[MJB DIGITAL]

Just getting a feel for what people are shooting. 8)

[Lowell Goudge]

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

[MJB DIGITAL]

Pro RAW for me.

I want the digital negs. Thats how I process...It takes up too much room on the card (for me) to shoot RAW+ and I dont want to shoot jobs in JPG because I want that insurance of having the forgivness of RAW

peace.

[pasipasi]

I guess I should consider myself as amateur, as I haven't sold any photos. RAW when I feel like I shoot something important.

[garth1948]

I agree that most professional digital photographers have come from the film world and use the camera settings to get the shot they want. Journalists, travel photographers, shopping mall portrait people - ie most people who make money with their camera and want quick images without a computer do not shoot raw. The K20D is capable of producing a Jpeg equal to the best processed raw on a PC. The end product print or screen images are limited in dynamic range, spatial resolution and 8 bits per channel.
Most posters advocating raw capture cite correction of their mistakes as the reason for raw.
Proffessionals make fewer mistakes!

[sewebster]

I use Lightroom. Whether I shoot RAW or JPG it seems to me the process would be the same: import photos, see which ones I like, export to gallery, print whatever. I don't see how shooting JPG would speed this process up at all. If I don't want to adjust things, I don't, just use the defaults (which you can choose).

I shoot raw for more flexibility, but I think the only thing it costs me is disk space, not time.

[barondla]

Grew up with film ( mostly Kodachrome). Never shoot jpeg (unless its 200 snapshots for the family). Why throw part of the info away? Have my doubts that a K20D jpeg can match the final result of raw from a computer. Even if the print can't handle the dynamic range difference from 8 to 12 bit it can show the greater color differentiation. Plus the greater highlight dynamic range in raw should allow for exposing more to the right. This should help reduce noise. Try shooting your K20D at iso 800 and above in jpeg vs raw. Bet the raw wins. Jpeg compression usually interferes with noise and makes it worse.
Don't see how anyone can argue throwing part of the image away is as good or better than the whole thing. Often said about MP3 in audio too. Still doesn't work.
thanks
barondla

Check out POINT & SHOOT CONTEST #10 n P&S forum. Enter #11. Any brand camera. Any subject. Enter now.

Pro. Came from film and shoot raw+ jpeg. JPEG for a quick view. RAW for PP

[stevebrot]

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

Well, I prefer to shoot RAW now, but...

I only started shooting digital in about 2002. Before then I had been shooting film since 1969. When I was in high school and college shooting for the annual and college paper I shot Tri-X at ISO 400. Given the assignments, it was the best option. After college I went through a phase where I did not have access to a darkroom and shot Kodachrome 64 exclusively. Yes, ISO 64. I liked the "absence of grain", the wonderful colors, and the great contrast. On the other hand there was all that contrast. Prints were a pain without an interneg.

Later I was able to set up a darkroom again and went the high quality route. I was shooting Panatomic-X and developing in Microdol 1:3 or in dilute FG-7 as a compensating developer to optimize for very fine grain and maximize dynamic range. (Do we see a pattern here?) I even experimented with Technical Pan...very difficult to work with, but ohhhh, what wonderful negatives when you got it right. The grain was so fine that there was nothing to fix on with the grain focuser I used with the enlarger.

Film speed...I think that Panatomic-X was rated at ISO 32. Technical Pan was nominally rated at ISO 25, but could be pushed substantially higher. I don't remember what ISO I was shooting with that stuff.

I lost my ability to have a home darkroom for several years and moved back to slides. Kodachrome 64 and Fujichrome. I then put the hobby aside for a few years and shot mostly snapshots with point-n-shoots using Kodak print film. Absolute quality was not as important as good performance in bad light.

When I went to digital, I chose the Canon G2. One of the main selling points to me was support for RAW format. On that camera, there is little doubt as to which pictures were shot in JPEG and which in RAW. Spring of 2007 brought the K10D. Again I have been shooting almost exclusively in RAW and at ISO 100.

I guess that if I am going to pay that much for a camera, I am quite happy to be addicted to the notion of extracting maximum quality from the medium. I shoot RAW because of my background with film and darkroom work. Lightroom is my darkroom...

