Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 17, 2012, 6:00 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Auckland. New Zealand
Posts: 598
Default Raw versus jpeg.

I know this is an ongoing argument which I refuse to take part in. I am perfectly satisfied with jpeg, and cannot be bothered to try raw however good the experts say it is, there is to much processing to do, and my eyes don't detect the difference anyway, I was wondering how many casual photographers out there are ignoring raw for the same reason?
Grounded is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 17, 2012, 6:59 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

I think it would be easier to count the number of casual photographers out there that are using RAW.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2012, 7:23 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
iowa_jim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: North Central Iowa
Posts: 589
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grounded View Post
I know this is an ongoing argument which I refuse to take part in.
What an interesting way to refuse to participate in an argument.
iowa_jim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2012, 8:20 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
frank-in-toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Toronto Canada
Posts: 1,083
Default

a different perspective is that without a doubt raw converted to jpeg by a knowledgeable graphic artist will be much better than the in-camera conversion by some standards. the conversion done by a neophyte (like me and most others) will be worse or just plain awful. so yes, the chasm is wide.
frank-in-toronto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2012, 9:41 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Decatur, GA
Posts: 2,053
Default

my newspaper job asks us on the staff not to shoot RAW....... so heres one semi pro that still shoots all jpeg. Bit with that said I have heard good things about RAW if you have the software and no how to post process the files.

dave

Last edited by Photo 5; Feb 17, 2012 at 9:47 PM.
Photo 5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2012, 12:56 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
MartinSykes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 854
Default

I don't use raw because I don't want the hassle and the a580 produces very nice JPEGS but one area I'm starting to reconsider is high ISO (3200,6400) where I think the higher noise is causing more of a problem for the jpeg engine.
__________________
AutoHDR - Free HDR software for Windows at http://www.autohdr.co.uk on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=...36045126467361
My Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/martinsykes
Panasonic DMC-FZ38, Sony ­α580
MartinSykes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2012, 4:09 AM   #7
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iowa_jim View Post
What an interesting way to refuse to participate in an argument.
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2012, 5:45 AM   #8
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

The pros and cons of shooting RAW are well known by now, there is little point in revisiting them. One finds them convincing or not.
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2012, 6:55 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
tizeye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 382
Default

When does one stop learning? Perhaps when you are 6 feet under, but even that could be a learning experience. I am just not going to volunteer to find out. (And if you find out before me, you don't need to come back and tell me. )

"Can't be bothered to try" is probably the key phrase - not the disclaimer, "ongoing argument I refuse to take part in." By creating the post, you ARE taking part in and the only thing you are contributing is rigid closed mindedness and wanting confirming validation. So the point is????

Here is an idea...shoot both. Pixels are cheap and you can always delete the RAW file. Sure, you have the jpg for the quick and easy Facebook upload to share without processing. But that one or two shots that really stood out...you have the RAW file to play with...and compare the final output in jpg with the camera generated jpg that you praised. It just tales an open mind. The learning process continues.

Like the news journalist, I also shoot professionally. While run-n-gun shoot for a news deadline jpg is certainly indicated - particurally with newsprint resolution displaying the final product. With real estate photography, I could shoot all jpg, but only use jpg for those destined to be stitched together as panoramics. For straight stills, I shoot RAW...delivering jpg at 600 pixels for MLS and 1500 pixels for other display systems like stills blended with the pano tour, and fullsize for brochure printing.
tizeye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2012, 8:54 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,214
Default

For casual photography, I agree - there is no need for Raw.
Shooting Raw is only going to help if you are going to view the picture at 100%, or print larger than 8x10". It also can help recovering highlight detail in overexposed shots.

brian
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:03 AM.