Some interesting discussion about shooting raw and jpg:
1. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
2. The real discussion is not about what mode to shoot in, but about who does your processing.
IT'S PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO SHOOT IN ANYTHING BUT RAW! Raw is the electronic signal that comes off your sensor, so it's not how you shoot it, but how you save it that is actually being discussed.
When you select Raw, you're saving the data just as the sensor generated it, so you can play it back later.
When you select jpeg, or on cameras that don't have a Raw option, you're having your camera process the file before it is saved to the card, instead of having your computer process it later.
This is the age old discussion about whether to soup your own film or take it to a pro lab. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Except today, you have the option to do both.
Back then, if you souped your own you could choose different developers to tune your results. Today you choose a Raw processor:
o your camera's firmware
o Adobe Camera Raw
o SilkyPix
o Capture One
o raw software that came with your camera
o etc.
All of these give slightly different results, which may be more or less to your liking--and if you want, you can try them all.
A perfect exposure is ALWAYS the best way, but if you miss with a jpeg, it's kinda like missing with a chrome--bad news. Which is why we used to bracket, which is why modern cameras provide a bracket feature. Sort of a toss-up though, if you are shooting a 6 shot bracket or doing it later in Raw.
If you are a sports shooter and need long "motor drive" bursts, then the current state of technology pretty much dictates that jpeg is your best option.
For everthing else, most of the arguments are specious. Bigger file sizes for raw is an economic concern, not a quality issue. Being able to shoot more images is the same. Bigger cards are available, as are bigger hard drives. Needing to twiddle the files is also not a constraint.
If you are too busy shooting to mess with files, hand your card to your Photoshop whizkid assistant and let them process--just like assistants used to change film backs and run the exposed rolls to the pro lab. If you are really shooting "thousands" of pictures in a day for some other reason than you just like the sound effects, then there is enough money in the budget to hire a couple of assistants--along with grips, gaffers, hair, makeup, and catering.
Run with the big dogs, 'ya know, or stay on the porch. ;-)
If, like me, however, you haven't quite attained Zen Photo Master status yet, raw + jpeg is good to have. If the jpeg doesn't work out, Raw is a good tool to have in your kit.
1. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
2. The real discussion is not about what mode to shoot in, but about who does your processing.
IT'S PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO SHOOT IN ANYTHING BUT RAW! Raw is the electronic signal that comes off your sensor, so it's not how you shoot it, but how you save it that is actually being discussed.
When you select Raw, you're saving the data just as the sensor generated it, so you can play it back later.
When you select jpeg, or on cameras that don't have a Raw option, you're having your camera process the file before it is saved to the card, instead of having your computer process it later.
This is the age old discussion about whether to soup your own film or take it to a pro lab. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Except today, you have the option to do both.
Back then, if you souped your own you could choose different developers to tune your results. Today you choose a Raw processor:
o your camera's firmware
o Adobe Camera Raw
o SilkyPix
o Capture One
o raw software that came with your camera
o etc.
All of these give slightly different results, which may be more or less to your liking--and if you want, you can try them all.
A perfect exposure is ALWAYS the best way, but if you miss with a jpeg, it's kinda like missing with a chrome--bad news. Which is why we used to bracket, which is why modern cameras provide a bracket feature. Sort of a toss-up though, if you are shooting a 6 shot bracket or doing it later in Raw.
If you are a sports shooter and need long "motor drive" bursts, then the current state of technology pretty much dictates that jpeg is your best option.
For everthing else, most of the arguments are specious. Bigger file sizes for raw is an economic concern, not a quality issue. Being able to shoot more images is the same. Bigger cards are available, as are bigger hard drives. Needing to twiddle the files is also not a constraint.
If you are too busy shooting to mess with files, hand your card to your Photoshop whizkid assistant and let them process--just like assistants used to change film backs and run the exposed rolls to the pro lab. If you are really shooting "thousands" of pictures in a day for some other reason than you just like the sound effects, then there is enough money in the budget to hire a couple of assistants--along with grips, gaffers, hair, makeup, and catering.
Run with the big dogs, 'ya know, or stay on the porch. ;-)
If, like me, however, you haven't quite attained Zen Photo Master status yet, raw + jpeg is good to have. If the jpeg doesn't work out, Raw is a good tool to have in your kit.
