[pqx]

In this fast paced ever changing world of photography, when is raw just a raw deal.

The fuji came close with the renowned X-Series, Sony big gun RX', Pentax misunderstood Q-Series, Canon M, Nikon DF,800E,J/V1 and even rangefinders popping great pixels in jpeg. So is there always the need to shoot RAW...?

Working commercially a photographer doing let's say a photoshoot may have no choice because he's hired sometimes in-directly by the art director whose vision will guide the shoot and in turn hiring digitechs (retoucher) he/she worked with before who collect and manipulate the pure raw files, balancing every last drop of detail into THE ONE Composition.

But what for the lone-ranger street,landscape,hobbist,student etc, Do i shoot raw?

The point is 2012-/2014 cameras are so good in shooting jpeg that you may just wanna save raw for the "visions" you see as your masters (and space ). Is every shot you take a master.. maybe not then so why shoot raw without thinking.

Pentax cameras and most "other" manufacturers have a wheel/dial/function button that immediately puts you in RAW/Jpeg mode, so why not use it by making a descision per image just as you may adjust a shutter as light changes.

Lots of photographers take pictures which are masters themselves but then because of their mindset decide to roll it through LR/Photoshop/Fastone more from habit than the image actually needing it.

Never forget why you chose photography as your work or hobby, and remind yourself it was not to become a retoucher.

I open the debate as i would love to here your views.

[amoringello]

Open the debate? Really? Why? RAW vs JPEG is so pre-2010.
You want read some debate for raw v.s. jpeg, just use google and read till your eyes turn blue. :-)

[pqx]

Not which is better amoringello, only that its one of the first settings most photographer set. without taking enough time with composition, lighting, WB, vision etc.. before saying OK, i fix it in LR/Photoshop.

By no means is this about which is better.

[dcBear78]

How do I know before I've taken the shot which one of the few I have taken will be the keeper?

[SpecialK]

I open the debate as i would love to here your views.

Done to death elsewhere, as noted :-)

[DarCam]

For me it's all about the subject matter. If I need to take pictures for reference and just that, no need for RAW. Everything else, I shoot in RAW. RAW is for the artist. A straight up JPEG out of the camera would be for those that need something fast, need something for reference (like a contractor or inspections worker), or for the newly minted DSLR owner who needs it to start out and not want to get into the murky world of formats.


So yeah, RAW.

[Steve.Ledger]

Are you trolling?

....one of the first settings most photographer set. without taking enough time with composition, lighting, WB, vision etc..

Where are your credentials to warrant making such generalized assumptions about the photographers of the world?

Lots of photographers take pictures which are masters themselves but then because of their mindset decide to roll it through LR/Photoshop/Fastone more from habit than the image actually needing it.

Where do you draw your conclusions from? Are you privvy to millions of photographers work-flows and mind sets?

Pentax cameras and most "other" manufacturers have a wheel/dial/function button that immediately puts you in RAW/Jpeg mode, so why not use it by making a descision per image just as you may adjust a shutter as light changes.

Why don't you just use your camera/s how you prefer to and let others make their own choices?.

Never forget why you chose photography as your work or hobby, and remind yourself it was not to become a retoucher.

Never forget that people are individuals and will have their own reasons for taking up photography. If they don't align with your thinking, then that's a good thing.

I open the debate as i would love to here your views.

*Hear* (or more accurately, 'read')

[OregonJim]

As others have said, this debate has been done to death.

But, you left out the most obvious alternative: shooting RAW+JPEG. This answers the concern of not 'knowing' if you want to develop a shot further until after taking it.

Personally, I shoot 100% RAW. Unless it's cold out, then I might wear a jacket.

Seriously, I look at RAW files like digital negatives. I never threw away my film negatives, because I never knew when inspiration might strike me to print them in a different way than I had previously. Not much you can do with a jpeg once it's 'cooked'.

[amoringello]

Personally, I shoot 100% RAW. Unless it's cold out, then I might wear a jacket.

None of need to see that... best argument for shooting JPEG yet.

(Sorry, I don't even know you... I probably shouldn't be making such assumptions. )

[pqx]

Seriously, I look at RAW files like digital negatives. I never threw away my film negatives, because I never knew when inspiration might strike me to print them in a different way than I had previously. Not much you can do with a jpeg once it's 'cooked'.

True, i well appreciated response.

DarCam

"For me it's all about the subject matter."

That's how i see it.


SpecialK

I know but as the first responder said " RAW vs JPEG is so pre-2010", i just wanted to add Yes but technology Moves on too!


Thank you all for lively responses, Steve.Ledger, have you never made a spelling mistake... i rest my case.

---------- Post added 09-06-14 at 17:39 ----------

Newer technologies introduce newer ways of working with what once was called the norm. Cameras like the fuji x100s, D800E opened avenues that even die-hards like Zack-Arias, Damian Lovegrove, started shooting direct jpegs straight from the camera. So my open questions maybe should have been does new technology change your way of thinking, since they also contain many in cam tools to give an end product.

I did single out commercial work, as you may or may not be in control of where or how files are edited.

But thanx all!

[PDL]

I have said it before and now I will say it again.
Digital Image capture is all about data, the more data the better.
If you choose to use a format that discards data by design, good for you. I use a few RAW converters so to me it is like choosing film stock, each set of algorithms gives both a different "look" and different capabilities.
Now take the RAW vs. JPEG arguments back to your study hall and get off of my lawn.

The elitist - formerly known as PDL

[normhead]

Yawn.....
So my daddy likes raw and if yours likes jpgs then your daddy is a big ole stupey stupe.
Oh ya
Ya..

Is that kind of what we're hoping for?

[amoringello]

Probably fitting for this thread;

[Clavius]

Never forget why you chose photography as your work or hobby, and remind yourself it was not to become a retoucher.

But do you know why everyone chose photography as a hobby? I'm quite convinced that different people do that for different reasons.

For me, no longer being dependant on the the lab-technitian was the biggest blessing for photography ever. Those technitians clearly didn't know what I had in my mind for the shot when they were processing my photos in the past. And the automatic development settings in our digital cameras don't either. But luckily the latter gives me the choice to process them myself. Enabling me to develop my pictures the way I envisioned them. For me, it's an enjoyable, very usefull, and even essential part of photography.

I compare the strait-out-of-the-camera-JPG-shooting with shooting polaroids back in the film days. It gets boring really very quickly. Could just as well snap pics with my cellphone then.

[lm4187]

Try this: Shoot RAW+. If you find that the JPGs fall short, you have the corresponding RAW image for further processing to get the effect(s) you want.

If you find that the JPGs are acceptable for your purposes, go back to JPG only.

Which ever works for you is the correct answer.

Personally, I shoot RAW almost exclusively; I don't like to throw away information (coming from 25 years of scientific image processing/analysis experience).

Cheers,
Lou