why wouldnt i use raw....

[rdzmzda]

i was reading a post on here earlier and got to thinking....why wouldnt i use raw...the flexibility it gives you to modify everything ok granted the files are huge...but memory and space is not even remotely an issue for me....im not a huge photoshop guru by any means but man is there something about raw that im missing?

 

[Dubious Drewski]

If you're a purist and don't care for editing or if you're new and don't realize that you can: then you don't shoot Raw.

 

[LaFoto]

I set my camera to .jpeg only when we travelled to Turkey and I feared I might run out of memory too fast. I could have left it all on RAW, had I known that DH would bring his notebook along. But then he quite enjoyed to be able to look at photos even while we were still there (on something larger than the camera display) ... but, oh well. Those photos worked out fine enough as .jpegs, too.

But when I know I can download my pics from the camera any time, I'd never want to do anything but RAW anymore. I feel that with the possibilities I now have (ever since I've discovered RAW, and I do admit it has taken me a long, long while, too, to really find out about its advantages), my photos become even more my photos now.

The so-called "purists" also rely on settings that some camera technician felt were the best average settings for each and every camera of their brand, so someone had decided on some parametres that now determine what their photos look like after they have pushed the button, too...

 

[tsaraleksi]

Jpeg is most valuable for people who are working on a tight deadline and need to file photos as fast as possible.

 

[LaFoto]

That much is true, too, tsaraleski!
If you have to have your pics ready (maybe even printed) before the day's done, you might be better off using .jpeg.

 

[rdzmzda]

haha im so not a purist....i can appreciate the essence of such things but not matter how crafty u are with a camera and filters and lighting etc...there are things u can do to a raw image that u can never achieve the other way....im to artsy to be purey haha....
i shoot both jpeg and raw just so i can compare and see if i even like what the camera told me i should have

 

[MikeBcos]

If you're a purist and don't care for editing or if you're new and don't realize that you can: then you don't shoot Raw.

I don't know about other cameras but that doesn't hold true on my D40, I shoot raw+jpeg and all the photos have a little sharpening and saturation enhancement applied by the camera. If I was just shooting jpeg there would be nothing I could do about it, (or if there is I haven't found that camera setting yet), with Raw I can take it back out then start afresh with a completely Raw image.

 

[ANDS!]

Easy. Speed. As a sports photographer, if you do NOT have time to wait for the camera to flush 17 RAW files, and instead need a continuous buffer of JPEG images, then you are going to shoot JPEGS. Same with any action photography where the action may well spill past 6FPS/17 Frame Buffers.

 

[mrodgers]

I am so freaking amazing with a camera I should be getting paid millions. I seem to be the only one who can edit a JPEG image. Everyone else says "impossible" or "nothing you can do" if you have a JPEG image. Yet here I am on the computer every night editing JPEGs, adjusting white balance, exposure, highlights and shadows, and sharpening. It's a good thing that there is only 1 of me around or all the "professionals" who shoot RAW because it's "impossible" to edit a JPEG would be out of a job....

Sheesh....

 

[ANDS!]

I am so freaking amazing with a camera I should be getting paid millions. I seem to be the only one who can edit a JPEG image. Everyone else says "impossible" or "nothing you can do" if you have a JPEG image. Yet here I am on the computer every night editing JPEGs, adjusting white balance, exposure, highlights and shadows, and sharpening. It's a good thing that there is only 1 of me around or all the "professionals" who shoot RAW because it's "impossible" to edit a JPEG would be out of a job....

Sheesh....

It is not impossible. It is however much easier and non destructive than working from a RAW file, as with a JPEG you are editing an actual image. With a RAW file you are adding your tweaks into the recipe before the image is spit out. In certain situations sure the difference will be minimal, but if we were to rate the two formats using a latitude scale in regards to their utility, then yes the RAW format wins out.

 

[DWS]

non destructive

 

[mrodgers]

It is not impossible. It is however much easier and non destructive than working from a RAW file....

