Anybody else switching from shooting RAW to JPEG only?

[Bill Ferris]

It was a loaded question (nothing wrong with it):

Anybody else give up the tedium and time spent trying to squeeze the most out of RAW image files and are happy just shooting JPEGs?

It is perfectly acceptable to challenge the premise of it.

It's also perfectly acceptable to walk on by and allow JPEG shooters some space to celebrate a shared interest.

 

[GeoffRG]

was if anybody else had switched from shooting raw to shooting JPEG.

In typical DPR fashion, a bunch of people are trying to spin this as a raw vs. JPEG debate. The OP isn't pushing an agenda that nobody should be shooting raw and everybody should be shooting JPEG. They're just trying to connect with others who've made the same image file format and light out-of-camera processing choice.

It's not much different from a person starting a thread to say they've recently discovered the joy of using full manual exposure mode and would like to connect with other manual exposure enthusiasts. No pushing of an agenda; just wanting to connect with others who've adopted the same workflow.

To all the raw shooters out there who feel the urge to pile on the, "No, I'd never shoot JPEG only, " bandwagon, how about not doing so? Instead, move on to the next thread title that appeals to you and allow the folks that do shoot and process JPEG some space to share their mutual enjoyment of that workflow?

I agree that shooting jpeg or raw has to be a personal choice however, a new photographer needs to understand the benefits offered by raw files. They don’t have to use raw, they just have to be in a position to make an informed decision. Unfortunately many of the discussions end up supporting one or the other without being clear about the benefits and disadvantages of each format. Clearly the OP has made the choice based on experience and knowledge, some other posters seem to be taking the view that because jpeg/raw is right for them it’s right for everybody. All I want to do is to ensure people have the tools to make the decision that is right for them.

 

[Saint 112]

In typical DPR fashion, a bunch of people are trying to spin this as a raw vs. JPEG debate. The OP isn't pushing an agenda that nobody should be shooting raw and everybody should be shooting JPEG. They're just trying to connect with others who've made the same image file format and light out-of-camera processing choice.

The OP asked a question which is perfectly legitimate if not very uncommon. I gave him what he asked for: my take on the topic. To me everybody does what one pleases: jpg, raw+jpg, raw. I don't care. Yet there are some misconceptions that need to be corrected.

To me this thead is not a debate.

BTW, the OP has not reappeared.
Nick

 

[dmanthree]

Zero chance of that happening. Why toss so much information from the image?

 

[Battery_Kinzie]

I think threads like this would benefit greatly from a few photos from various viewpoints. I'd love to see especially some before/after edit (i.e. camera jpg vs processed RAW) from people to really see what someone who only does jpg might be missing out on. And similarly, some OOC jpgs from people who reckon that is more than enough.

I shoot both, and generally use the RAW file for some small processing. Sometimes I just use the jpgs themselves, but I would feel a bit uneasy only shooting jpg.

 

[Hike Pics]

I shoot RAW only occasionally, when the scene is difficult enough to warrant that file.

A LOT can be done with a jpg these days. And I have several cameras that produce a specific look with jpgs that I want.

 

[gordonpritchard]

I'm not a native speaker, but i think "post" refers to something done after the fact. Saying "all images are postprocessed" is therefore absolutely false.

Also, unless you designed your own editing software, you still depend on the "sensibilities of some unknown engineer in a unknown country".

YOU did not create Adobe, did ya?

What I was trying to say was that after you press the shutter the camera's software processes the captured image to create the jpeg. I.e. post (shutter release) processed.

Shooting RAW just means that I do that processing - the editing software I use is simply the tool. Just like a paintbrush is a tool an artist would use. Or a hammer that a carpenter would use.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

To all the raw shooters out there who feel the urge to pile on the, "No, I'd never shoot JPEG only, " bandwagon, how about not doing so?

Those messages were a bit more detailed and explanatory than a mere refusal to shoot jpeg.

Instead, move on to the next thread title that appeals to you and allow the folks that do shoot and process JPEG some space to share their mutual enjoyment of that workflow?

In other worlds, you suggest raw shooters to leave jpeg shooters alone

 

[dmanthree]

was if anybody else had switched from shooting raw to shooting JPEG.

In typical DPR fashion, a bunch of people are trying to spin this as a raw vs. JPEG debate. The OP isn't pushing an agenda that nobody should be shooting raw and everybody should be shooting JPEG. They're just trying to connect with others who've made the same image file format and light out-of-camera processing choice.

