[Take-5-JB]

I will say this with no qualification as to utility. I shoot & save both at the same time (jpeg+raw). I have several 2 & 4GB cards and with the dual data modes I can save 90+ shots on the 2 GB and 190+ on the 4GB. I have a 500GB back up drive and save the files on there and my computer. I can quickly check jpeg files. I can PP the raw with every available part of the captured image. I shoot with the camera set for "natural". You can jazz things in PP. That is just me, and I don't claim any expertise. I bought my first 35mm SLR in 1977 and and my first DSLR in 2009. I like using older lenses and manual settings, as well as the new AF/AE lenses. Do what you like, but you can't go back and shoot it, so at least use raw.

JB

[kmwsbabe]

I mostly do portraiture, so take this for what it is worth.

First, converting images takes no time. I use cam2pc to upload my images from camera to pc. Then, I import those that meet most of my requirements for a "wall worthy" portrait into Lightroom. I spend an average of 3 minutes per photo in post processing. The only time I really spend longer is if I am dealing with scars or acne, or maybe a distracting stray hair across the eye on a photo that is immeasurably above any similar photos from the shoot. Also, newborn images take some extra finessing.

The key to faster processing is getting exposure, white balance, and composition fairly close to perfect in camera. The rest is cake. Truly. Just as it takes practice to perfect your photographic techniques, it does take practice to refine and perfect your PP workflow. But once you have it down, it really goes quite quickly. And you can further shave time with software such as LR, with allows you to apply the same settings to multiple photos. And yes, it is worth any and all the extra "trouble" you may endure, in order to have complete control over all the aspects of the final image. I like to think of it this way - I love to spend an entire day simmering a marinara sauce. I get up early, blanch and peel the tomatoes, start some crusty bread drying for bruschetta, etc.... I would never, ever in a million years then take my sauce over to my neighbor and have him season it the way he sees fit. Why do all that work to have someone else change the flavor? In the same way, I want to be in control of how much priority the highlights are given, how much contrast, how saturated, etc... And the only way to do this is to control the processing, rather than letting the camera do it for me.

LR also allows you to individually or batch export your files in a loss-less format, or as jpg. It is really very simple.

[Lowell Goudge]

Subject to the terms below and solely to permit the reading and writing of image files that comply with the DNG Specification, Adobe hereby grants all individuals and organizations the worldwide, royalty-free, non-transferable, non-exclusive right under all Essential Claims to make, have made, use, sell, import and distribute Compliant Implementations.[/I]

So, DNG is technically proprietary, but there is little fear on the part of developers that they will be asked to pay royalties in the future.

Are you sure

Look at the video formats

There is a disclaimer "not for professional use" and royalties demanded if used professionally. What is to stop any of the format developers, somewhere in the thousands of pages of the "free use agreement from burying a little discretionary application of royalties clause

Nothing is free for ever. Free lasts as long as it takes for people to be dependent on it

[Lowell Goudge]

Kmwsbebe

Your process could easily be transferred to in camera JPEG. This is what I have done

The RAW function button is for when conditions require RAW such as weird lighting combos where in camera WB is not a reality

That is how I shoot JPEG. If IKnow the in camera setup simply can't be set properly I push the RAW button

[kmwsbabe]

Kmwsbebe

Your process could easily be transferred to in camera JPEG. This is what I have done

The RAW function button is for when conditions require RAW such as weird lighting combos where in camera WB is not a reality

That is how I shoot JPEG. If IKnow the in camera setup simply can't be set properly I push the RAW button

I would agree with you, with one caveat. When the camera processes and compresses the photographic information to jpg, there is some loss. That's why a RAW file is so much larger than a jpg file. My own personal feeling on the matter is that I want to see the RAW photograph SOOC, with no adjustments, before I decide which information to lose and which to enhance through processing, rather than letting the camera decide. (I do want to say that I almost hesitated to post that, knowing that I do so on a forum comprised primarily of very tech savvy guys, and my knowledge and understanding of the technical aspects is lacking by comparison.) In any case, I do a range of portraiture, from studio to lifestyle and location, with strobe and without, backlighting, etc... and I do appreciate the control that shooting in RAW gives me with regards to highlight recovery when I need it. I will also admit that I am self-taught and not perfect at my craft by any means, so it may also be a matter of having greater ability to correct bad technique. (I hope hope hope this is not the case!)

