does anyone shoot only jpeg

i have the 40d i have shot raw and jpeg have not had luck coverting the raw files.so i almost shoot jpeg all the time now. i just wish i new how to covert the files

I also have a 40D. I use to shoot nothing but jpeg's, then I shot raw and jpeg's for awhile and now I just shoot raw. If you use the DPP program that came with the camera you simply open your raw image in DPP click the file menu on the top left side of screen, then click on "convert and save" and it's a done deal. I also have Photoshop Elements 7. In Elements 7 I open the raw image in the editor, click on "open image" at the bottom right of the screen, now your in the normal editor window where you can save the file as a jpeg.

Yes, I shoot 100% JPEG users all the time.
--
Phil Agur

50D - Full equipment list in profile.

Also JPEG... 50D
Std. Picturestyle with max sharpening and -1 Contrast, for 99% of my shots.

--

/ L

Me, no I'm a 100% RAW guy. But I am interested in knowing why you think a lot of brain power is necessary to convert to jpeg? As Ed above said, DPP the free and very good program from Canon is one click away from a jpeg.

If you want to change exposure, white balance sharpness, contrast, hue, saturation simple cloning or trimming without damaging the original then RAW it the way to go. You may be thinking I can do that with jpegs too and yes you can but not to the degree of what you can with RAW. And the RAW file is non destructive and 100% reversible.

I don't want to spend a bunch of time in front of the magic box just to rework, repost all of my pictures.
I've got other things to do.

In jpeg...just occasionally.
Or..for fun when I do have nothing else pressing.

Mike

Haven't got time to do raw conversion after shooting 1000 frames per game so jpeg used for sports - also enables a much bigger buffer for continuous shooting.

RAW for everything else though.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chrismarvell

I shoot 100% jpeg.

--
Phil .. Canon EOS 40D, 20D, G9, SD700IS; Panasonic LX3, TZ5; Fuji F31fd.
http://www.pbase.com/phil_wheeler
http://philwheeler.net

Depends how many shots will be involved. If it's one small set of photos, definately RAW, as this enables the best possible final result. If it's a high shooting rate and there will be lots of shots I'll take a few test shots and use JPG.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spence
50D, Canon 17-55mm, Sigma 105mm, Helios 58mm F2

I also shoot 100 % JPEG. To get the white balance correct I often use an expodisc.
--
don

All digital cameras shoot RAW, it's just that some people have their RAW data turned into JPEGs in camera using the in camera JPEG engine in a small fraction of a second and then discard the original RAW data. People who think they are shooting JPEG are really shooting RAW and only saving a quick-and-dirty JPEG.

RAW produces the best images my camera can record and is very simple to convert using DPP. DPP also does the best job in converting RAW data into JPEG and TIFF images and takes very little time to do.

In my opinion the only reasons anyone would be compelled to save JPEG are:-

1. When you are limited for storage space, either on the memory card or your hard drive.

2. When you need to immediately Email your images.

3. When you need a frame burst longer than saving RAW will allow.

I 2nd the 100% jpeg.

Photography is an art. For that reason I will shoot in RAW to get the best result. However, if I am traveling around the world and I do not have the benefit of storage space or time, then I will shoot JPEG only. So it depends on the situation.

jrarsenault said:

However, if I am traveling around the world and I do not have the benefit of storage space or time, then I will shoot JPEG only.

Click to expand...

You could consider some nice PSD. It could allow you to shoot in raw all the time.

Just a suggestion,
Alex.

--
Equipment list is in the profile.

http://www.pbase.com/alekko

W/ 50D I've been shooting RAW + JPG and bracketing. I like PP, and DPP is a very good RAW converter, but I spend way too much time there. Once I've culled bad shots, I go into DPP and spend sometimes hours fooling around w/ curves etc-- it's sort of addictive and I have no discipline re time it seems. So, I'm considering going back to just jpeg and bracket shooting.

Is just converting the RAW files (batch) without applying any exposure-- or other-- corrections a worth while thing to do regarding image quality? I've tried it and most of the time I can't see any meaningful difference from the jpeg. RAW really helps to correct exposure and WB problems though.

Don't mean to hijack the thread, but maybe the OP is interested in this too?

E

I'm frankly amazed...

