What are you shooting? How quickly does it need to be published? Are you trying to squeeze out all the IQ that your camera can deliver? Are you delivering hundreds of images (or more) or one of a kind?
If you related the individual's use to their mode of acquisition, you might have a more meaningful poll.
Application of purpose probably has more to do with it as Bernie mentions.
Personally, when I shoot for me ... I shoot RAW + small jpeg. The small jpegs serve well as psuedo thumbnails, quick sharing, small file size, web sized production, etc.
The RAW's are available for those images that I decide I want to maximize IQ on or prepare for print.
When I shoot for a client, I shoot large jpeg + raw.
Usually only RAW. Most of my jobs are business portraits/ads ( RAW Only), products
(RAW only) or trade show events. RAW + JPG if the event organize must have something really fast after the event for a slideshow which is now very common.I also have a good number of clients want TIFF files for enlargement into billboards etc. Enlargements just seem to be cleaner using a TIFF even if you then move to JPG to print.
FWIW, I have been shooting pro out here in Hawaii and *only* jpeg for over 20 years.
From my studio work (fine art gallery exhibited my nude abstract bodyscapes for almost 2 years) to interiors (including the cover of Luxury Homes Magazine) to product shots, .jpeg has served me well.
That said, I *do* see an improvement in IQ from RAW.
IMO, if you *know* your exposures, and don't do batch processing, and don't plan to print bigger than 8x10, RAW offers little benefit. That said, some of my work at the gallery was much bigger than that and looked stellar (5Dc).
Now that I have a 5D2 and Photoshop CS6 as well as LR4, I am exploring RAW more, but my workflow (especially on family portraits and small weddings) is so set, that I won't switch from .jpeg.
If I were capturing a scenic, surely I would opt for RAW for the pure latitude, lossless format, and exposure control.
gheller wrote:
FWIW, I have been shooting pro out here in Hawaii and *only* jpeg for over 20 years.
From my studio work (fine art gallery exhibited my nude abstract bodyscapes for almost 2 years) to interiors (including the cover of Luxury Homes Magazine) to product shots, .jpg has served me well.
That said, I *do* see an improvement in IQ from RAW.
IMO, if you *know* your exposures, and don't do batch processing, and don't plan to print bigger than 8x10, RAW offers little benefit. That said, some of my work at the gallery was much bigger than that and looked stellar (5Dc).
Now that I have a 5D2 and Photoshop CS6 as well as LR4, I am exploring RAW more, but my workflow (especially on family portraits and small weddings) is so set, that I won't switch from .jpg.
If I were capturing a scenic, surely I would opt for RAW for the pure latitude, lossless format, and exposure control.
About 30 years for me, yes, thirty...if you consider that coming from the days of shooting film.
Film would be the equivalent of JPG - get it right in the camera with a small degree of latitude to change things in the darkroom. But the fact is, there was no RAW options back then to go back to the office and tweak to our hearts content to get what we wanted. We got what we wanted by the time we pressed the shutter.
Working for a press agency, time was of the essence, so click-develop-print was the norm to get images to the editor for copy before presstime.
I'm not saying RAW is evil or should be outlawed. It's a great tool. I do believe that many photographers who were 'born' in the digital age use RAW as a crutch and don't exercise the full capabilities of setting a camera up, and therefore spend more time on the computer than in the field. But again, that is to each own's choice and liking.
I think there is becoming more and more a separation of types of photographer, those that use the camera as the tool, and those that use the computer as a tool. Each has there place. Each can create magnificent photos. No doubt the computer can do more than the camera can do alone - but one has to know and/or realize what is needed for the customer, offset with the time spent either behind the computer editing what it shot, or behind the camera getting more shots.
Hammy wrote:
About 30 years for me, yes, thirty...if you consider that coming from the days of shooting film.
Film would be the equivalent of JPG - get it right in the camera with a small degree of latitude to change things in the darkroom. But the fact is, there was no RAW options back then to go back to the office and tweak to our hearts content to get what we wanted. We got what we wanted by the time we pressed the shutter.
Working for a press agency, time was of the essence, so click-develop-print was the norm to get images to the editor for copy before presstime.
I'm not saying RAW is evil or should be outlawed. It's a great tool. I do believe that many photographers who were 'born' in the digital age use RAW as a crutch and don't exercise the full capabilities of setting a camera up, and therefore spend more time on the computer than in the field. But again, that is to each own's choice and liking.
I think there is becoming more and more a separation of types of photographer, those that use the camera as the tool, and those that use the computer as a tool. Each has there place. Each can create magnificent photos. No doubt the computer can do more than the camera can do alone - but one has to know and/or realize what is needed for the customer, offset with the time spent either behind the computer editing what it shot, or behind the camera getting more shots....Show more →
So....Real men shoot JPG..!! Working for a press agency explains a lot. You didn't need to get too technical because it was the content that was important. I'm surprised you developed and printed your own film. We use to have staff people for that (but then that was 40 yrs. ago).There was a lot more you could do with film at the development stage than just "develop" the film (check out what Adams would do for an example). There was a ton of things you could do in a darkroom other than just print for newspaper publication (check out Jerry Ulesman, his work is ALL darkroom, no PS). Film can be more like raw if one really gets into all the nuances.
As far as getting it right in camera...I do that...and I did it when I shot film...and I still shoot raw. Its easy to "nail" an exposure. 1st semester photo students learn that. There's a lot more to the raw format than being able to adjust the exposure. Using the computer as a tool is done whether you shoot raw or JPG. You don't need a raw image to manipulate an image. So much of Photoshop comes right out of the darkroom.
I'm primarily a sports guy. Jpeg for 90%+ of what I shoot. +1 to Hammy. Raw files are bigger and require processing which eats time & storage space. When and if I shoot Raw, I do it as a fail safe but rarely do I have to use them. As an old film & chrome guy, I'm used to getting it right in the camera first. I'm not a guy to get it "close" and fix it in post... I know some Raw shooters that have that mind set.
I agree with rhyder. Even those of us who have decades of experience using reversal film and getting everything right in camera - not just exposure but the whole light balance so that the chrome looks exactly right on the light table - can benefit from using raw. That's not to say that the benefits of raw are always necessary, of course. When reviewing the image with the AD and client I always show the converted raw rather than the JPEG because I want to show the best possible image and its full potential (if the exposure is optimal for raw it probably looks washed out in JPEG anyway). As an aside, we still use LF reversal film commercially.
100% raw. Why not? Unless you have the slim need to get those photos out ASAP like a sports shooter. Since you're asking a question of this nature, you obviously aren't. You can just batch export all your raws as jpg's when you get in front of your computer.
