How many shoot RAW?

[C-Fish]

How many of you shoot in RAW format. I had a discussion a few weeks ago with a gentleman in a camera shop (owner). He claimed that "no one" shoots in RAW format. He has been doing "weddings" for umpteen years...blah, blah, blah...

Granted, I don't shoot in RAW that often, mostly use JPEG (fine) Large. Easier to process, I don't have the time, energy or experience to spend hours in PP. Maybe I'm naive...

How many of you shoot RAW? Or do you?

Thanks,

 

[Michael Slade]

The owner of the camera store is wrong.

 

[john101477]

If that where the case then photoshop camera raw would not be considered the best tool in PS. They would not keep designing new tools for RAW and camera manufacturers would not be starting to market with a universal raw format (designed by adobe) instead of separate formats like nikons NEF. Just certain things that are way easier accomplished in raw that are not available in jpeg. There is a time and place for both IMO. running around snapping shots I will usually run JPG fine large. anytime I have to stop and set up for a shot or shooting events such as a wedding or portraits, I shoot raw.
the guy you talked to probably falls into one of two catigories, the guy that wants to sell you more filters, lenses, lighting gear, etc. or the "weekend" shooter that just got done shooting his cousins wedding for free. I see it a lot which is one of the reasons I have taken to only going to the store to do research. then I find it cheaper and with out all the sales talk online. of course this is the same store that tried to charged me $30 for a 11x14 print and $400 more than their online price on a lens.

Also depending on your computer/software, raw does not take that much more time. If you are picky about your "keeper" shots raw can really give you control to slightly tweak a shot. I should specify though that perfect exposure should be attempted in camera and not try relying on PS to get it right.

 

[JackW]

Camera RAW is a great tool - I've just started shooting RAW within the last year and I'm wondering what took me so long. It's like the old darkroom days where RAW is the negative and JPEG is the print - its a lot easier to manipulate your image from RAW if you screw up.

My camera shoots RAW + JPEG and I'll often use that feature - just carry lots of 8 MB cards......

 

[bunduguy]

How many of you shoot in RAW format. I had a discussion a few weeks ago with a gentleman in a camera shop (owner). He claimed that "no one" shoots in RAW format. He has been doing "weddings" for umpteen years...blah, blah, blah...

Granted, I don't shoot in RAW that often, mostly use JPEG (fine) Large. Easier to process, I don't have the time, energy or experience to spend hours in PP. Maybe I'm naive...

How many of you shoot RAW? Or do you?

Thanks,

Only the most arrogant pro shooters will not use RAW (I am far from a pro, but very enthusiastic!). For happy snaps, I just use large res, but for anything that will be important, RAW is always best to have. Not only to cover for a screwup, but fun to play with.

 

[Tucson T4R]

All I shoot now is RAW for everything. It gives me a lot more control in post processing over anything I can do with jpeg.

 

[Ryanmb21]

I always shoot in RAW, why not?

 

[DiploStrat]

All RAW, All the Time

If you use Lightroom or Aperture there is no real penalty in time or energy in shooting RAW.

I use Aperture and have shot RAW since 2006. Recently, I have been doing some RAW/JPEG pairs, just to see if the Mark One Eyeball can see a difference. And even at age sixty I can see a difference right out of the box.

With global presets, you can get your RAW delivered right to your desktop will all of the same increases of saturation/contrast/sharpening that your camera applies to the JPEG that it makes.

And, should you get the image less that perfect, it is SOOOOOO much easier to fix things with 12+ bits of data than with only 8 bits.

Some news/wedding/sports types may do things differently, but they are about the only ones.

YMMV

 

[Colorado David]

I shoot RAW almost exclusively. With DSLRs all I shoot is RAW. I have one PhD (Push Here Dummy) camera that does not allow RAW shooting and use that for infrequent shooting.

 

[JayGannon]

Always shoot in RAW, any "professional" who doesn't is not worth their paycheck.
Any hobby shooter who cares about flexibility and quality should shoot in RAW, if your just taking snapshots then TBH you should save the weight and ditch the SLR and get a decent point and shoot.

 

[Wander]

Sounds like your local shop is similar to mine....a waste of time.

 

[User_Name]

Always shoot in RAW, any "professional" who doesn't is not worth their paycheck.
Any hobby shooter who cares about flexibility and quality should shoot in RAW, if your just taking snapshots then TBH you should save the weight and ditch the SLR and get a decent point and shoot.

I disagree and believe more along the lines that any "professional" that can capture a shot without a whole bunch of post tweaking is probably worth twice his paycheck.

Do you want to pay a photographer to take pictures or do you want to pay them to adjust photos?

 

[JayGannon]

I disagree and believe more along the lines that any "professional" that can capture a shot without a whole bunch of post tweaking is probably worth twice his paycheck.

Do you want to pay a photographer to take pictures or do you want to pay them to adjust photos?

Not about tweaking, its about quality, JPEG is horribly compressed for print, I take RAW in and output as TIFF which is a lossless workflow.
And yes your paying a photographer to adjust, your paying him for his eye for color and his expertise in making the photo look its best, you wouldn't have complained about someone making a print that had some dodging and burning back in the day, or a print that was made at a higher contrast than the neg.
Taking a photo through a RAW pipeline is not to be confused with re-touching and manipulation, I would never think about doing anything other than a levels and in certain situations a dodge or burn lightly. I do all of my filtration and adjusting in camera, but still shoot RAW.

 

[DurangoSteve]

I shoot RAW for important stuff (usually possible stock pic sales) and hi-res JPEGs for fun stuff.

 

[Every Miles A Memory]

I disagree and believe more along the lines that any "professional" that can capture a shot without a whole bunch of post tweaking is probably worth twice his paycheck.

Do you want to pay a photographer to take pictures or do you want to pay them to adjust photos?

I agree with Jay and yes, you're hiring a pro so they can adjust the photos and have them come out looking natural, well saturated colors and have a set of files that wont lose its quality 5 years down the road.

I ONLY shoot in RAW and hate if I have to work on jpegs due to the limited controls you have for them