why would i NOT use raw?

[photocist]

Recently starting photography, I had made the switch from jpg to raw, though I really dont know why, aside from the "you get more information with raw." while I will not stop shooting in raw, I am just curious to know why someone would shoot jpg over raw? is it simply the file size of the images? conversion is a breeze, especially because my camera came with software that converted my files into tiff.

just looking to see if people shoot jpg over raw for any specific reason. sorry for the noob question

 

[512_SIR II]

go to google images and type in jpg vs raw, and you can see the difference. raw is clearly better

 

[burgo]

JPEGs are compressed images, which means there is less data in the file than a raw file. Taking shots in JPEG is fine if you are 100% certain that all your exposures and lighting will be perfect. But if you are less sure of your photographic abilities then using raw is safe because you can do a lot more with it to rescue or improve images in the post processing period

 

[enzodm]

If you take snapshots, JPEG is the way for having a ready-to-use image. White balance is already applied on camera, noise reduction and other parameters too, etc. With RAW, you do all those things on the computer: more control but of course more time to spend.

 

[point-&-shoot]

i like raw because you can set the final white balance in post production. plus what everyone else already said.

 

[Dominantly]

I shoot raw, then upload to Lightroom. The fact that it is a raw file adds little to no additional process time to my images if I like them as is, what it does offer is the ability to tweek the image if there is something I do not like.
When I export, they are then converted to jpeg, while the original remains. It's a simple process, couldn't imagine doing it any other way.

 

[RobNZ]

I am just curious to know why someone would shoot jpg over raw?

just looking to see if people shoot jpg over raw for any specific reason.

Buffer speed, with my camera I may choose JPEG to avoid the buffer running out with continuous shooting. RAW I only get about 9 frames continuous before its shot, and then I have to wait as it slowly clears to allow more continuous frames to be shot. Sports spring to mind here.

Another reason would be storage capacity on the road, if I was caught short (unlikely as I carry 20GB with me at most times and rarely use over 8GB in RAW on a typical shoot).

Only times I would really consider it and havent had too so far

 

[sleist]

If you're happy with 90% of the JPEGs that come out of your camera then there really is no reason to shoot RAW.

I can only speak for myself, but I have found that the longer I'm into photography, the more I find I want to do something in post to just about very shot I take. That being the case, I find that there is no reason to NOT shoot RAW 100% of the time. File conversion is a quick process and is generally better when performed using the increased processing capabilities of a PC as opposed to the limited processing abilities on the camera. I also find that I keep fewer marginal shots when I shoot 100% RAW as I know I'll just be adding to time spent in post for little payback in terms of a usable image. This actually causes me to spend less time in PP and image organization when I shoot only RAW - a bit counter intuitive.

In the end, just do what makes YOU happy. There is no RIGHT answer here.

 

[KmH]

I shoot JPEG when I shoot sports. I don't need the same amount of editing headroom Raw accords.

Many accomplished wedding photographers also shoot JPEG.

 

[inov8ter]

Cant you just use Adobe Bridge to find you picture. Once you find it, just right click and click on open in adobe raw into photoshop. Then it will open the Jpeg like it was a raw into photoshop.

 

[robb01]

Stupid question, when I shoot in raw, then use the adobe converter to convert from the .new file. It opens in CS2 and only lets me make adjustments w/ the 3 graph. Do I then need to save it as a .tif to open all the options for editing?

 

[NikonNewbie]

Stupid question, when I shoot in raw, then use the adobe converter to convert from the .new file. It opens in CS2 and only lets me make adjustments w/ the 3 graph. Do I then need to save it as a .tif to open all the options for editing?

same here...that was my question in my Raw/Nef thread...I crop it in Cs2 make adjustments and then the whole shabang gets put over to pscs2 and then it actually crops the pic for me...but when I go back to the orignal file..there is now a xml? (i think thats what it is) I figured that was the now the orignal...but there is never anything there when I try to open it.
I'm gnna start reading again...I've read so much I think I need glasses now

also, I dont use bridge...I was thinking about using it...right now I download to my pics folder in my documents, rename the folder with the date and any pertinent info I want to use and then I use the file tab on C2 to open it...is bridge easier? I thought if you used it you would have to always back up the images.
what the hell do I know

 

[ericegglyphotography]

I actually just completed a short video on the difference between shooting in raw compared to jpeg. Check it out at my blog using the following link: eric eggly photography.

Let me know if you have any questions since I did a comparison showing the difference in each format.

 

[ajkramer87]

Cant you just use Adobe Bridge to find you picture. Once you find it, just right click and click on open in adobe raw into photo shop. Then it will open the Jpeg like it was a raw into photo shop.

You dont even need to use bridge. In photoshop click File, then open as, find your image click on it then go down to open as bar and select camera raw.