[scompton]

Only raw with my D100. Occasionally, when I was taking a picture that I was never going to print, I would switch to jpeg. Sometimes I'd forget to switch back. So I stopped doing it. My wife has a 3MP Canon. For pictures of stuff we were putting on Craigslist, I would switch to very compressed jpeg and then forget to switch back. I usually carry 8G of compact flash cards, so the size of raw files isn't important. I've only ran out of room once on a 2 week trip to Switzerland. I feel post processing is easier than getting home and finding out my favorite shot is in the wrong format. Might be different if I was a photo journalist, but I'm not.

 

[dinoadventures]

RAW only. never JPEG. Then again, I'm not one of these crazy sports shooters that fires off the continuous drive for thousands of frames a day.

 

[hudsong]

RAW only. If you can have the power of a digital negative, why wouldn't you?

 

[Davesrose]

I'm finding that RAW is just so awesome....Canon's EOS software seems to work flawlessly with Photoshop: just have to make sure they share the same colorspace.

 

[AdamP88]

I'd say about 98% raw. The other 2 are when I'm messing around and/or taking quick snapshots.

 

[Arainach]

I shoot RAW if I'm planing to either (A) need a LOT of flexibility in Dynamic Range or (B) make huge enlargements that I need every last bit of detail for.

Other than that, Large Normal JPEG on my D50 for me.

 

[KrooLism]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amuse /img/forum/go_quote.gif Anyways, are there any advantages of shooting in RAW over JPEG? Disadvantages?

Ummm... RAW = .wav, not FLAC

JPEG fine = FLAC Long tune
JPEG basic = FLAC Short tune.

Don't confuse quality with size.

If you white balance correctly, jpeg or tiff is fine.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by KrooLism /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you white balance correctly, jpeg or tiff is fine.

Actually, I think it's more a matter of exposure: if you meter and expose correctly, you'll have enough tonal range for 8bit/channel jpeg or tiff. But if you want extended tonal range that will be more flexible (for scenes that have a lot of contrasting bright tones or if you know you'll be doing a lot of post effects), RAW is preferable.

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by KrooLism /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ummm... RAW = .wav, not FLAC JPEG fine = FLAC Long tune JPEG basic = FLAC Short tune. Don't confuse quality with size. If you white balance correctly, jpeg or tiff is fine.

The way I see it, RAW is like FLAC at 24bit 96khz. Most cameras use compression of their RAW files.

JPEG is like MP3. They are both lossy are have lower resolution. 8 bit / channel color, smaller color space, usually color sub sampling.

 

[scompton]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif Actually, I think it's more a matter of exposure: if you meter and expose correctly, you'll have enough tonal range for 8bit/channel jpeg or tiff. But if you want extended tonal range that will be more flexible (for scenes that have a lot of contrasting bright tones or if you know you'll be doing a lot of post effects), RAW is preferable.

I find it hard sometimes to get white balance correct in the camera. Usually I get it right. If I take a few hundred shots on a vacation, there are always a few that I need to set a white point or grey point to get the color correct.

The other reason I use raw is for high contrast scenes that I can't use a graduated ND filter for. For example, a v of brightness in the shot.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scompton /img/forum/go_quote.gif I find it hard sometimes to get white balance correct in the camera. Usually I get it right. If I take a few hundred shots on a vacation, there are always a few that I need to set a white point or grey point to get the color correct. The other reason I use raw is for high contrast scenes that I can't use a graduated ND filter for. For example, a v of brightness in the shot.

I'm new to digital SLRs: just got the Canon 5D last week. Coming from a manual SLR....so I was just used to adjusting white balance in post processing

Having the ability to adjust color temperature with the camera back is awesome. As well as having variable ISO.....IMO, that's what's making digital better then film (never mind the fact that we'll have 32bit per channel color info before you know it). When I first got my camera, I did take various test shots of white balance settings....my camera seems to do OK with flash and outdoor lighting. Low light I found I have to cool it down a bit. What's really cool is that you can even set custom color settings if you're really anal

Funny how principles don't change though: I tried various meters with this automatic, but spot metering is still the best way to get full tonal range.