I shoot RAW very occasionally, but the last time was in 2009. So for me, it certainly has been viable. Lets see, out of 33,010 shots I have kept since I started digital photography in December 2001, I only shot RAW 579 times. One of the reasons I bought the E-1 in the first places was the quality of the out of camera JPG's.
Also what I do. I switch to RAW+JPG when I need to use ISO 2000 or more on my EPL1. Then I forget to change back.
Not to minimize shooting in RAW (always do with my LX-3 which doesn't do colors well), but I'd rather have more time.but you have a lot of free time, compared to them
Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
--The problem with shooting Jpeg is that Raw shooters treat you as a dimwit, but you have a lot of free time, compared to them
Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
I don't think that's why they treat you as a dimwit. That would be just wrong.I actually stopped shooting RAW+Jpeg when I bought the PL1. But I shoot large superfine, which allows some adjustment in PP.
RAW is now for very difficult conditions.
The problem with shooting Jpeg is that Raw shooters treat you as a dimwit, but you have a lot of free time, compared to them
--
The best Pro I know shoots JPEG.. Ken Rockwell.. check his photos sometime. they will make you maybe change your mind if you think RAW is the hot ticket..In all honesty, I've never had any problem shooting only JPEG and I do most of my adjustments on camera to my liking.
The problem with shooting Jpeg is that Raw shooters treat you as a dimwit, but you have a lot of free time, compared to them
Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
I use the JPGs for quick editing (sorting out). Depending on what it's for, I will use JPGs. Usually I start with RAW files, but I do shoot under often very difficult lighting, so I want to get every quantum of what's in the RAW file. If a thing is worth doing, why not do it right? Sure, processing RAW files takes longer than whipping out JPGs, but compared to darkroom work, processing RAWs and editing is nothing. I'd rather spend 2 minutes more per image than having regrets later, or having do to what I should have done in the first place.
Haha. That's excellent.
On Ken Rockwell's desktop, the Trash Icon is really a link to National Geographic Magazine. Sure, Ken Rockwell deletes a bad photo or two. Other people call these Pulitzers.The best Pro I know shoots JPEG.. Ken Rockwell.. check his photos sometime. they will make you maybe change your mind if you think RAW is the hot ticket..In all honesty, I've never had any problem shooting only JPEG and I do most of my adjustments on camera to my liking.
The problem with shooting Jpeg is that Raw shooters treat you as a dimwit, but you have a lot of free time, compared to them
Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
DGO
That is still another factor - not to give money to Adobe to upgrade PS versions.... to go shoot more.
That's the idea.
I nearly woke my wife stifling a snort. I know KR gets a lot of grief but that just nailed it. Still having a chuckle...
When I had the E-510, I came to the conclusion that ISO 100 wasn't really ISO 100 as measured with a film camera (ISO 200 and above was pretty true, but ISO 100 was maybe ISO 125). I always thought the metering at ISO 100 didn't always account for this and tended more to blown highlights. When I switched to never using ISO 100, I had much less blown highlights.
