Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Horoscope Fish" data-source="post: 344245" data-attributes="member: 13090">RAW and JPG are simply two "tools" for a photographer that one can choose to use. Your example is one of many possible scenarios. Sometimes you simply don't have the luxury of time (to process to perfection), sometimes it's file size or buffer constraints. Juggling quality vs time is a common and oft-repeated theme. I've shot JPG + RAW for people who want or need something to work with, or post online, right away and quality to the 'nth degree is not required. Meanwhile, I can take the RAW file home to work on and provide them with a more polished final product, such as a large print, later. Other times the shots I was asked to provide were for such things as documenting soil erosion. How exciting! You really think I want to sit behind my PC and tweak those shots to utmost perfection? Not so much (nice way to pad my bill, however, I suppose) and the BLM would prefer I keep my bill-able hours to a minimum. That being the case... JPG is the go-to file type. As is so often the case in photography... "It depends".And let's not forget that just because it's a JPG doesn't mean it's not a good, even great, shot. Sure, shooting RAW gives me *additional* flexibility but my D7100, assuming I do my part, turns out pretty damn fine JPG's; and if a JPG will do, so much the better. They can also be post processed, albeit not with as much headroom as with a RAW file but it's not like JPG's can't be tweaked. ....</blockquote>

Verification