[dj_mocok]

Just curious.

Me, I use JPEG. Even though I post process the images. Reason is because I simply can't afford it, lol. It takes too much space on both memory card and hard drive space (although I can burn to DVDs but it's a bit of hassle).

I still get pretty good after PP results using JPEGs, but many people shoot exclusively RAWs... How bout you?

 

[Zanth]

I used to shoot in extra fine jpeg but my boss (whose cam I inherited) showed me some shots he took in RAW and I was blown away. Now I only shoot in RAW. It's like dealing with digital music...why go with mp3 when you can go lossless and if the files need downsizing...you are in control. RAW does that for me and with Photoshop and Adobe Bridge...the world is a full on colourful one.

 

[Samgotit]

RAW

Same reasons as given above.

 

[episiarch]

I voted RAW, but if my camera had RAW+JPEG, I'd use it.

 

[dj_mocok]

I know this is stupid - even though I can shoot RAW, but I never bothered (or even tried) using it.

I know they've been saying raw gives more flexibility while PP-ing, (color balance, white balance, or whatnot), but I've never had any problem PP-ing using a highest quality Jpeg.

But then I never tried raw, maybe I should eh? and see what's the fuss is about.

 

[Dimitris]

RAW here as well.

 

[blessingx]

Depends, but usually jpg. I use the lowest jpg compression, so advantages of RAW somewhat lessen and using jpg speeds up my workflow when running through hundreds of shots.

 

[PiccoloNamek]

I usually shoot in JPEG. I try to get the shot as right as possible there, so I don't have to edit later. If I happen to come upon "THE" shot, I'll shoot it in RAW. I'll also overexpose it as much as I can without clipping, to get a better S/N ratio.

 

[Mrvile]

I'm a JPEG only shooter. I tried RAW twice, didn't like (and the advantages didn't outweigh the time it took to load them + the space they took up) so I went back to JPEG. I don't under/overexpose enough or mess up the color balance enough to justify the extra control RAW offers on the outcome of my photos, and the work I do isn't crucial enough to require that sort of perfection.

 

[Klose]

Most definitely RAW.

 

[jjcha]

I shoot RAW, mainly for the white balance adjustments. But I'm only beginning to explore the things you can do with RAW. One interesting thought is shooting with the camera on -1 exposure adjustment, then boosting the exposure in post processing to simulate a higher ISO shot (i.e., shooting ISO3200). I shoot a lot of ISO1600, so exploring this to allow me to do ISO3200 (my camera doesn't do this natively) is interesting.

I do use the RAW+JPG option, for two reasons. One is that having the JPGs makes it a lot faster to review the images and deciding which ones are worth keeping/post processing after the fact. But what I've really found useful is shooting with the JPG in B&W, so I can get an idea of what a shot will look like in B&W. If I like it, I'll post-process the RAW image into black and white, if not, well, then I've still got the full colour in RAW.

Best regards,

-Jason

 

[jmmtn4aj]

JPEG. I don't do post processing (everything is adjusted using physical lighting, lenses, reflectors, filters, diffusers, etc)

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjcha /img/forum/go_quote.gif I shoot RAW, mainly for the white balance adjustments. But I'm only beginning to explore the things you can do with RAW. One interesting thought is shooting with the camera on -1 exposure adjustment, then boosting the exposure in post processing to simulate a higher ISO shot (i.e., shooting ISO3200). I shoot a lot of ISO1600, so exploring this to allow me to do ISO3200 (my camera doesn't do this natively) is interesting. I do use the RAW+JPG option, for two reasons. One is that having the JPGs makes it a lot faster to review the images and deciding which ones are worth keeping/post processing after the fact. But what I've really found useful is shooting with the JPG in B&W, so I can get an idea of what a shot will look like in B&W. If I like it, I'll post-process the RAW image into black and white, if not, well, then I've still got the full colour in RAW. Best regards, -Jason

Great advice! Particularly regarding the B&W jpeg, this makes a lot of sense for me as I often post-process my pics to into b&w for effect. I'll start doing this. With the size of cards these days...RAW+jpeg isn't an issue for me, particularly with HD's at 750 gigs + and blanks costing a few cents (great for archiving!)

 

[Trippytiger]

I shoot .jpeg because I don't have a DSLR and .jpeg is all my little Canon can do.

And from time to time I shoot celluloid.

 

[Edwood]

Depends. I shoot mostly RAW.

I have plenty of Hard Drive space on my array. In fact I'm in the process of upgrading my server, so I'll have even more.

-Ed