[Lowell Goudge]

I would agree with you, with one caveat. When the camera processes and compresses the photographic information to jpg, there is some loss. That's why a RAW file is so much larger than a jpg file. My own personal feeling on the matter is that I want to see the RAW photograph SOOC, with no adjustments, before I decide which information to lose and which to enhance through processing, rather than letting the camera decide. (I do want to say that I almost hesitated to post that, knowing that I do so on a forum comprised primarily of very tech savvy guys, and my knowledge and understanding of the technical aspects is lacking by comparison.) In any case, I do a range of portraiture, from studio to lifestyle and location, with strobe and without, backlighting, etc... and I do appreciate the control that shooting in RAW gives me with regards to highlight recovery when I need it. I will also admit that I am self-taught and not perfect at my craft by any means, so it may also be a matter of having greater ability to correct bad technique. (I hope hope hope this is not the case!)

I don't disagree that there is loss of data, specifically the additional detail due to the color depth, that has never been an issue.

The real point I was making specifically with respect to your process, and that of a lot of other RAW shooters is that if you apply a borad brush setting to all your images, when viewing, and never adjust them, you are doing no better than having JPEF right out of the camera. There is only actually data loss if you use it, otherwise it is only perceived loss.

SOmething never used is neither lost or saved, just ignored.

Having said that, I have also always maintained that everyone is free to do what they want, and while there is a reduction in the color resolution and exposure resolution between the 32bit color (8 per channel) against the 48 bit color depth of the RAW image, shooting JPEG does not stop you from doing any additional processing, only limits the radical nature of what you can do specifically in terms of pushing extremes.

The same issue holds true for the discussion a page or so ago about other file formats, there is nothing that prohibits conversion from one format or another as a function of color depth. The fact that you do not use all of the possible resolution of a format does not preclude converting to that format.

[kmwsbabe]

I see, Lowell. You are talking about people who shoot RAW, then run batch actions in PP, yes? And in that case I completely agree with you. It has become rather the fad to shoot RAW, then run Portraiture and a myriad of Photoshop actions.

By contrast, I import my select images into LR. I then process my favorite images from each set one at a time, using the sliders in LR. Then I sync those settings with the other images in each particular set. Finally, those images are individually fine tuned. It sounds laborious, but it is not, as I have worked diligently to streamline my workflow. The entire process takes me less than 5 minutes per photo.

And I'm with you - each should do whatever he feels comfortable and happy doing. If that means shooting in A or jpgs, fully M and RAW, or somewhere in between, it's all good. I personally see an improvement in my images since shooting RAW and doing my own processing. However, my photography is continually improving as well. Who's to say which is the reason, yk? My neighbor shows me his (Nikon) SOOC jpgs, and they are darn good.

[RioRico]

I don't know about fads. I don't care about fads. If the latest fad in dSLRs is safety-orange bodies with lime-green lenses and shooting RAW with GIMP processing, fine, that's nice. If the latest photo fad is JPEG-only shooting while maintaining a vegan diet, wearing diapers, and worshiping Osiris or the GSM, fine, that's nice too. Apparently, some disdain RAW for various reasons: It's too much work, and/or I don't have time; or, it's not pure, and/or you MUST get it right in-camera; or, I've always shot JPEG and I'll only ever shoot JPEG. Et cetera -- and some reasons sound suspiciously like vegan rationales.

I ain't vegan 'cause my evolved dentition and metabolism make me an omnivore. And I shoot RAW because the data is all there and I can do with it as I please. As I've mentioned, some applications NEED more or different data than a JPEG engine will deliver after its redactions. If all a user needs is an acceptable JPEG image, fine fine fine. But the camera's JPEG settings are suggestions or defaults for RAW development, and they aren't the final word -- they're like a recipe for an omelette. Starting with a basic set of ingredients, one can make many different omelettes.

This is your brain.
This is your brain on JPG.
This is your brain on RAW.
Any questions?

[Ash]

With improved dynamic range with each sensor it also makes sense to want RAW to pull out more and more data. Or bracketing for PP may achieve the same - all a matter of convenience and preference.