I would still like to hear both sides. I am easily swayed and would enjoy trying raw again just to prove myself wrong. But I can say right now that raw isn't all it's cracked up to be.
My Personal Best score and my photo with the most favorites, both ribbons were jpegs. They also both were Kodak photos of the day. :)
Do I prefer jpegs? No but I will use jpegs quite a bit.
I know librodo uses jpegs too.
I don't think I am lazy and I do care about the quality of my photos. I think the people out there need to know that you don't have to shoot in raw mode to be a photographer or to have great printed images.
Isn't that true RAW vs. JPG has only one thing to do which RAW keeps more information from the sensor, uncompressed against jpg image which is compressed and has less pixel information in it.
A pixel in RAW format holds more information to adjust image better in post process. It's like having three shades information per pixel vs. 10 shade information per pixel.
Correct me if I am wrong, but this comes to a conclusion that if the settings on the camera is done correctly when shooting is done, such as f stop, shutter speed ISO and WB, there will be little enhancement need to be done in post process time... if any necessary. So, RAW should not mean image quality comes out better, but gives more flexibility to fix afterward.
I guess it is splitting hairs as to one's definition of a P&S. I consider my Nikon L6 to be a point and shoot and my S5 to be an advanced compact, a.k.a. superzoom, a.k.a. bridge camera. (not sure what this class is really called.) I think it has too many SLR-like features to be a point and shoot. P&S to me implies a much simpler camera that my mom would use on vacation.
With my lensmate adapter and a hood on the S5, it is easily mistaken for an SLR by someone who does not know what they are looking at.
I have one ribbon and two top tens- all shot with P&S cameras. Most of my highest scoring shots have been P&S even though I have had a Nikon D80 for over a year now. I should add that one of my P&S cameras (the ribbon winner- I don't have the one from my Top Tens anymore) has been converted to shoot in infrared which is why I use it a lot along with my DSLR. I have not yet taken the time to learn RAW.
I’m by no means a ribbon hog but I have been here for awhile and have plenty of experience in both JPGs and RAW.
I suppose the majority of my ribbons are shot JPGs but I do tend to use RAW these days simply for the versatility it gives you if you stuff up with your exposure.
I could not simply say one is better then the other and should be used exclusively.
It really comes down to your own personal choice and circumstances. I still quite often shoot jpgs at sporting events or when I need to save space. Both methods have their merits and faults you just need to shoot as to what suits your needs.
I shoot JPG 80% of the time, I shoot raw if i'm doing a wedding or portrait shoot or something where eveyr mistake could be critical or it's a one off event. I could not imagine doing the sports shows i do with raw though, it would destroy the buffer and increase any post-process time about 5 fold because of the conversions etc.
I don't have any ribbons, but i get a lot of nice comments :) And 90% of my shots on here are jpegs.
the thing i don't understand is that you shoot a 32 bit raw, then convert it to an 8 bit jpeg anyways so where does the benefit come into play? Also, I use ACR as my converter and I have to say, for the most part it sucks.
I'm with Rockwell on the white balance issue- you can alter the look of an image by using color balances or by playing with levels or by using a color layer or anything else. I'm still not sold on raw because of the workflow involved and I cannot see any discernible difference in terms of sharpness.
I'm with Rockwell on the white balance issue- you can alter the look of an image by using color balances or by playing with levels or by using a color layer or anything else. I'm still not sold on raw because of the workflow involved and I cannot see any discernible difference in terms of sharpness.
I disagree with Rockwell here. Let's say you had an extreme WB set from a studio shoot (like Tungsten). Then you go out the next morning and start shooting the ocean pre-dawn. If you happened to get a great shot, you may not be able to save it because the WB would be so far off that you would blow certain color channels to save the picture, thus losing detail.
At the very least it's a theoretical risk, but I bet it could happen in the real world.
I'm with Rockwell on the white balance issue- you can alter the look of an image by using color balances or by playing with levels or by using a color layer or anything else. I'm still not sold on raw because of the workflow involved and I cannot see any discernible difference in terms of sharpness.
