[zxaar]

This argument is always fun to watch. And I completely agree with those who have posted their complaints here that there are an aweful lot of posts and no pictures.

I also said i shoot 99% in jpeg mode but gave no images.

With my k100d I shot in jpeg because of one big reason that it did not allow me jpeg+raw. And I found it problematic to go through raw files just to see which ones to processes.
With kx i can shoot jpeg+raw so now i shoot both. I use jpegs to browse through files and raws to process.

Having said it, for me, jpegs in more than 90% of cases were good enough.
I can post many examples because most of my images are jpegs only. But to show i will post 1 or 2.

First image is resized version: (shot in jpeg).



Here is 100% crop from file:



camera used was k100d and you will see that the details are impeccable. If camera can deliver to this level with foliage being difficult thing to shoot, jpegs are good enough.

Here is another, shot in jpeg and good enough in jpeg:



sometimes is camera is very good, one can trust out of camera jpegs too, one such camera is my sony R1. Its just an incredible camera for picture quality, here is one such out of camera jpeg , resized on flickr.

(sony r1, one cam only death will part us).

[Frank B]

I wasn't going to get into this one, but since I know a couple of the people who have recently posted, I thought it might be fun to join in. I'm not a "semi-pro" or even a "pro", I shoot for enjoyment, and I've been doing that for a lot of years. I don't view the word "amateur" or "hobbyist" as having a bad connotation, and I always find it amusing when some folks, usually someone new to photography, feels that the only valid opinions and ideas can come from pros. Or that they can only take a good picture if they have "professional" grade equipment. Or better yet, that anyone who does not do things the "professional" way must be a total idiot. Heck, this is supposed to be fun, do whatever you want, and let other people do whatever they want.

I don't want to spend a lot of time sitting at a computer doing post processing. What little dust spotting, adjusting and cropping I do is done in iPhoto on a little white MacBook (not even a MacBook Pro). You can probably see where this is going . . . I only shoot jpg.

Here's a seasonally appropriate image, straight from the camera - K20D, DA15, *** Jpg setting (not the highest). I consider my photography to be mostly documentary in nature, and I feel that the light levels and detail here pretty much convey the feeling of what is was like standing there looking at the lights on the Hotel Del Coronado.



There are lots more images in my SmugMug galleries.

Happy New Year everyone.

[jgredline]

I wasn't going to get into this one, but since I know a couple of the people who have recently posted, I thought it might be fun to join in. I'm not a "semi-pro" or even a "pro", I shoot for enjoyment, and I've been doing that for a lot of years. I don't view the word "amateur" or "hobbyist" as having a bad connotation, and I always find it amusing when some folks, usually someone new to photography, feels that the only valid opinions and ideas can come from pros. Or that they can only take a good picture if they have "professional" grade equipment. Or better yet, that anyone who does not do things the "professional" way must be a total idiot. Heck, this is supposed to be fun, do whatever you want, and let other people do whatever they want.

I don't want to spend a lot of time sitting at a computer doing post processing. What little dust spotting, adjusting and cropping I do is done in iPhoto on a little white MacBook (not even a MacBook Pro). You can probably see where this is going . . . I only shoot jpg.

Here's a seasonally appropriate image, straight from the camera - K20D, DA15, *** Jpg setting (not the highest). I consider my photography to be mostly documentary in nature, and I feel that the light levels and detail here pretty much convey the feeling of what is was like standing there looking at the lights on the Hotel Del Coronado.



There are lots more images in my SmugMug galleries.

Happy New Year everyone.

Frank, How great to see you here and I could not agree more with your post

[WerTicus]

The arguments can be summarized as editing flexibility vs convenience. (space isnt as isssue anymore really)

Space on an SD card is a cheap commodity now.

So I shoot raw+jpg.

That way I have the convenience and the flexibility. Sometimes the jpg will be fine, sometimes the image is special enough or requires the extra information to get it perfect.

Everyone should shoot raw+!

[Raptorman]

I shoot 99.9 % Jpegs. To say 100% would be a lie as I have experimented some time back RAW...In the end, I could not tell a difference, likely because my PP skills are very basic and would rather not waste my time learning it....Why waste my time doing PP work when I could use that time to shoot...Of course if I was a pro, then that is different, but I am far being a pro....

I have to say that I agree with that Damn Brit..Lots of arm chair photographers....

Lastly, I got to say...How happy I am to read that I am not alone...Many RAW only shooters have told me and have made me feel like an idiot for not shooting RAW. Now I am happy to know that I am not the only idiot here

Wurd.

[simico]

When you are as awesome as I am... And you always get the exposure and WB perfect... why bother with that fussy RAW... all that extra data just so you can fix what you done got wrong! Just get it right!

I'm with you on this. I always try to get exposure and wb as good as possible.

I shoot RAW+jpg.

If I happen to get it right the first time, I use the jpeg. If I don't get it right, I have the RAW file with which to make the necessary corrections.

When I shoot a really crappy shot, I keep neither the jpeg nor raw file.

Same here. 95% of the time the jpeg is good enough that I can delete the pef, 2% of the time I have to tweak the pef and delete the jpeg and 3% of the time I just delete both jpeg and raw.


"Polaroid photographers" of the world, unite!

[Christopher M.W.T]

When I shoot events, ie nightclubs etc I just shoot in JPEG @ 6mp

However for everything else I just shoot with Raw.

[cbaytan]

I guess everything is said about RAW vs Jpeg in this thread:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/79372-k-7-makes-me...hoot-jpeg.html

[foster]

I agree with Frank B.

