J.Peg or Raw

Mike, I was just being provocative. Personally, I find that using RAW is a very fast method of processing the shots from a session, and can only imagine that those who say it is time-consuming have never tried a proper RAW converter like SP.

However, some good snappers, like JR, use JPEG only, so it goes to show that the advantages of RAW can be over-stated.

G

Both approaches are valid but it actually makes me quite irate when people disparage the use of RAW as if it's cheating. If you are thinking about what you can do with the shot in RAW and factoring that in when you are taking the shot, that's MORE skillful, in my book, than merely getting the exposure 'right' in camera, which often involves compromises which are no longer necessary with digital. RAW is using the medium to it's full potential, which is why its a popular format with pros.

It is photographers like JR who make think seriously about JPEG ad its merits. But to relinquish control of sharpening white balance etc. to the camera with little prospect of recovery seems unacceptable to me and as George says PP can be very quick and easy. Anyway I have the time and inclination.

George, your provocation is too subtle

Mike

All approaches are valid if they work for the user.

Bear in mind that digital imaging has moved on considerably. When I started, I made no adjustments in camera at all and only ever sharpened at the end of the process, then saving as a TIFF.

Now image libraries are starting to demand no sharpening, but some sharpening in camera is OK. If that is what they want and will accept for top quality images, then maybe we could think again and find out why? They say they can spot a Photoshop-sharpened image a mile off, but sharpening in camera is fine.

So now I modestly sharpen (+1) in camera and leave it out of the Photoshop process. I save as a JPEG instead of TIFF. I sharpen just before printing, which is still needed, or I convert my large image to a smaller one for web and apply a different level of sharpening before Save For Web.

I will continue to monitor the technology and when things improve further, another reassessment. Nothing is fixed for long.

The one's I upload to don't !! They say NO sharpening at all !

If u have LR then raw is very simple, so why use jpg ??

Which is exactly right - if they say that and we don't follow their instructions then we won't sell any images.

Always read the instructions, and read them again from time to time as sometimes they change.

RAW allows 16 bit processing providing much smoother tonal gradation & also the ability to recover more detail in high DR shots.

Indeed, but see my elucidatory post above.

John Riley, who has also posted above, is an experienced competition judge, and he says he cannot tell the difference between a good (original) JPEG and a good original RAW image when printed out.

The trouble is that when you output to JPEG for printing, you level the playing field.

G

It's best that way, I find.

There now follows a rare smiley:



G

I'm not sure I understand either, that link just seems to confirm that JPG is the best option for long bursts.[/quote]It was said that when you want to do 5 fps for sports you can only use JPG but that's not true both JPG and RAW do 5.2 fps, or did you meant the burst isn't long enough?

I'm not sure I understand either, that link just seems to confirm that JPG is the best option for long bursts.[/quote]It was said that when you want to do 5 fps for sports you can only use JPG but that's not true both JPG and RAW do 5.2 fps, or did you meant the burst isn't long enough?[/quote]With the programs I use it's a lot quicker to review jpg files than RAW & if you shoot continuous at 5fps there are a lot to review & delete.

But that's your limitation then and not that of a camera which I thought it was

I understand wadna's point quite well. It is the total that makes the result. To shoot RAW you do need post processing. So it doen not matter which link in the chain is the weaker. In a given setup, shooting RAW is more time-consuming than shooting JPEG.

My set-up is Silkypix Pro, and RAW files from the camera. I can process a batch of files very quickly, and then leave the computer to output them to JPEG in its own time. I don't generally do anything else to them.

I do not think it would save me any appreciable time to shoot JPEGs, and doing so would give me less room for manoeuvre when I get the exposure wrong.

G

There's never any resolution to this subject because both approaches are fine in their different ways.

Using each properly takes a bit of skill and knowledge, but then so does every other aspect of photography.