It's not much different from a person starting a thread to say they've recently discovered the joy of using full manual exposure mode and would like to connect with other manual exposure enthusiasts. No pushing of an agenda; just wanting to connect with others who've adopted the same workflow.

To all the raw shooters out there who feel the urge to pile on the, "No, I'd never shoot JPEG only, " bandwagon, how about not doing so? Instead, move on to the next thread title that appeals to you and allow the folks that do shoot and process JPEG some space to share their mutual enjoyment of that workflow?

You must be new to the internet. ;-)

 

[dmanthree]

I shoot RAW only occasionally, when the scene is difficult enough to warrant that file.

A LOT can be done with a jpg these days. And I have several cameras that produce a specific look with jpgs that I want.

True, but the options available in ACR far outweigh, for me, the convenience of JPG only. Unless, of course, I'm shooting with my iPhone. Then it's JPG only.

 

[dmanthree]

The data you captured is processed into jpegs according to the sensibilities of some unknown engineer in an unknown country.

I'd rather do that processing according to my sensibilities and intent instead.

I'm not a native speaker, but i think "post" refers to something done after the fact. Saying "all images are postprocessed" is therefore absolutely false.

Sort of. All cameras shoot a raw file, and then process it into a JPG file. So the "postprocesing" is done in the camera, it seems. Semantics, I know. For most images, like raw, postprocessing is done on a computer. Which is my preference. To each his/her own.

Also, unless you designed your own editing software, you still depend on the "sensibilities of some unknown engineer in a unknown country".

YOU did not create Adobe, did ya?

No, but I do with I bought stock in it early. ;-)

 

[J A C S]

The data you captured is processed into jpegs according to the sensibilities of some unknown engineer in an unknown country.

I'd rather do that processing according to my sensibilities and intent instead.

I'm not a native speaker, but i think "post" refers to something done after the fact. Saying "all images are postprocessed" is therefore absolutely false.

I do not think that anybody said "all images are postprocessed" in this thread anyway.

Sort of. All cameras shoot a raw file, and then process it into a JPG file. So the "postprocesing" is done in the camera, it seems. Semantics, I know. For most images, like raw, postprocessing is done on a computer. Which is my preference. To each his/her own.

 

[Bill Ferris]

To all the raw shooters out there who feel the urge to pile on the, "No, I'd never shoot JPEG only, " bandwagon, how about not doing so?

Those messages were a bit more detailed and explanatory than a mere refusal to shoot jpeg.

Instead, move on to the next thread title that appeals to you and allow the folks that do shoot and process JPEG some space to share their mutual enjoyment of that workflow?

In other worlds, you suggest raw shooters to leave jpeg shooters alone

In a thread like this, sure.

If a thread is started to solicit opinions on the pros/cons of raw & JPEG, that's different. This one strikes me more as someone wanting to connect with others who share a similar interest.

 

[Bill Ferris]

was if anybody else had switched from shooting raw to shooting JPEG.

In typical DPR fashion, a bunch of people are trying to spin this as a raw vs. JPEG debate. The OP isn't pushing an agenda that nobody should be shooting raw and everybody should be shooting JPEG. They're just trying to connect with others who've made the same image file format and light out-of-camera processing choice.

It's not much different from a person starting a thread to say they've recently discovered the joy of using full manual exposure mode and would like to connect with other manual exposure enthusiasts. No pushing of an agenda; just wanting to connect with others who've adopted the same workflow.

To all the raw shooters out there who feel the urge to pile on the, "No, I'd never shoot JPEG only, " bandwagon, how about not doing so? Instead, move on to the next thread title that appeals to you and allow the folks that do shoot and process JPEG some space to share their mutual enjoyment of that workflow?

I agree that shooting jpeg or raw has to be a personal choice however, a new photographer needs to understand the benefits offered by raw files. They don’t have to use raw, they just have to be in a position to make an informed decision. Unfortunately many of the discussions end up supporting one or the other without being clear about the benefits and disadvantages of each format. Clearly the OP has made the choice based on experience and knowledge, some other posters seem to be taking the view that because jpeg/raw is right for them it’s right for everybody. All I want to do is to ensure people have the tools to make the decision that is right for them.

This thread - the top post, at any rate - strikes me as being one person shouting from the darkness, "Anybody else here like me?" They're looking to make connections.

If this were the Beginners Questions forum and a thread was started seeking input on the advantages/ disadvantages of one file format vs another, that would be a different story.

