Why would I want to use RAW?

[Brad Bohland]

I have an FZ1000 and shoot JPEGs.

I try to get the picture right the first time, so it doesn't need any processing, and the most I ever do, and rarely at that, is crop a little or tone down highlights or brighten shadows very slightly. I usually don't do anything. What do I need RAW for? What am I going to do with it?

 

[Lifeofdavid]

I have an FZ1000 and shoot JPEGs.

I try to get the picture right the first time, so it doesn't need any processing, and the most I ever do, and rarely at that, is crop a little or tone down highlights or brighten shadows very slightly. I usually don't do anything. What do I need RAW for? What am I going to do with it?

You don't need it. Ignore the rest of the replies and live happily ever after.

 

[Brad Bohland]

Fast and sweet.

 

[Martin.au]

I have an FZ1000 and shoot JPEGs.

I try to get the picture right the first time, so it doesn't need any processing, and the most I ever do, and rarely at that, is crop a little or tone down highlights or brighten shadows very slightly. I usually don't do anything. What do I need RAW for? What am I going to do with it?

If you don't think you need it, then you don't need it.

I use raw because it enables a lot of flexibility in post. I don't always need, or even often use that flexibility, but it's nice to have.

 

[Mark B.]

If you don't feel the need to use raw and it doesn't fit in with your photography style, nobody should tell you otherwise.

Mark

 

[Brad Bohland]

Thank you.

 

[Brad Bohland]

Thanks.

Three posts and there's already a consensus. That's a first.

 

[Bill01De]

I agree with the others. If you don't see the need, nobody should tell you that you need it.

I have a camera I keep in the car that only shoots JPG. While I occasionally have an image that I wish I could 'work on', I am pretty happy with most of what I get.

 

[gollywop]

Brad, I agree with those that say you shouldn't feel impelled to use raw.

However, I have sensed in your other posts that you have an interest in things that are best done in raw.

So, as time goes on and you learn more about the aspects of photography and photographic processing that are relevant to raw, you might give it reconsideration when it feels right. It doesn't come over night.

Meanwhile, relax and enjoy what you're doing.

--
gollywop
http://g4.img-dpreview.com/D8A95C7DB3724EC094214B212FB1F2AF.jpg

 

[Brad Bohland]

"...give it reconsideration when it feels right."

I will. Your advice is appreciated and always welcome.

 

[Donald B]

A good friend of mine shoots wildlife ,his images could go on front page of national Geo mags, his procesing skills are unbelievable, haven't seen anything of the quality on this site period. He shoots JPEG.

Cheers don

 

[Don Lacy]

A good friend of mine shoots wildlife ,his images could go on front page of national Geo mags, his procesing skills are unbelievable, haven't seen anything of the quality on this site period. He shoots JPEG.

Cheers don

 

[More Keepers]

A good friend of mine shoots wildlife ,his images could go on front page of national Geo mags, his procesing skills are unbelievable, haven't seen anything of the quality on this site period.

That is a pretty strong statement you made without any proof. Could you share his site so others could make their own judgement?

He shoots JPEG.

Cheers don

--
Olympus xz1, e-pL5 , EM5 my toys.
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244

Of course that in no way implies that you get better results with jpg. Quite the opposite is more true. You lose information with jpg which is a fact that isn't arguable. At best you have implied that your friend is an outstanding photographer regardless of the file format.

 

[Tom_Bruno]

A good friend of mine shoots wildlife ,his images could go on front page of national Geo mags, his procesing skills are unbelievable, haven't seen anything of the quality on this site period. He shoots JPEG.

Cheers don

 

[Aaron801]

If you;re happy with what you have then why would you bother changing to something else? If you have a feeling that there's some added things that you'd like to see in your images and you're OK with making the commitment to learn some software than it might be worth it to try RAW.


I have a feeling though that you just made this post to get some confirmation on not using RAW... which I have to say is pretty silly. Great photographers shoot RAW and shoot JPEG. It isn't a one is better than the other type of thing at all, it's just what you're into and what level of control you like to have over the result.

--
my flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/

 

[malch]

Does Your friend have a website? I'd love to see how he's making out shooting JPEG's. I shoot raw, but I'm feeling a heavy weight from all the processing of the large files. I'm thinking of switching from raw, just to save processing time.

I'm a RAW shooter because it allows to me save all of the data my camera was able to capture. I consider that a Good Thing.

But the processing is an overhead and one that drives many pros to shoot JPEG. If JPEG's can deliver the quality they need and improve their productivity, I'm certainly not going to tell them they are bad/wrong/stupid. They're making the right decision for them.

I can only encourage you to look at the pros and cons of both and make the call that's right for you. BTW, I also know photographers who shoot RAW for some settings/situations/assignments and JPEG for others. Again, they've worked out what's best for them.

 

[chipmaster]

Because you simply want the best possible and throw away the least amount of information.

If you are happy then who cares. I shoot JPG, once I tried dual and came home with 128GB of RAW images. Selected my favorite JPG and did some raw processing. Yes they were a bit better, did it matter to me, not enough to make RAW my standard workflow. Others may say what, am I crazy to have a D810 and shoot JPG.. but I'm pretty happy so minimal RAW for me too.

 

[Donald B]

A good friend of mine shoots wildlife ,his images could go on front page of national Geo mags, his procesing skills are unbelievable, haven't seen anything of the quality on this site period. He shoots JPEG.

Cheers don

 

[dwight3]

If it's working, don't fix it.

When I first got a DSLR I shot jpg. One day I changed a white balance setting for some indoor work. I went outdoors and forgot to change it back. All the images came out blue. I needed those photos. It took hours for me to get something that looked reasonable.

My first step was to shoot both raw and jpg. I had the best of both worlds. The jpg was there for me for quick use. The raw was there if I screwed up again (and I have screwed up several times since then). Eventually I got comfortable with the raw processing and now I shoot raw only.

If you can guarantee to yourself that you will never screw up your settings like I did, you probably don't need to shoot raw. If you ever shoot something that is a one-time shot, at least shoot raw+jpg if your camera supports saving both formats simultaneously. It's cheap insurance.

 

[Don Lacy]

A good friend of mine shoots wildlife ,his images could go on front page of national Geo mags, his procesing skills are unbelievable, haven't seen anything of the quality on this site period. He shoots JPEG.

Cheers don