Go RAW only?

I shoot RAW only on my D300. If I need a Jpeg for a quick upload to FB or email I use Photo Mechanic to get the Jpeg.

With the luxury of 2 8GB cards in the D7K I shoot RAW + Basic. FB limit is 720 pixels and 900 pixels is plenty for email.
--
Fiat Lux
 
JPEG only does not allow for the maximum utilization of the file. RAW files simply contain more data than a JPEG allowing for greater flexibility in processing.
I shoot mostly JPEG , RAW sometimes
nothing wrong with JPEG
--
OK, not so purely a hobby.
 
The Xrite color checker - because color is sooooo off!

or...

people use NX again, because the colors out of lightroom are so off

or...

there are discussions about baseline exposure - cause the colors and exposure are so off

or...

the people that use Capture One, or Bibble, or...

wait... are you on Scott Kelby's payroll?
 
I don't agree with your statement about LR. I use Aperture (on an Imac) and Lightroom (on a PC). Lightroom does a better job at converting RAWs with my D90.
I don't understand this statement. Are you saying that there is less work to do in LR than Aperture with NEFs to make them 'look better'? I haven't used LR but tried comparing a View NX2 jpeg from NEF to an Aperture jpeg from NEF and apart from contrast (View NX2 had more contrast) couldn't see a difference.

I'm all for changing RAW processing programs, but somebody's quote of 'its better' isn't scientific enough for me.

Matt
 
If im shooting an event, i'll shoot raw + small jpg. The jpg gets batch processed, to smaller images and watermarked, then it get uploaded to a website for people to look at and maybe purchase. The RAW files are offloaded onto a HDD and used to produce prints, etc.

And, if i need a quick one off image, i'll shoot jpg.

Timelapse is the other time when you want jpg.. you dont want to be processesing 10,000 RAW files.
 
If you take a 14-bit NEF, edit it, and save it as a jpeg, do you lose the 14-bit range?
In the final image yes, but you are using initial extra bits to either get more of the shadows or more of the highlights to show better. RAW is like a dough which you can use to make either a loaf of bread or a muffin.

Nik
 
Gosh, I never knew all those applications were developed because people disliked Lightroom! But now, I have seen the light. Your beautiful self-portraiture can only be ascribed to Aperture.
The Xrite color checker - because color is sooooo off!

or...

people use NX again, because the colors out of lightroom are so off

or...

there are discussions about baseline exposure - cause the colors and exposure are so off

or...

the people that use Capture One, or Bibble, or...

wait... are you on Scott Kelby's payroll?
--
OK, not so purely a hobby.
 
Yeah but do ya really need all that data
take a good exposure in RAW + JPEG
edit em both and you cant tell which was which
stuff up a little and you might be able to save something with a RAW
notice I said stuff only LITTLE
JPEG only does not allow for the maximum utilization of the file. RAW files simply contain more data than a JPEG allowing for greater flexibility in processing.
I shoot mostly JPEG , RAW sometimes
nothing wrong with JPEG
--
OK, not so purely a hobby.
 
Ninja thinks Aperture is great and he doesn't like LR. I use them both and you can produce good images in either. I find it easier to do so in LR. Ninja thinks Aperture is the be-all, end-all. If you are interested, try LR and aperture out for free. Both have a learning curve but its not too bad.
I don't agree with your statement about LR. I use Aperture (on an Imac) and Lightroom (on a PC). Lightroom does a better job at converting RAWs with my D90.
I don't understand this statement. Are you saying that there is less work to do in LR than Aperture with NEFs to make them 'look better'? I haven't used LR but tried comparing a View NX2 jpeg from NEF to an Aperture jpeg from NEF and apart from contrast (View NX2 had more contrast) couldn't see a difference.

I'm all for changing RAW processing programs, but somebody's quote of 'its better' isn't scientific enough for me.

Matt
--
OK, not so purely a hobby.
 
Yup, cameras produce good jpegs.
Yeah but do ya really need all that data
take a good exposure in RAW + JPEG
edit em both and you cant tell which was which
stuff up a little and you might be able to save something with a RAW
notice I said stuff only LITTLE
JPEG only does not allow for the maximum utilization of the file. RAW files simply contain more data than a JPEG allowing for greater flexibility in processing.
I shoot mostly JPEG , RAW sometimes
nothing wrong with JPEG
--
OK, not so purely a hobby.
--
OK, not so purely a hobby.
 
Yeah but do ya really need all that data
take a good exposure in RAW + JPEG
edit em both and you cant tell which was which
stuff up a little and you might be able to save something with a RAW
notice I said stuff only LITTLE
Fjrjacko wrote:
I shoot mostly JPEG , RAW sometimes
nothing wrong with JPEG
--
OK, not so purely a hobby.
I really like your Falls1-2.jpg on photobucket...was that a raw or JPEG only? Good color in that one.
 
Most of the time I shoot jpeg. It looks great out of the box. If you get into the habit of setting your camera up for jpeg, you'll pay more attention to what your are doing. This one thing alone will make you a better photographer.

RAW shooting can make you lazy by thinking 'I'll just fix it in Photoshop'. Let the camera do the heavy lifting.

Only when lighting is tricky or when I think I'll need do more than tweak the photo, I shoot RAW.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top