Steve

(Starting to do film again...the enlarger is in the closet...ummm...the smell of fixer hanging in the air...)

Edit: I did a little research on Panatomic-X processed with Edwal FG-7. The dilution I was using was 1:15 which allowed exposure at ISO 64. At those dilutions there was a mild "compensating" affect where the developer was rapidly exhausted in the highlight (dense) areas of the negative but continued at a slower rate to increase density in the shadow (thin) areas. The final result was a more reasonable film speed, very fine grain, and a long tail into the low value region of the curve. The closest thing to duotone without a printing press...HDR for film.

[Marc Sabatella]

I am no pro, but m serious enough photography to sometimes want to do some processing to my photos. Not all my photos by any means, but often enough that I want it to be as easy as possible to get good results. Once upon a time, you had to choose between easy (JPEG) and good results (RAW), but with modern non-destructive RAW processing programs that allow for batch operations, like ACR, Lightroom, Aperture, ACDSee, and Bibble, RAW wins on both counts. Also until quite recently, one might still choose JPEG to save space, but given that current camera models can apply lossless compression to RAW files, the difference in size is barely worth mentioning, so that potential reason to prefer JPEG is gone too.

[Marc Sabatella]

I agree that most professional digital photographers have come from the film world and use the camera settings to get the shot they want.

Most professional photographers I know did their own darkroom work. The idea that the camera setting were the end of their involvement in the finished icture would be completely foreign to them. Of course, I'm talking about "art" photographers, not people doing "bulk" work. And as I said in my previous response, I'm no pro. But to the extent I aspire to that level of quality, it's the "art" photographers that inspire me.

Most posters advocating raw capture cite correction of their mistakes as the reason for raw.

I haven't done any statistical study to say your wrong, but again, my experience is different. Most people I know who advocate RAW do so because they know it allows them to customize the output more than any in-camera controls ever could. For instance, consider handful of camera settings for contrast or sharpness with the possibilities inherent in apply exposure curves or unsharp masking in post processing. It's the fact that the camera is *incapable* of providing the sort of fine control over the finished product that makes post processing in general - and using RAW in particular - attractive to many of us.

[marcdsgn]

Journalists, travel photographers, shopping mall portrait people - ie most people who make money with their camera and want quick images without a computer do not shoot raw.

I'm not too sure about that. Speaking from the commercial prepress POV, if you're a professional who cares about the final print, then you should be shooting RAW, or the closest thing your camera provides to RAW format. Printing presses are very unforgiving to JPG images, and any subtle changes that you decide may need to be made to your image once you've received your proofs for review, can only be done from an image that has retained the maximum amount of original data from the RAW image.

JPGs are mere ghosts of the original image and the stripped-back data is practically useless to work with at a professional post-processing level. There may be professionals out there who are happy with the limited post-processing abilities that JPG provides, but any professional who has an understanding of commercial printing standards will (or should!) always post-process from RAW images.

Then, for best result with commercial printers, provide TIF or EPS conversions. Not JPG.

Proffessionals make fewer mistakes!

Well there are two areas at play here: The photographer; and the printing process. It's not about whether professionals make mistakes when taking a shot or not, it's about compensating for camera-to-printer data translation. In other words: Being able to tweak that brilliant shot so it looks just as brilliant when printed.

[stevebrot]

...
Most posters advocating raw capture cite correction of their mistakes as the reason for raw...

Ummm...correction of mistakes

- or -

avoidance of the often "wrong" processing imposed by the in-camera JPEG rendering. RAW allows the user to approach their tool (the camera) in much the same way that a classical guitarist approaches his instrument. Few artists in that field go on-stage having trusted someone else to tune their instrument.

Steve

[Venturi]

RAW - why would I want to throw out the negatives?

[stevebrot]

Then, for best result with commercial printers, provide TIF or EPS conversions. Not JPG.

Ha, Ha! You are so correct! Just try to find a quality publishing house that will even talk to you if you offer JPEG! Only in a pinch and only if you are the ONLY source of a very valuable image.

Steve