When I got my first DSLR, I shot jpeg because I didn't know anything about RAW and was too lazy to learn. Eventually, I tried shooting RAW, and quickly discovered that I could select the appropriate white balance after the fact with RAW, which was enough to convert me.

Now, having learned how flexible and easy RAW files are to work with, I never shoot jpegs. The highlight recovery control in PS Elements alone is reason enough to shoot only RAW. It can restore details to blown highlights, while blown highlights in jpeg are just white areas with no information to recover.

Shooting jpegs is the equivalent of shooting Polaroids instead of negatives -- you give up so much control for the slight convenience of having an instant picture (which you have with RAW files, too, if all you do is convert them to jpegs -- but then you still have the RAW file, and can go back and tweak the image if you want).

I never use continuous shooting mode, though I can see how that would be a good reason to shoot jpegs at a sporting event, say. But other than that, if I wanted to be a snapshooter instead of a photographer, I would've bought a pocket, point-and-shoot camera, instead of a DSLR with expensive glass...

--

ernieF said:

W/ 50D I've been shooting RAW + JPG and bracketing. I like PP, and DPP is a very good RAW converter, but I spend way too much time there. Once I've culled bad shots, I go into DPP and spend sometimes hours fooling around w/ curves etc-- it's sort of addictive and I have no discipline re time it seems. So, I'm considering going back to just jpeg and bracket shooting.

Click to expand...

If you actually LIKE post processing, why deny yourself? It seems rather self defeating to stop doing something you like in order to get inferior results. And what will you do with all the time you save anyway - worry about the fact that your images aren't as good as they could be? Stick with RAW and PP and stop feeling guilty about doing what you enjoy!

ernieF said:

Is just converting the RAW files (batch) without applying any exposure-- or other-- corrections a worth while thing to do regarding image quality? I've tried it and most of the time I can't see any meaningful difference from the jpeg. RAW really helps to correct exposure and WB problems though.

Click to expand...

Converting RAW to JPEG using DPP rather than relying on Digic 4 will provide you with superior images even without any adjustments. In IQ terms, RAW has more detail, better DR and smoother tones than JPEGs and you can, if you wish, even save your image as a TIFF which preserves ALL the information from your RAW data.

As for WB and exposure, as you are well aware, DPP makes it a snap to correct these so why shoot JPEG? You will still have the same WB and exposure issues with JPEG only withOUT the means to fix them properly.

ernieF said:

Don't mean to hijack the thread, but maybe the OP is interested in this too?

E

Click to expand...

I had the same problem managing time using RAW initially.

Once I began using ACDSee to manage photos and DXO for processing the RAW files in batch; it became more manageable. This lets me work through up to 2000 images in one evening (I let the processing in DXO run overnight). I quit using JPEG because the results were consistently better from the RAW files.

I will never use JPG again, I shoot RAW only now. If you ever have even one image that is JPG and needs white balance or other corrections then your f*cked. I have alot of tools to work with JPG but it can only do so much, RAW is much more forgiving. Comparing the size of a RAW file vs JPG when using the 50D its a no brainer, and with a 32GB card being about 75 bucks... why even think about it. I preview files in Irfanview, free on the web, and process in DPP which is free. You may think your a god when it comes to all your settings, but every shot is different, and only RAW gives you the chance of perfecting the perfect shot.
--

I take pictures of beautiful things, ....but what I want to take is beautiful pictures.
http://www.kloid.com

For the past few years I've shot only RAW. I use DPP and can now process my images very quickly. It also depends on what the photos will be used for. Commercial or for sale stuff takes me some time. Fun photos or other less important images require very little fiddling in DPP.

When using DPP I find that I first take a "standard" image from the group, set a few of the paraemeters (contrast, WB, Color tone if necessary) then copy the settings to the clipboard and paste them to all the other relevant images. After doing that it's just a matter of touching up those photos as needed, mostly with lighter/darker issues. Works for me. For example, I took photos of our town's July 4th parade and it only took me a few minutes to deal with over 100 images, then batch convert to JPG (for the town web site).

Anyway, what I eventually figured out is, I'm not a good enough photographer to shoot JPG. I need the range of control I get in RAW in order to salvage a fair number of my shots.

Rich