You don't need to be a "Pro" to have an opinion...at least not in the real world.

I am no pro, but I shoot RAW because with Lightroom it really requires no extra effort and the abiltiy to flag, tag, and perform multiple operations on many pics at once is super convenient.

I enjoy PP'ing to a certain extent, so it works for me.

Why argue?

[Biro]

I'm joining this string late... but I shoot jpgs about 90 percent of the time. If I think a given shot is critical, I'll shoot raw + jpg.

But many respected professionals shoot jpg - particularly if they work in news, where deadline pressure is very high (we're talking deadlines that can be 1-2 hours or even minutes here). For them, time is money and they generally don't have time to fool around with a lot of post processing. They shoot a lot of images of a given event, pick the best ones, occasionally tweak mildly and submit them to their editor. Also, often in news, the photographer must submit his or her photos via the Internet. When that Internet connection is iffy or very narrow band (such as in a third-world or very rural environment), it helps to have files that are smaller.

It helps that professionals don't tend to be limited by budget in terms of picking their camera bodies and lenses. Either the equipment is provided by their employer or, because it's their meal ticket we're talking about, they buy the best tool for the job. Period. No fanboys need apply. As a result, they tend to get the results they want right out of the camera. And pros with a lot of experience in their fields have an even greater likelihood of getting it right the first time.

But I can understand why many enthusiasts may shoot raw. If photography is a hobby that gives you pleasure, the very act of post processing can be part of the fun. And then there are the professionals who aren't on ultra-tight deadlines - like wedding photographers or those working in the advertising industry. Their deadlines can be weeks or even months away. I can see the usefulness of shooting raw in that kind of situation.

[Alfisti]

no actually, by settings i also include exposure and color balance, I think it is you that missed the point, the biggest proponents of RAW all talk about saving shots, I prefer to do that in advance.

A bad shot, regardless of format will always be a bad shot. most of the minor tweaks are just as good in 8 bit as 12 bit, it's the major ones that need better resolution and those are the ones that you should avoid by getting right in the first place

Not a word of that is true. The biggest poronents of RAW will tell you that if you're going to edit even one lousy image, shoot RAW, it is far easier to work in one format than two if you know what you're doing. THis idea that RAW is more work is not true once you know how to use it. Unless you are printing directly from the camera because you're a complete newb or you have a job such as a sports journo or local sports team shooter where you're handing out images on site ..... shoot RAW. It's actually easier than shooting jpg.

There is no need to hand edit every image, just load up the files on your PC (as you do with JPG) and if you have something like LR ... BANG, it renders them based on your pre-sets that you have in your camera. Press EXPORT and wham, you have the JPG's.

It's two mouse clicks. Why would I not keep as much data as possible for two mouse clicks? I have done a few 20*16 prints and having a RAW file is near priceless.

WHat about re-sizing? You just press EXPORT to re-size for web use and EXPORT (setting B) for prints or whatever other use you have.

As for "getting it right in the first place", I mean really, how good is your sensor? I don't know what you're shooting with but be damned if my sensor can capture the dynamic range I need.

You and your JPG shooting mates are also suggesting that every image you shoot ... every one, is just right with EXACTLY the same amount of sharpening, contrast and saturation, not to mention the exact same exposure for each colour channel.

That is remarkable.

Here is an example, the image itself was always meant as a family snap shot rather than an example of photography at it's finest so ignore the subject matter. It's mid afternoon, bright sunlight, I cannot shoot in another direction as I want that wide shot, I am in Chicago and likely never coming back so I need to shoot now. I have two choices here, expose for the trees or expose for the sky, i sort of tried to do the best I could between the two.

In post I pulled in the exposure on individual channels, so yellow/orange for the ground and blue for the sky. The trees (greens) I brightened a little.

How exactly does one do that in the field? Circular polariser maybe? I'm still going to have the trees versus sky issue regardless.

[Wheatfield]

It helps that professionals don't tend to be limited by budget in terms of picking their camera bodies and lenses. Either the equipment is provided by their employer or, because it's their meal ticket we're talking about, they buy the best tool for the job. Period. No fanboys need apply. As a result, they tend to get the results they want right out of the camera. And pros with a lot of experience in their fields have an even greater likelihood of getting it right the first time.

What planet are you from? In my world, professionals rarely have their equipment bought for them, and they have to choose very carefully what purchases they will make, often making do with less than ideal equipment due to budgetary restraints.
Professional photographers don't all shoot for Sports Illustrated.
The studio I am with is still using Nikon D70 bodies for some jobs.
Fanboyism is just as prevalent among pros as among amateurs, but they aren't as strident or screechy as the run of the mill Pentax fanboy.

[netuser]

I shoot raw+ or raw

[SergioFromSF]

I usually watch my photos on a computer screen saver. So for that I am experimenting with 2MB - 10MB jpeg, not sure yet what is a better fit. In addition I take a RAW pic too, just in case if I really like it I have a better/more detail.

[stevebrot]

I shoot RAW 95% of the time 'cuz I am old school and I like the flexibility of having a full data set to work with in PP. The other 5% I shoot JPEG for the smaller file size and for the ease of sharing straight from the camera.

That being said, one of my best shots this year was done using the in-camera RAW conversion (essentially the same as shooting JPEG) with the image tone, sharpness and saturation bumped a notch or two. I tried to duplicate the results in Lightroom, but was unable. Go figure...

My Best Effort Using ACR in Lightroom (I like this one...)

K10D, Pentax-FA 35/2

Using In-Camera RAW Conversion (I like this one better...)

K10D, Pentax-FA 35/2

To each his own I say...

Steve