Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="bluenoser" data-source="post: 29765" data-attributes="member: 6351">For me, aside from the memory eating monster that RAW files can be <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> I see no reason not to shoot RAW other than the special circumstances previously mentioned (but I'm not a sports photographer working on tight deadlines, etc).&nbsp;&nbsp; A few years ago I used to be intimidated by the thought of shooting RAW (thought only pros needed to do that and also didn't want to get familiar with more in-depth PP programs) and I let my intimidation convince me that RAW was unnecessary and inconvenient and that JPEG was the way to go .&nbsp; The common thought that RAW is for the &quot;serious&quot; photographer and JPEG for the newbie or casual photog.is misplaced.&nbsp; When you think about it, the irony is that RAW should be especially appealing to less experienced shooters. Why? Because it's the RAW format that is more forgiving and allows for mistakes (exposure, WB, etc.) to be&nbsp; made by the shooter which can be more easily corrected in post work.&nbsp; In effect JPEG is the more demanding format as you have&nbsp; to ensure you get the important aspects of an image correct at the get go.&nbsp; You just don't have the latitude to - for example - push the shadow areas in any meaningful way during post with JPEG.&nbsp; Are beautiful images possible to capture with JPEG? Absolutely.&nbsp; However the *best* images are more likely to be captured through RAW and post-work.Really?&nbsp; &nbsp; RAW v. JPEG??&nbsp; I'm not sure I buy that! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp;&nbsp; This issue is arguably one of the biggest - if not the biggest - hand&nbsp; grenades you can throw into a photography forum along with &quot;filter or&nbsp; no-filter&quot; and &quot;primes vs. zooms&quot;.&nbsp; I must say I'm relieved that this thread hasn't gone off the tracks like&nbsp; so many other RAW v. JPEG debates on other forums like dpreview, etc.. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="bluenoser, post: 29765, member: 6351"] For me, aside from the memory eating monster that RAW files can be :) I see no reason not to shoot RAW other than the special circumstances previously mentioned (but I'm not a sports photographer working on tight deadlines, etc). A few years ago I used to be intimidated by the thought of shooting RAW (thought only pros needed to do that and also didn't want to get familiar with more in-depth PP programs) and I let my intimidation convince me that RAW was unnecessary and inconvenient and that JPEG was the way to go . The common thought that RAW is for the "serious" photographer and JPEG for the newbie or casual photog.is misplaced. When you think about it, the irony is that RAW should be especially appealing to less experienced shooters. Why? Because it's the RAW format that is more forgiving and allows for mistakes (exposure, WB, etc.) to be made by the shooter which can be more easily corrected in post work. In effect JPEG is the more demanding format as you have to ensure you get the important aspects of an image correct at the get go. You just don't have the latitude to - for example - push the shadow areas in any meaningful way during post with JPEG. Are beautiful images possible to capture with JPEG? Absolutely. However the *best* images are more likely to be captured through RAW and post-work. Really? RAW v. JPEG?? I'm not sure I buy that! ;) This issue is arguably one of the biggest - if not the biggest - hand grenades you can throw into a photography forum along with "filter or no-filter" and "primes vs. zooms". I must say I'm relieved that this thread hasn't gone off the tracks like so many other RAW v. JPEG debates on other forums like dpreview, etc.. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification