Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

View Poll Results: What is your job level and what format do you shoot?
Pro-RAW 227.72%
Pro-JPG 51.75%
Pro-RAW+JPG 93.16%
Amateur-RAW 15454.04%
Amateur-JPG 3813.33%
Amateur-RAW+JPG 4816.84%
Just show me the results 93.16%
Voters: 285. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-09-2008, 09:39 PM   #46
Veteran Member
Kguru's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Perth - WestAust
Posts: 602
You forgot ... !!

You forgot to allow a category for me : sub-amateur + cell phone format

09-09-2008, 11:11 PM   #47
Pentaxian
ryan s's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Madison, WI
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,370
It took me about 7 months to switch away from jpg (back with the ol 300D)...just one day out shooting with it was all it took.

RAW FTW
09-10-2008, 02:49 AM   #48
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary, AB
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 942
QuoteOriginally posted by Venturi Quote
RAW - why would I want to throw out the negatives?
(cash drawer sound) *cha-ching* Adobe call the DNG (digital negatives) for a reason.

I'm doing this for fun, but a large part of that fun is monkeying around, layering things and pushing pixels in PS. The more information I toss to begin with, the less room I have to move in my post-explorations before I start to see noise/artifacts.

Unless you are unable or unwilling to afford the disk space, there is no point in not shooting raw.
09-10-2008, 03:19 AM   #49
Veteran Member
Taff's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Perth Western Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,613
RAW+jpeg as in shooting raw for those go out to take images, and jpeg for those happy snappy shots

Taff

09-10-2008, 03:34 AM   #50
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Lancaster, PA.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,041
Since you don't have a Semi Pro format here, I by no means am a pro. I do however feel I can do the same job. I do not make a living on Photography, but have been known to shoot for pay. So I figure Semi Pro and Always RAW.
09-10-2008, 11:58 AM   #51
Veteran Member
AndrewG NY's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Chappaqua, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 678
QuoteOriginally posted by Canada_Rockies Quote
I have not shot jpeg with my k10d, ever. I don't shoot RAW + either. I shoot RAW only. I have used film for a very long time - since 1958 with a Yashica 35mm rangefinder - since 1961 with Pentax SLR - and I will not throw away my digital negative. The jpeg is the equivalent to the print from the drugstore. If you want a larger and more detailed output, you need the original data, be it from Velvia or Sony CCD or Samsung CMOS. Why throw away data? What a waste of your talent. Every time you save a jpeg, it loses more data. Look it up. Every time you save a jpeg, it loses data. Every time. No exceptions. Once you have done post on your jpeg, you cannot go back and undo it.
I am also a RAW shooter, but this isn't completely true as depending on how you use your software, you can go back to the original, and incremental changes don't have to be destructive.

I believe that some programs like Adobe Lightroom allow non-destructive JPEG edits--essentially they take your original, record the changes you make, and when you export from lightroom or view in lightroom, you see the modified image. To my knowledge, it will generally not change the original when used this way. Yes, it is a lossy format, so there is probably some sort of loss involved--but in this case it is a one-time loss, and you can go back to the original. This of course still doesn't make up for what the camera discarded when it threw away the raw data and only saved as JPEG.

I also don't find the RAW workflow to be nearly the inconvenience I thought it would be when I switched. In practice, I nearly always want to resize the images before uploading to web or e-mail anyway, so there are no additional steps to do this from RAW when compared to JPEG. And if I was going to print, I would most likely make some sort of adjustments first--I just don't normally have much use for a full-rez JPEG. The switch did however encourage me to replace my computer though--the old one was just too slow when processing RAW files even though it handled JPEG pretty well. (I was using ACDSee Pro at the time).
09-10-2008, 12:01 PM   #52
Veteran Member
AndrewG NY's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Chappaqua, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 678
Maybe poll should have another choice: "Don't shoot, just collect gear".
09-10-2008, 12:41 PM   #53
Veteran Member
Venturi's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Tulsa, OK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,639
It seems there is a perception by some that those of us shooting RAW are post-processing fanatics. I certainly am not, if I'm in post then I can't be shooting or doing anything else. If I'm spending time in heavy duty post then I botched the shot(s) and am not happy about it either. I suspect I'm not in the minority in this regard. But at the least I am going to resize and/or crop every shot that I keep to fit the situation or use. Other than CPU cycles it takes no more work to do that on a RAW image than on a JPEG, and doing it from a RAW negative is going to produce a better quality "print" no matter what measure you use.

QuoteOriginally posted by AndrewG NY Quote
The switch did however encourage me to replace my computer though--the old one was just too slow when processing RAW files even though it handled JPEG pretty well. (I was using ACDSee Pro at the time).
Some would argue that this is not a disadvantage, but actually an OPPORTUNITY! I'm in this boat to a degree as I've been wanting to speed up my desktop for a while and processing RAW definitely is helping to rationalize a "need".

