gasbags? I like to edit, I like using Photoshop, and I shoot raw. I use zooms. I only shoot manual when I control the lighting, like when I photograph my wife's jewelry. I used to do portraits. I always used manual. I shoot BIF when I get the chance. I never use manual.

Do what you want, use the settings you want, the lenses you want, the file formats you want. Have fun. Don't worry, be happy.

 

[TJMcG129 12]

This^^^^^^ In my case I still do a lot of post editing creating, so RAW still works best for me, but I don't expect others to follow my choices. On the Zoom vs Prime debate, I shoot both, it's like the old adage...."use the tools in the toolbox appropriately". IE: I'm a woodworker, I can cut a 2x4 with my fine tooth Japanese pull saw.....but I can do it quicker with my Skill Saw, but I wouldn't use the Skill Saw to cut dovetails.

There you go. I had to sell my woodshop a few years ago, but kept a miter saw, scroll saw, my Japanese hand saws, and a palm router. Also chisels. I had three routers, one in a table. I had many specialty tools for making picture frames, cutting various joints and trims, that I may have used only a couple of times, but I used the one that applied at the time to get the result that I wanted. I never worried that I used a planer to smooth a board instead of a block plane, as they did in 1740. If a Japanese hand saw was required for a fine edge cut, I used that; If I was cutting off 4x4 for a bench leg, I used a sliding miter. A perfect cut with a hand saw would give me bragging rights with a specific crowd, but I was more interested in getting a square joint quickly. I loved building stuff, but had to give it up so that my wife wouldn't have the chore of trying to get rid of all that when I'm gone.

 

[DanOstergren38 3]

For personal work and capturing things that you don't intend to edit, I think this is great, and efficient. As for using only prime lenses, I also think that's a great idea for personal work. I use an 85mm for 80% of what I do, so I can't really argue against it.
For things like weddings or other types of photography jobs, it's definitely a better idea to use the more forgiving file format, and whatever lenses help you get the job done well.

I think the choices are pretty straightforward so I'm not relating with the author here, but if the author feels fatigue over making those choices, then by all means reduce those choices to reduce the fatigue.

 

[smoke665]

Some of us shoot RAW because JPG deliberately degrades images by throwing away data which cannot be recovered.

Not disagreeing with you, but pointing out that when shooting film, you couldn't go back and add stuff that wasn't there, yet the film shooters here still manage to produce some fantastic images. I see it as if you're being more deliberate on the front end then the data lost by saving JPEG is less likely to be a problem, unless as TJ noted above you're one of the crowd that likes to post edit. Nothing wrong with that either.

 

[TJMcG129 12]

Not disagreeing with you, but pointing out that when shooting film, you couldn't go back and add stuff that wasn't there, yet the film shooters here still manage to produce some fantastic images. I see it as if you're being more deliberate on the front end then the data lost by saving JPEG is less likely to be a problem, unless as TJ noted above you're one of the crowd that likes to post edit. Nothing wrong with that either.

The thing is, we're mostly not shooting film anymore, and most people welcome the technology that has given us better images, quicker and easier if that's what you want, or the ability to manipulate an image to your heart's content without chemicals, smells, toxic waste in the sewers, etc. (There were people who went back and added a lot of stuff to film pictures, notably Jerry Uelsmann.) I had a darkroom, I worked in labs, and I enjoyed that, at the time. That time is past for most people, and while I still shoot a roll of film now and then, processing it myself is the last thing I want to do today.

 

[KJ_North]

I only shoot RAW. Mainly because my primary shooting interest is birds so often exposure is off the mark due to me shooting on the fly. I think for people shooting portraits etc they get the chance to really fine tune the settings down to a science. Now having said all of that I do and try and look at what i did wrong and think about what I could have done to make it better out of the camera.

 

[smoke665]

The thing is, we're mostly not shooting film anymore, and most people welcome the technology that has given us better images, quicker and easier if that's what you want, or the ability to manipulate an image to your heart's content without chemicals, smells, toxic waste in the sewers, etc

I agree with you, my point had to do more with do you really need the part that might have been lost during JPEG conversion. Especially if you're being more deliberate on the front end and with all the advances in technology today. I glanced at my images storage the other day, Lightroom is managing almost 30k RAW images on 3 drives, and I know there's alot of unnecessary images in there that need to be deleted.

Also, nothing says you can't do both RAW, JPEG or RAW+.

 

[snowbear132 63]

Prime vs zoom, raw vs jog … not much different from auto vs manual transmissions IMO.

There have been a couple posts and reaction on an art group about not using black paint (out of the tube) but better to mix in the compliment and a darker color.

And let’s be careful with this one: it could easily get to be a hot topic and get deleted.

 

[smoke665]

And let’s be careful with this one: it could easily get to be a hot topic and get deleted.

Hopefully that won't be the case as there's no right or wrong answer......and every opinion is valid.