I find I just don't have the time for RAW, nor the memory card space, (nor the skill to convert well)
A 4GB card gets me 1000 or so frames for a 40D, but shooting raw gets me about 200 or 300.
I shoot raw+JPG for important shots like group photos etc, but I find the ability to change white balance in Lightroom, and Photoshop's shadow/highlight are sufficient for my needs to fix fudged exposure and whitebalance.
I shoot raw when I want something to keep. But I have to admit, when I'm shooting sports particularly, and I'm planning on printing many photos, I shoot jpg because I don't want to spend the time to convert the RAW files.
Maybe there should be a similar post showing the differences for pictures that were correctly setup and after the card ran out of space for raw pictures...
Obviously each person should choose the settings that provide what he or she needs. Shooting jpeg provides smaller files that are usable without any postprocessing. Shooting raw provides more data and eases modification of the pictures.
the statement: "Shooting jpeg provides smaller files that are usable without any postprocessing" is a "relative statement" to the individual. your reliance in the camera to make the right decision results in it being the master and you the slave to it.
i shoot raw/jpg for immediacy only when such image is going in a newspaper that will either in the end will be low level black and white or color. i always keep a raw of my shots.
compromise is always faster but never really gets you what you want.
i note the overwhelming theme in photography today is in general 3 distinct words from the same root
fast
faster
fastest
the statement on the card running out is invalid. back in the dark ages of image making i averaged at minimum about $2000 a yr in film/processing costs. today that buys about 20 4gb extreme 4 cf cards. you have no excuse for running out of space. yes you occasionally have to pop a full one out and a empty one in. but all in all thats a logistics issue as to when you do it.
I am the photo editor at a mid sized university paper, and I require my photographers shoot JPG only. For the purposes of our average (but no better) newsprint which prints 90% in grayscale (and generally speaking images are unpredicatable in their levels), JPG is fine, and it saves me lots of time when sorting through the hundreds to thousands of photos I have to deal with each week. What's more, managing jpg images is a lot easier, and if/when other section editors want to look at pictures it's easier for them to deal with JPG images. Not to mention server space becomes an issue with RAW images. Not to mention we use Mac Minis at the office ( ) so JPGs are more practical.
That said, personally I shoot RAW anytime I am doing anything "artistic". Group photos, photos of my family, etc, etc. I'm not totally convinced it's worth it if you are not planning on printing the images 8x10 or larger, but I do it anyway
I shoot JPEG 99.999999% of the time. I shoot primarily sports and over the last 5 years have shot literally many hundreds of thousands of images under every condition imaginable. Indoor, outdoor... soccer, field hockey, lacrosse, football, basketball, swimming, baseball, gymnastics, cross country, track... you name it.
During the spring and fall busy seasons I will edit 3500-5000 images per week.
In addition I have also been involved with a few weddings, some senior portraits and some theater gallery portrait shots..... again... all JPEG.
My output has been everything from web galleries through every print size available up to 24x36 posters.
I just can't be bothered with RAW. If I get it right in the camera I find that other than some levels and sharpening I don't need much else. Why did I say 99.99999% ? Because every now and again when I shoot a large group photo of say 40-60 people, I will go ahead and shoot RAW + JPEG. Don't ask me why because in every single instance when it comes time to use the photo I end up using the JPEG.
So there you have it... confessions of a JPEG shooter. And proud of it.
John--G
I can top that - I shoot jpeg 100% of the time - never shot a RAW images yet. I shot mostly sports and shoot jpeg for the same reason. In fact I only shoot normal jpeg and have printed 24x30 in postes that came out excellent.
Than being said, I just purchased some larger cards so I will start shooting "Fine" jpeg for sports as well as plan on starting to shoot some RAW over the winter just to check it out and see for my self. I will continue to shoot jpeg with sports, but will have to see about RAW with my other files.
Sports Illustrated requires RAW. conversion and post processing are the same as JPG, none. you can print from RAW in any program i know of. you also don't have to post process to print either.
100% jpeg all the way. I tried raw with my Canon 300D three years ago and it was quite the learning curve. I bought the 20D next and it didn't come with a image converter so I haven't bothered since. I can see the difference though when compared to your link; as well as if your going to shoot some portraits. Going wildlife shooting or to drag races for example when your gonna shoot around 600 images a day it would take quite a few cards shooting raw let alone the time to view and process them. I would still like to try a newer converting program sometime but don't have the money. My average print is 8 X 12 and a few 12 X 18. I don't think you could tell the difference between the two. Like I said, just my two bits worth.
sjms wrote:
the statement: "Shooting jpeg provides smaller files that are usable without any postprocessing" is a "relative statement" to the individual. your reliance in the camera to make the right decision results in it being the master and you the slave to it.
Yes, it is "relative" - jpeg files are smaller than raw files, as is the claim that raw files are more useful or provide "better pictures". As you said, some people will see more benefit from using jpeg files, some will see more benefit from using raw files.
Wowsa...isn't it interesting the kind of (mis)information that can come from a thread like this!
"Sports Illustrated requires RAW"
Not sure this is accurate; at least it hasn't been my experience in the times they've picked up any of my images.
20d didn't come with a raw "image converter"
Really? If I recall, every body I've purchased since the 10d came with DPP...and the ability to convert RAW files.
We could have guessed that a thread like this would cause a stir. Afterall, not like this topic hasn't been beaten to death.
What strikes me is when someone says "100% jpeg" or "nothing but RAW". I'm glad I have both options...just like I'm glad to have more than one lens! Sometimes, for me, RAW is the way to go and other times I shoot jpeg. Which one I use totally depends on the situation I'm in, what I'm shooting and how the images might be used.
Seems foolish, IMO, to say it has to be one or the other or to imply that one is better than the other.
Always raw for me, but I am a hobbiest and don't need to make deadlines. I am sure jpeg would be s reasonable choice in pro photojournalism and sports.
last time i checked, about 8 months ago, not only did they require RAW for all cameras that supported it, they also required specific settings for each body that they accepted. they said they would make exceptions under special circumstances.
Herb...
Scott Sewell wrote: "Sports Illustrated requires RAW"
Not sure this is accurate; at least it hasn't been my experience in the times they've picked up any of my images.
) so JPGs are more practical.
...