09-10-2008, 02:05 PM   #54
Pentaxian
ryan s's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Madison, WI
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,370
I built my computer around photos, gaming, and just being awesome all around. It wasn't really a rationalization (old comp was dead), but rather I knew it was going to be used strenuously.

For those wanting to upgrade...you should never have to see a load screen in Adobe
09-10-2008, 03:34 PM   #55
Moderator PEG Judges
Kerrowdown's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Highlands of Scotland.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 30,696
You mean there is something else apart from raw
09-12-2008, 10:42 AM   #56
Forum Member
TiJean's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Lower Appalachia
Posts: 66
As with just about everything else it seems, my answer is a resounding it depends. Rarely I shoot JPG, sometimes I shoot RAW, I generally don't shoot JPG +RAW anymore because it was so repetitive and space hungry. Sometimes I shoot as a professional, sometimes I shoot as an amateur, and occasionally I shoot as an amateur and use the images professionally (usually in my capacity as a graphic designer).

Personally, I find RAW files faster and easier to process than JPG files. Even if I convert from RAW to TIFF, I still get more information (usually in reality, always in theory) then if I were using native JPG.

These are are just my personal preferences. RAW works into my workflow very well, though now perfectly, and with storage as cheap as it has become, the size is a small issue for me.
09-12-2008, 12:52 PM   #57
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: the city of brotherly love...
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 9
semi-pro. always always always RAW. and then i view / manage the images in aperture on a mac. from there, i can do anything to the image i want and i can still retain the digital negative. sometimes i bring the final image into photoshop to do minor adjustments to a specific area.
also been in the graphic arts business for 30 years. when you pre flight a file for printing, flightcheck will always flag a jpg. printers / rip software hate jpgs. they're only good for web work. shooting in RAW and adjusting in aperture (or lightroom) will give you the best of both worlds.
09-12-2008, 04:56 PM   #58
Lens Buying Addict
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,494
RAW vs. JPEG

QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
I picked Amature JPEG for the following reasons.

I consiedr myself an amature. I shoot simply for my own pleasure (excluding technical reporting) and I shoot JPEG simply because I am satisfied with the results I get, and my ability to manipulate the images afterwards, even with the occasional exposure issue to get excellent results.

I woudl be interested to know how many JPEG shooters began in film, and had to know the ins and outs of High vs Low ISO films, contrast color temperature etc. I'm willing to bet more film shooters shoot JPEG because it is easier for them to understand how to select thier settings. Film was far less forgiving
Lowell: I've shot SLR on film off and on since 1977; some flurries of attempts at art when I had a new body (KX, MESuper), then just snapshots for long periods. I even went through the 90's where all I did was SureShot film P&S.

I did get an OLY E20N late in 2005 and it was a fine DSLR. Shot in JPEG and TIFF on that (512Mb CF card max!!).

On the K10D since March I have shot exclusively RAW, but due to PP software limitations I have to convert to JPEG either in PPB or PPL. I am intentionally trying to manage the ISO settings to accomplish film-like results.

One thing I am trying is to shoot a scene with the KX and the K10D at the same ISO setting to see what happens, usually with a 35 or a 50 since I have manual and auto versions of similar / identical lens designs.

I like having the RAW files on DVD if I ever really get to be a decent post processor.
09-12-2008, 07:16 PM   #59
Senior Member
jacksonpritt's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 124
Even though part of my job involves me taking photos for a website (product shots, models wearing clothing, etc), and I sometimes shoot in JPEG, I chose Amateur, RAW.

The bulk of my photography is amateur, and the bulk of my shots are RAW.

Good poll!
09-12-2008, 07:27 PM   #60
Senior Member
jacksonpritt's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 124
QuoteOriginally posted by thePiRaTE!! Quote
Unless you are unable or unwilling to afford the disk space, there is no point in not shooting raw.
Well, I think it's easy to forget just how huge RAW files are sometimes, especially for amateurs.

I edit my photos on a Powerbook with an 80GB HD at work, and with my average RAW file at 10-14mb and regular photo-shoots of 100-300 pictures, I'm constantly running up against memory limitations.

I suppose the real solution is just to be more diligent about throwing out shots I know I won't end up using, but it's darned annoying.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
First Paying Job? murviper Photographic Technique 16 07-13-2010 02:28 PM
Rebuilding the 35 MM Format FA* line to the DA* APS-C Format Adrian Owerko Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 14 01-20-2010 11:04 AM
trying to find a job?! catsman50 Photographic Industry and Professionals 7 11-28-2009 03:20 PM
500 Job graphicgr8s General Talk 41 06-26-2009 07:08 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:46 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top