Why to shoot in raw mode.

[Braineack]

Looks like my new avatar. A primate definitely took that

 

[richardbenson2110]

Its up to you raw or any format what i think is to learn basic stuff then you will be able to distinguish in other mode too..

 

[sashbar]

My food analogy is more like ordering a ham and cheese sandwich, fries and a soda for lunch.

With JPEG, the sandwich you are served is what you have to eat. With raw, you can change it to chipped beef on rye, or turkey and bacon on wheat, or even a hamburger with extra barbecue sauce. You can also change the fries to onion rings or potato chips, and the soda can be decaffeinated coffee or iced tea.

My analogy is - when you go a restaurant, do not really know what you want, and the menu is a mistery to you, order RAW, just in case... If you know exactly what you want and what to expect, you can safely order JPEG. But to be able to do this you need a really good restaurant, i.e. a camera that produces first rate, excellent JPEGs. And there are not many.

 

[D-B-J]

The amount of detail I can pull from blown highlights or featureless shadows with a RAW D800 file blows my mind. I could never make the same photo with JPEGs. It's that simple.

 

[Tinderbox (UK)]

I only shoot raw myself, but if i need a quick jpeg, i use the free "Instant Jpeg from Raw" if extracts the preview jpeg from the raw, and it`s very fast, it can extract a hundred raw in a couple of seconds.

Some brands of camera use smaller resolution preview jpegs in the raw, but i think Nikon uses the full size.

Instant JPEG from Raw

John.

 

[pixmedic]

I shoot raw because that's what all the pros say I have to shoot in, and I sure don't want to look like a n00b in front of the pros.

 

[WayneF]

I only shoot raw myself, but if i need a quick jpeg, i use the free "Instant Jpeg from Raw" if extracts the preview jpeg from the raw, and it`s very fast, it can extract a hundred raw in a couple of seconds.

Or you can get the JPG by opening a raw file in Irfanview. It has a batch mode, but it is not a Raw editor, it can only get the embedded JPG.

 

[bribrius]

I shoot jpeg a 100 percent of the time and raw 30 percent of the time.

 

[greybeard]

I shoot both

 

[Mr. Innuendo]

I shoot raw on occasion, but I normally shoot jpeg. Yes, there are instances when the increased flexibility is a benefit, but I find that I rarely encounter those instances.

 

[Gary A.]

I shoot RAW. I feel that I am good enough to shoot JPEG.

 

[imagemaker46]

Another Raw/jpeg thread. i shoot jpegs, always have and always will. i have no interest in shooting anything in raw. I have no issues with anyone shooting Raw, that's great if they want to tinker in lightroom or photoshop, i just like to get the images as close to being correct in camera where all I have to make are minor corrections. For the overall uses of my images, Raw is not necessary. it's just a personal choice.

i make my own cakes, pies and cookies from scratch and yes they are better than store bought, but when I take pictures of them I still shoot jpegs.

 

[snerd]

Another Raw/jpeg thread. i shoot jpegs, always have and always will. i have no interest in shooting anything in raw. I have no issues with anyone shooting Raw, that's great if they want to tinker in lightroom or photoshop, i just like to get the images as close to being correct in camera where all I have to make are minor corrections. For the overall uses of my images, Raw is not necessary. it's just a personal choice.

i make my own cakes, pies and cookies from scratch and yes they are better than store bought, but when I take pictures of them I still shoot jpegs.

Do you have a custom picture style? Or do you use one of the defaults?

 

[imagemaker46]

I make very few changes to the camera defaults. I tweak a few things, but generally use defaults. To be honest I find that cameras are offering up more and more programs that I find are pointless for shooting stills. As much as I realize the video option is great for many, I have very little use for video. If I had the option of a stills only IDx I would go with that. I try not to overcomplicate things, when it comes to cameras I'm pretty analogue. As long as I'm getting the images that I'm seeing with the settings that I have, I'm good. I know shooting raw I can probably pull a little more information out of the images, but as I've mentioned, for what the majority of what my images are being used for it's not necessary for me.

 

[WayneF]

I only shoot Raw. The advantages are simply too great. Raw lets us actually SEE what is needed, and SEE what can be done, and SEE how well it works. As opposed to using some settings done months ago, probably forgotten now, and wishfully hoping something works.

Sorry, but my notion is, those insisting JPG is "good enough", either: Probably simply don't know about the Raw advantage, or are too lazy or too rushed or don't care about getting it right, or are terrified by the word Edit, no computer skills to attempt anything, etc. By Edit, here I only refer to minor exposure and white balance tweaks to make it be correct. It makes such a big difference, assuming we care.

Raw is the easy, fast, good way.