Yup, I never said my working with JPEG files is better or easier or less destructive. But everyone who mentions RAW always states "impossible" or "can't be done" or other combination of false statements.

It's just constant inaccurate statements being "taught" to new people who come to the threads mentioning RAW when they have no clue what RAW even is. Saying "impossible" is not the same as saying "it is easier and less destructive with RAW".

After a year of this forum, it's getting to be a bit of a pet peeve of mine the constant saying that it's "impossible" to edit a JPEG.

 

[Overread]

methinks ANDS needs to re-read his lines

Anyway I agree that there are times when JPEG is better to use that RAW.
Sports and jouranalist photographers will often make the choice to use JPEG for speed and storage space - also some will have shots wired from their camer to laptop to office in minutes so that they can make the fontpages - using JPEG lets them do this far faster than using RAW and they don't need to worry about the quality issues as much as newspaper printing is very forgiving to such.
Also when on holiday it can be very beneficial to shift to JPEG for family snaps where you don't want to really spend an age editing afterwards and just be able to enjoy the memories.

On the whole the auto modes in the camera can do well in many situations and most JPEGs can also be edited (as mrodgers said) to a similar point as a RAW if needed. However as has also been said the methodology and time needed for a JPEG can be far greater than for a RAW and with increased editing you also increase the chances for things like banding and halos.
I think its important to also know your end output - if its just 1000 pixel websized images then what you are outputting to is very forgiving whilst if your making A3 prints you need to have that finer level of detail preservation and quality that comes with RAW --- not saying you can't print good A3 with JPEG just that chances are its easier with RAW.
I would also say that working in JPEG is a lot easier if you have good control over white balance at the time of shooting - ie use custom and not auto

 

[ANDS!]

To be fair, no one here has said its impossible, and I would wager that those who have made such a blanket statement are new to the "Craft" themselves and have hyberbolized the benefits of RAW versus JPEG.

Having said that I look at it this way; I can tell someone "You can't win against a Colorado Black Bear!" Can a person win? Sure. Should they put themselves in a situation to test that theory - probably not.

As a persons familiarity and comfort with their manufacturers software improves and they streamline their workflow further, the amount of time editing a RAW reduces to the same as that of a JPEG.

 

[TBAM]

Whether it is beneficial to shoot in RAW over JPEG is a COMPLETELY PERSONAL CHOICE and is not an objective fact either way.

Additionally, RAW vs JPEG is not only a general personal choice but a personal choice based on any given circumstance.

Technically, your photos should be perfect SOOC, the software in the camera attempts to provide this. However this is not always the case.

The whole purpose of digital is to see instant results, processing RAW is much the same as processing film, and needs to be stated as such.

PERSONALLY, I feel that unless I am shooting a professional job, RAW is unnecessary and time consuming. You want to capture that image the way you meant/felt it when you shot it. Not shoot it the way you want, then go back to your computer and possibly change your mind, or even forget the way you wanted it in the first place.

If your shooting as a hobby for your own personal preference, I would recommend shooting JPEG and focusing on your technique to get the photo as good as possible SOOC. Even if you screw up, just use photoshop or an image adjustment program to make the adjustments.

Does it really matter to you that a from the hip shot of a flower that you may never show anyone but yourself does not have destructive processing of exposure and sharpness applied?

When you are shooting important photos for a professional client, THEN it is not so much about fixing your mistakes, it's about giving yourself the versatility to get the best product out of your camera and your inspiration as possible.

For personal use, I feel that RAW processing is a bit of ****. You're not going to print a poster, you're not going to have to rely on a lack of artifacts at 200% magnification to be able to sell the photo. It's about the moment you captured, not the 57 hours you spent fiddling with the sliders in a raw converter.

BUT, that's my personal opinion. Many others may feel differently, and are completely entitled to their own opinions.

I reckon that RAW and JPEG should not be compared, as they are two completely different file types. Any thoughts on the process you want to follow is completely up to you and the process that works for you.