Why do you not shoot in RAW format?

I have read a few blogs about RAW this and RAW that, and how there is no higher. So why wouldn't you shoot in RAW?

Speed. Photographing sports often requires rapid firing and processing RAW shots will slow your camera. Other times are "snapshots" where perfect exposure,etc. is not critical. RAW also takes up LOTS of memory on your card and your drives.

Baydream wrote: Speed. Photographing sports often requires rapid firing and processing RAW shots will slow your camera. Other times are "snapshots" where perfect exposure,etc. is not critical. RAW also takes up LOTS of memory on your card and your drives.

I concur. Really only sports.

Also depends on the camera. With my Sony A200 RAW results were no better than JPG, so I just stuck to JPG. Now I have a Canon EOS 50D, and RAW is making more sense. And it certainly doesn't hurt that Canon ships some nice editing software for RAW with their cameras.

Kelly Cook

I photograph in both RAW and JPG. I find that JPG with the correct settings can give wonderful results. Get it right in camera and things will be fine. I shoot Raw for critical shoots where important detail is required.

Anything that requires you to get your photos out really fast. Fashion, sports, journalism.

Johnnie wrote: I photograph in both RAW and JPG. I find that JPG with the correct settings can give wonderful results. Get it right in camera and things will be fine. I shoot Raw for critical shoots where important detail is required.

Agree 100% Raw when needed ( Import. Photos), and Jpeg when just doing a walk and shoot,

KevinA65 wrote:

Johnnie wrote: I photograph in both RAW and JPG. I find that JPG with the correct settings can give wonderful results. Get it right in camera and things will be fine. I shoot Raw for critical shoots where important detail is required.

Agree 100% Raw when needed ( Import. Photos), and Jpeg when just doing a walk and shoot,

I humbly disagree. With modern programs like Lightroom and the price of HDDs coming down and down there's no excuse for shooting jpeg only. Lightroom can be set up to handle your RAW files the way you like them (and does a better job than in camera, the NR and sharpening alone are better and you can use something like a colorchecker passport to do your own profiles for more accurate colour).

When you're doing casual shooting you never know when you'll see something worthy of RAW so to speak (like a sunset or something) so respectfully you should always shoot RAW unless your income depends on you getting the files out fast.

Johnnie didn't say he shoots jpeg only. He shoots RAW+Jpeg... RAW+Jpeg is fine if you want that, but never Jpeg on it's own (if you're serious about photography that is).

The only reason I would shoot jpeg is because I was limited to the in-camera processing for some reason. Either I couldn't get to a computer with processing software, or I had to deliver the pics right out of the camera. My cameras have faster fps in raw than I need or can keep up with anyway, so speed hasn't ever been an issue for me.

The reasons people don't shoot in raw are the same reasons people didn't develop their own film: they don't know how, it's too inconvenient, it takes too long, someone told them it was hard, etc...

Well I shoot RAW +Jpeg Fine and dont see my camera blowing down at all. I think a lot of that slowing is the cards and how fast they write from the buffer. I figure if my shots turn out as I wanted I can use the Jpeg right away for posting or sharing, if they need tweaking then I have the RAWs to fall back on. Also the other benefit of having the RAW is it is the original data, this is something to think about for Copyright violations. If you have the RAW data the theif will not so the RAW is essentially evidence. So I see no reason to not shoot RAW.

never Jpeg on it's own (if you're serious about photography that is)

It's all a matter of degree. You could just as easily say that anybody shooting with less than 35mm Full Frame is not serious about photography.

Kelly

KCook wrote:

never Jpeg on it's own (if you're serious about photography that is)

It's all a matter of degree. You could just as easily say that anybody shooting with less than 35mm Full Frame is not serious about photography.

Kelly

Don't mix categories. We're talking a file format that all good cameras can use and isn't that hard to work with. Even my Canon S95 can shoot in RAW.

It's there. If you're serious about photography you should use it (or learn to use it).

Unless of course you have a good reason not to (as stated above).

Free software (if your camera doesn't come with it:
ufraw.sourceforge.net/

Macs have iPhoto which should open RAW.

If not go here and it has some info on how to get it to work (look a few posts down):
discussions.apple.com/thread/2625299?start=0&tstart=0

We all shoot in RAW. Do we save it in RAW is the question. The sensor output remains the same no matter what settings you apply. The cameras on board processor can convert it to jpeg instantaneously it is the write time for the larger RAW file that slows down.

That was a good point about the proof of ownership.

KCook wrote:

never Jpeg on it's own (if you're serious about photography that is)

It's all a matter of degree. You could just as easily say that anybody shooting with less than 35mm Full Frame is not serious about photography.

Jpegs are like slides: what comes out of the camera is pretty much done cooking.

Raw are like negs: there are still plenty of processing options before the photo is finished.

They used to say "serious photographers shoot slides." Of course this was just as much BS as serious photographers shoot raw.

Stealthy Ninja wrote:

KCook wrote:

never Jpeg on it's own (if you're serious about photography that is)

It's all a matter of degree. You could just as easily say that anybody shooting with less than 35mm Full Frame is not serious about photography.

Kelly

Don't mix categories. We're talking a file format that all good cameras can use and isn't that hard to work with. Even my Canon S95 can shoot in RAW.

It's there. If you're serious about photography you should use it (or learn to use it).

Unless of course you have a good reason not to (as stated above).

Free software (if your camera doesn't come with it:
ufraw.sourceforge.net/

Macs have iPhoto which should open RAW.

If not go here and it has some info on how to get it to work (look a few posts down):
discussions.apple.com/thread/2625299?start=0&tstart=0

It is a different subject but an excellent analogy. You can be serious about photography and not shoot RAW all the time.