I disagree with Rockwell here. Let's say you had an extreme WB set from a studio shoot (like Tungsten). Then you go out the next morning and start shooting the ocean pre-dawn. If you happened to get a great shot, you may not be able to save it because the WB would be so far off that you would blow certain color channels to save the picture, thus losing detail.
At the very least it's a theoretical risk, but I bet it could happen in the real world.
WB is my MAIN concern when I shoot... I learned my lesson in painful ways, but not bloody ways... I check FIRST my WB in my camera before shoot, and then I check ISO... very important.
RAW helped me WB errors, JPG version, you can also fix this but not as good as in RAW.
So, as I said before, if you check your camera and shoot your photos with good settings at first place, you might not need RAW... I still suggest that weddings and portraits use RAW to have as much as information since you won't get second chances :)
the thing i don't understand is that you shoot a 32 bit raw, then convert it to an 8 bit jpeg anyways so where does the benefit come into play?
I think the benefit is that when you convert from RAW you get to choose what image data gets included or excluded. You can compress the dynamic range, or throw stuff out, but it is your choice, not the chip in the camera.
I think a camera that shot in TIFF would be a great compromise. I believe there have been a couple of cameras on the market that could shoot TIF, but apparently there was not a huge demand and the feature has been quietly dropped.
I'm not gonna argue the case. Though I could participate in a discussion of how to get the most out of JPEG. (With some preparation) My camera only does JPG, and I am learning how to get some nice stuff within it's limitations, but sometimes I hit them. This shot for instance:
Due at least in part to the limits of JPEG, some highlights are blown and no matter how much I adjusted, there was just no color data at all in that bright area of the cow's face.
I lost some detail in the bright areas on this one. I was able to get some details out of it with careful adjustments of curves, but it is still not what it could have been, and I think that affected the vote.
added workflow, and it seems that if you get it right first time, or close enough, then the benefits of shooting raw are not as important.
Not to say, that's my view, but that seems to be a main concern- that if it's right in a jpg, there isn't any need for a raw.
I personally like the colours more in raw, the gradations seem to be smoother, and if 'm doing something important like a portrait shoot or a wedding or if the light is in one of those glorious moments that will not come again for another 2 centuries, then I will shoot Raw to maximise my chances of getting it right, since i will not have the time to piss about.
However, if i'm shooting a wrestling show (which I do frequently) then I don't have the time to process/convert 600 raw files, and also the buffer in my camera wouldn't have a very good time with that either, so I shoot jpeg for shooting speed, memory restrictions and ease of transferring the files later on.
I think it depends on the job at hand, if you only get one chance at it, shoot raw, if not i'd say a jpeg is more or less ok.
Okay come on....I am seeing and hearing a lot of 'there is no reason to shoot in RAW' in the forums...but no one willing to stand up and say why...!
Come forth and speak...!
At 640px and 150Kb, I can do with a jpeg anything I can do with RAW.
Raw starts showing it true colors (sorry 'bout that pun) in larger, more detailed shots, cropped shots with details and in larger prints.
I shoot in RAW for the just in case factor. Just in case I botch the exposure or other things that will require pushing the image more in PP.
Get the exposure right and jpeg is just fine.
I am sure this is a valid point. If I had used a little exposure compensation, my cow would have likely had some detail in that bright area, but I was just busy snapping away while it was in front of me, and not fiddling with settings.
I am sure this is a valid point. If I had used a little exposure compensation, my cow would have likely had some detail in that bright area, but I was just busy snapping away while it was in front of me, and not fiddling with settings.
Seriously..you don't fiddle with your settings? Why on earth not? Time? Afraid you would miss the perfect shot? No matter where I go or what I shoot I always check my settings. I can't imagine anyone not. I check my settings before even shooting and try to guess at shutter speed and dof. I always check my ISO when I take my camera out of the bag. My focus and tripod take the longest to set up. and if my settings aren't correct for the lighting or depth than it takes me only a few seconds to fix it right there.. more and likely you won't miss that chance to shoot the cow. hehee
the histogram is the best tool and if the lighting is that bad then I don't even shoot. It is a waste of my time.
oh and if you don't have your tripod set up and you shoot..doesn't that mean you will have a blurry shot? Will raw fix that too?
