Dropping RAW and going Jpeg

[Ardy]

I just watched a video by Will Crockett https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0DlEl8XWW4 regarding pro photographers moving to Jpeg only and not going through RAW, Adobe etc and fiddling around to get a jpeg out that they are happy with.

As RAW + Adobe + workflow + decision making = time spent getting my shots fixed. I won't use my camera (OMD EM5) set up properly and getting to understand white balance settings without sticking on auto, understanding what the camera can do to assist the image I want.

I think it is time I spent some time learning this camera and stop learning how to drive PS to correct my RAW images with hours spent in front of a computer until I get bored and start taking short cuts.

Anyone taking jpegs only and happy with the results? How do you use the camera to ensure your jpegs are as good as they can be?

regards

 

[MaxBottomtime]

My friend Kevin Lee shoots only in jpeg and gets his photos published in books and magazines worldwide. Every other professional he knows tells him to shoot in RAW but be is happy with his results.
Australia - DiverKevin

 

[KeithG]

I started with video many years ago and got tired of burning more time after my vacation to edit the movies.

when i moved to stills i stopped all post production other than "delete". All of my still cameras have supported RAW, i only use jpeg. and delete.

life is too short to waste screwing around fixing up bad photos.

 

[tursiops]

life is too short to waste screwing around fixing up bad photos.

I agree with the sentiment (which includes wine, eggnog, and movies), but I don't understand how RAW vs jpeg is relevant. A bad picture will be bad no matter which format you use, but it seems like the window is a bit more comfortably open with RAW. How does using jpeg correct focus, exposure, composition, subject matter?

 

[MaxBottomtime]

I shoot only in RAW for the very fact that I'm not a good photographer. I do my best to capture the shot I want but need every tool available to make it look decent enough to post.

 

[casts_by_fly]

This subject is discussed on various photo forums ad nauseum. Everyone can choose what they want to shoot for themselves, but at the end of the day RAW offers so many benefits there is no reason to NOT shoot RAW. If your method is to shoot RAW and fix it later, then moving to JPEG makes no difference aside from taking away any ability to fix mistakes later. Fix your technique in the first place and leave it in RAW. You can make your post production as simple as you wish. If you don't want to do anything, just set your program to apply generic camera adjustments on import and be done. You have a full set of pictures ready to do whatever you want with (print, ipad, facebook, etc). If you want to edit one to a little higher level you have the data to do it. At the very least, shoot RAW+JPEG. Set the camera up for JPEG as you wish, but have it retain the RAW data. When you import, you can choose to import either version or both. If you love the JPEGs SOC then use them. If not, you have the RAW data to play with to learn how to modify the camera and fix the JPEGs how you like. There is no benefit in throwing away the RAW data.

thanks,
rick

 

[Searcaigh]

My post production work is mainly some backscatter removal in some photos, so I shoot fine jpeg.

 

[Storker]

I use Adobe Lightroom both for archiving and PP'ing. If I don't want to PP, it makes no difference whether my images are in JPEG or raw. LR develops my CR2s, ORFs and NEFs automatically, so there's no difference for me between shooting JPEG and raw format. If I want one of the different image profiles in the camera, there are presets for that, and the work is close to zero.

If I want to crop, change the aspect ratio or straighten a horizon, the work is the same regardless of format.

If I shoot in auto WB (which I usually do) and want a constant WB for several pictures, that's a lot easier in raw format.

If I need to do more intensive PP'ing, the raw file format gives me a lot more latitude before I run into limitations caused by the amount of data in the file. And given the viz where I dive, I usually have to adjust clarity, black point and contrast on my UW pics quite a bit unless I want my pics to look washed-out.

I see no reason at all to shoot JPEGs, unless I want to share pictures directly from my camera's memory card. If I want to do that, I shoot raw+JPEG.

My biggest job after transferring the pics from the memory card to my computer is sorting and culling. PP'ing the few shots that turned out OK isn't adding much to the time I spend at the computer after the shoot.

 

[jlyle]

I'm a jpeg person. I try to get the best images I can with the camera, not post-production. I share my images on the web, usually 640x480 and 100KB. For me, RAW is a waste of time.

 

[tursiops]

I really don't see anything about RAW that *requires* post-production, but it makes it possible and more effective if needed.
I'm with Storker.