The less experienced one is, the more they should use RAW, not the other way around. RAW lets you rescue mistakes a hundred times more easily than jpegs. Just look at that ship. In one photo is looks very mildly underexposed, and the other not so much. You wouldn\'t have that flexibility in jpegs, or you might have to work at it. One of RAW\'s primary benefits is rescuing seemingly blown highlights (which doesn\'t apply to that photo but is a huge problem for many people).
mMontag wrote: swolfcg wrote:
Thanks Philber. After much deliberation I have to agree. I don\'t think Raw shooting is right for me.
I might be just too OCD to ever be satisfied with anything I could come up with. I best leave it up to the experts or until I attend a lightroom workshop. Yep, I\'m throwing in the towel after just one short day of shooting.
swolfcg,
Pick the towel up! - On that image you probably metered on the white of the ship - you\'re underexposed as it shows darkening in the sky - the 35-70 tends to do that - EV + - it\'s the same with shooting snow scenes or exposing for overly dark objects in scenes and blow out the highlights.
Stay with the RAW - there is no substitute for the time you just have to put in. Classes are fine - online tutorials are available. Or - just go in and start \"hacking\" - try each controller - each tool to see what it does - it\'s no different than editing a jpeg - you just have more control and latitude to work with.
- On that image you probably metered on the white of the ship - you\'re underexposed as it shows darkening in the sky - the 35-70 tends to do that - EV + - it\'s the same with shooting snow scenes or exposing for overly dark objects in scenes and blow out the highlights.