Raw shooter or Jpeg shooter?

[Ian]

---

I consider myself a Jpeg shooter! Im a bit lazy with the post production thats why.. and am more into for the perfect exposure plus I shoot B&W most of the time.. Using the Normal Image Quality for Jpeg and I should say, Raw is like 1% better in quality.. does it make sense? Not at all. At 8GB CF, I can only have approx. 480 Raw files as to about approx. 2080 Jpegs.. wow..

One of the many advantages of Jpeg files is flexibility. My mentor told me by the way that Raw shooters are lesser photographer and more of an Image Editor..is it true? At least were talking digital here!

Now, are we really into Photography if we shoot raw or we're into the world of Image Editors?

[abortretryfail]

I wouldn't say they are lesser "photographers"... raw shooters are more akin to photographers of yore who
would develope their own negatives and print their own enlargements.

I was once belittled for "overusing" photoshop on a photo when years ago I did the same effects the hard
way in my school's darkroom... which I found more fun

But to get back to the point those that preferred the darkroom to your local lab weren't labeled "darkroomers"
So why are raw shooters a lesser photographer and dubbed "image editors?"

And in reality... it's the same thing. Going to a lab means you just have somebody else to do the work. Work
which is basically an essential part of photography... how else are those latent images supposed to ever see
the light of day if they're not developed? In shooting jpeg... your camera's on board processor does the work
of the lab.

I would call raw shooters and "darkroomers" as "hands on" photographers... and maybe even perfectionists.
Maybe it's the lab users and the jpeg shooters who are the lesser photographers?... as they don't technically
follow the complete process of photography from start to final print?

I shoot jpeg.... a lot. Mostly because I shoot a few thousand shots at a time... especially if you're shooting a
wedding. A person must be a masochist to digitally develope each and every frame.

But when I feel that quality is of the upmost importance... then I shoot raw.

[Ian]

Good point abortretryfail. Like I said, we're talking digital, nothing with darkroom.. films.. etc.. all digital. Now, when you shoot Raw, does it mean so because you want to edit the pictures later on? For sure thats the first thing in mind. Photographers wont have to worry to get the perfect exposure since you can just tune in some Raw Softwares later on. Is it? Where as using jpegs + perfect exposure you only get what you shot due to limited chances of you know doing stuff on Photo Editor Softwares. I mean are photographers really concern about how the pictures would come up from the Camera than with their PCs? A Photographer do magic with the Cameras.. an Image Editor or a Graphic Artists.. do magic with PCs and Softwares.. Again this is Digital. We're talking digital. Does it make sense?[br]Posted on: November 19, 2006, 01:51:02 AM_________________________________________________@abortretryfail, you said you're shooting jpegs then you're a Real Photographer in this digital era.. you must be very concern about results from your Camera than with your PCs.

[makusama]

I cant really say that my opinion matters since I am a noob in slr photography but anyways here it goes...

When you look at a photo magazine, an annual yearbook, or an album of another person would you care if it was shot in jpeg, raw or film? I dont know with you but for me, I dont care how that person got that shot as long as that person was the one taking the shot and it looks good. Who would even care if the shot was fired from an slr or a cheap disposable camera.

RAW
- yes you could post process your work to the limit but these are heavy files and only a few people can afford a 8gb CF card. Another point is you cannot enhance an image if that image's detail and composition are not there in the 1st place (else that would be cheating hence that is no longer photography). The RAW photographer still ends up trying his/her best getting the best shot possible "but" if incase the photographer made some minor mistakes he still has the option of covering up for it later.

JPEG
-Less options in post processing but stores more pics per mb of the CF. The photographer still tries his/her best to take the best shots possible but what could be his/her fallback plan to have a higher chance of getting a good shot? My answer is take a lot of them one is bound to be good.

Image editors are not photographers they only think of cutting, retouching images and dont care about the drama behind the photos and they do not get the sense of anxiety of taking pics... timing, angle, light, composition, drama, colors, subject,extreme detail, and the joy of getting what you want with a click of a button no drag and drop cut and paste

*I use jpeg myself. I am too lazy to process more than 2 pics hehehehehe again my opinion does not matter since I am a noob and my equipment are not as pricey as some of the people here :P

[Ian]

Well everyone's opinion matters, newbie, amateur or pro. This is just an exchange of opinions by the way not an argument because a raw or jpeg shooters has its own rights to be.

[makusama]

hehehe that is exactly why I keep stating that I am a noob so nobody would bother arguing me else they would be wasting thier time since I am still in the process of learning and should not take my words seriously enough to argue hehehehe pa safety ta daan ba

[pnoize]

I shoot both.

I shoot RAW for crucial shots, images that will be printed or published. It does not make me less of a photographer since I do mind my exposure, lighting, composition and all other aspects that will help me capture a good image. I like the flexibility of RAW and how much control I have on this "digital negative". Yes, I do make use of Post Processing, albeit a short workflow, that isn't the first thing I have in mind when I take photos. It's alway my vision that comes first.

I shoot JPEG when shooting events, concerts or even everyday photos, Most of the pictures I've posted in the photography thread were probably shot in large JPEG. I like how compact it is and how it lets me shoot without really worrying how much memory is still available to me, though I'm not shutter-happy I just like the feeling of not having to worry that I will soon run out of CF space.

Despite the freedom, I still wait for the right moment before I hit the shutter button.

I guess my point here is, it doesn't really matter what file format one uses. It's how he visualizes and executes the shot that makes one a photographer. The difference between an Image Editor and a photographer , in my opinion, should be based on the amount of time spent taking photos in comparison to the amount of time spent in front of the PC.

[Minuano27]

Large JPEG. I don't have the time to process raw shots; besides the technical details in processing raw don't concern me too much since I only shoot for my own satisfaction.

[koto]

i only shot raw in studio shots and sometimes landscape
pero if event mas practical kung Jpeg BURST SHOT!!! hehee

[CrasHBURN]

RAW = Exposure / color flexibility. That's all.
The art, composition, the drama, the moment, DoF and angle... shooting in RAW wont help you REDO them.

I don't care if a photographer shoots RAW or JPG.

About image processing or EDITING... when i was new to using a dSLR, mao ni ako naa sa hunahuna. I wasn't into post processing because, for me its cheating, photographers are NOT image editors. "Ahh, kani nga photo na nindot ra ni because of editing." After months of shooting... research... practice... learning... bla bla... I realized that (my own self)... I was so amateur and immature to conclude something like that... Hehehe... Yeah, i was...