 

[Bill Ferris]

In typical DPR fashion, a bunch of people are trying to spin this as a raw vs. JPEG debate. The OP isn't pushing an agenda that nobody should be shooting raw and everybody should be shooting JPEG. They're just trying to connect with others who've made the same image file format and light out-of-camera processing choice.

The OP asked a question which is perfectly legitimate if not very uncommon. I gave him what he asked for: my take on the topic. To me everybody does what one pleases: jpg, raw+jpg, raw. I don't care. Yet there are some misconceptions that need to be corrected.

To me this thead is not a debate.

BTW, the OP has not reappeared.

Not surprising considering some of the responses.

 

[mujana]

To all the raw shooters out there who feel the urge to pile on the, "No, I'd never shoot JPEG only, " bandwagon, how about not doing so?

Those messages were a bit more detailed and explanatory than a mere refusal to shoot jpeg.

Instead, move on to the next thread title that appeals to you and allow the folks that do shoot and process JPEG some space to share their mutual enjoyment of that workflow?

In other worlds, you suggest raw shooters to leave jpeg shooters alone

In a thread like this, sure.

If a thread is started to solicit opinions on the pros/cons of raw & JPEG, that's different. This one strikes me more as someone wanting to connect with others who share a similar interest.

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

To all the raw shooters out there who feel the urge to pile on the, "No, I'd never shoot JPEG only, " bandwagon, how about not doing so?

Those messages were a bit more detailed and explanatory than a mere refusal to shoot jpeg.

Instead, move on to the next thread title that appeals to you and allow the folks that do shoot and process JPEG some space to share their mutual enjoyment of that workflow?

In other worlds, you suggest raw shooters to leave jpeg shooters alone

In a thread like this, sure.

If a thread is started to solicit opinions on the pros/cons of raw & JPEG, that's different. This one strikes me more as someone wanting to connect with others who share a similar interest.

Sorry, a line like “the tedium and time spent trying to squeeze the most out of RAW image files” should be expected to illicit a response from RAW shooters too.

 

[Bill Ferris]

To all the raw shooters out there who feel the urge to pile on the, "No, I'd never shoot JPEG only, " bandwagon, how about not doing so?

Those messages were a bit more detailed and explanatory than a mere refusal to shoot jpeg.

Instead, move on to the next thread title that appeals to you and allow the folks that do shoot and process JPEG some space to share their mutual enjoyment of that workflow?

In other worlds, you suggest raw shooters to leave jpeg shooters alone

In a thread like this, sure.

If a thread is started to solicit opinions on the pros/cons of raw & JPEG, that's different. This one strikes me more as someone wanting to connect with others who share a similar interest.

Well, to a question like this:

“Anybody else give up the tedium and time spent trying to squeeze the most out of RAW image files and are happy just shooting JPEGs?”

..one can answer “yes” or “no”. In both cases an explanation for such a choice is legitimate, I think.

A reader has a choice. They can focus on a phrase in the last line of the top post and see the OP's intent as starting a JPEG vs raw debate. Or the reader can focus on the first 80% of the post, which tells the story of a person embracing a new (for them) way of shooting and see the thread as an effort to connect with others who enjoy the same workflow.

I choose the latter and encourage others to consider doing the same.

 

[J A C S]

To all the raw shooters out there who feel the urge to pile on the, "No, I'd never shoot JPEG only, " bandwagon, how about not doing so?

Those messages were a bit more detailed and explanatory than a mere refusal to shoot jpeg.

Instead, move on to the next thread title that appeals to you and allow the folks that do shoot and process JPEG some space to share their mutual enjoyment of that workflow?

In other worlds, you suggest raw shooters to leave jpeg shooters alone

In a thread like this, sure.

If a thread is started to solicit opinions on the pros/cons of raw & JPEG, that's different. This one strikes me more as someone wanting to connect with others who share a similar interest.

Well, to a question like this:

“Anybody else give up the tedium and time spent trying to squeeze the most out of RAW image files and are happy just shooting JPEGs?”

..one can answer “yes” or “no”. In both cases an explanation for such a choice is legitimate, I think.

A reader has a choice. They can focus on a phrase in the last line of the top post and see the OP's intent as starting a JPEG vs raw debate. Or the reader can focus on the first 80% of the post, which tells the story of a person embracing a new (for them) way of shooting and see the thread as an effort to connect with others who enjoy the same workflow.

The second to the last sentence of the first paragraph contains the same displeasure with RAW.

 

[Fujiuseruk]

Always been a jpeg shooter. Just shot the odd few raws when I knew I’d be needing multiple options or testing a new camera etc.