Comments on: Do You Shoot in RAW? [POLL]

By: Callista

Callista — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 20:43:45 +0000

To be perfectly honest, I haven’t really found the real difference with RAW and a high MP JPEG. I do any photo editing in photoshop, so anything like black and white and toning is easily changed there. What would the difference be there?

By: patrick

patrick — Sat, 22 May 2010 21:29:34 +0000

I always shoot in RAW as I feel you never know when you will take “that” picture, which however mundane it might look at the time, looks great when you look at it later. No RAW..no chance to make it perfect.

By: J.A.Lambert

J.A.Lambert — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 06:52:09 +0000

I always shoot in RAW because it gives me a “negative” if I want to do different kinds of editing. I can always go back to the RAW image and make further changes. When I’m completely satisfied, I delete the RAW image to save space. I always save in TIFF because it is lossless. I save all images to a one tb external hard drive which should see me through to the year 2030. By that time, I’ll be dead so I’ll hand it down to my son and he can hand it down to his son, etc. etc. But why don’t I just shoot in TIF or PNG. I don’t know, haven’t figured it out yet. Both those formats are lossless and if I really want copies of an image I can make them easily. My original image would serve as the “negative”.

By: Gilliam

Gilliam — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:38:59 +0000

I shoot in both formats, because I took a photography class and my instructor encouraged me to. Unfortunatley I haven’t had the pleasure of post processing a RAW image because I don’t know what I am doing.

By: Saleem Shahid

Saleem Shahid — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:11:37 +0000

memory is no problem .I always keep 5, 4gb memorycards plus a netbook 350 gb hard drive in my bag. and I all ways shoot raw+jpg.

By: Art Netzer

Art Netzer — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:02:16 +0000

I only shoot RAW (1JEPG 1 RAW) when I see something really exceptiomal.

By: Larry Nicosia

Larry Nicosia — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:54:07 +0000

Jack, I do agree with you that we can get good results with JPEGs. But that wasn’t my point. It goes beyond knowing how to use a camera, knowing the light and composition. The camera is a machine that is just not capable of reproducing a scene, by itself, as well as our eyes can reproduce. There really is no debate when it comes to the facts. JPGs are ok, but if our camera is capable of capturing in RAW, then we can produce a better quality image by using RAW with some post production.

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:55:12 +0000

HTML didn’t work.

RAW:
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_TIVBpbs2o0g/StZBc0_uZYI/AAAAAAAAK5Y/K6Wz19LA-nQ/s800/IMG_2166.jpg

JPEG:
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_TIVBpbs2o0g/Sp20SVDFgwI/AAAAAAAAKxs/p1joF-lCYQI/s800/IMG_7147.jpg

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:54:02 +0000

RAW:

JPEG:

It’s all what you do with the equipment you have.

By: Jack

Jack — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:45:58 +0000

I’m sorry Larry but I have to disagree with your statement…”but if you want a quality photo you need to shoot and process RAW.” There are many photographers shooting excellent quality large images in jpeg; photographers who know how to use a camera, know when the light will be right and know how to compose a well executed image. I shoot landscapes and I will persevere at a location waiting for the right moment to capture the image. Mother nature provides us with some stunning vistas and that’s what I want to capture – mother nature at her best, not alter it in photoshop to what I think it should be.
This debate over Jpeg and RAW can, and will, go on forever but you know what? … it doesn’t matter… I get excellent results, and large saleable prints, from my camera on Jpeg and others get excellent results with RAW and photoshop. Just please don’t make silly statements that Jpegs are only good for snapshots.