DISCUSS THE 6 LIES of Digial photography

[trencheel303]

I enjoy processing stuff on Lightroom - one of my favourite bits of the process tbh :shrug:

And there's plenty that you can do in LR that you can't really do in camera. I'm all for getting it as good as possible in camera, but why not be able to make it even better? As said, do what works for you - but dismissing the obvious potential advantages of RAW completely seems a little silly..

I am not dismissing the obvious potential advantages of raw. Where in this thread have I said that there are not advantages to raw - I haven't - all I have said is that I prefer to shoot JPEG because in all honesty I can't be bothered post processing. All of the computers in my house are either really old or low powered, none of them are up to PPing, it takes hours just to do a batch of <100 images, and I doubt any of them would run lightroom either. I'm glad you like running lightroom and PPing your raw images, but I don't. I am not saying one or the other is better, and I am fully aware that there is more data and more potential with raw. In my earlier photography days I shot raw and would frequently rescue photos that were several stops under or over exposed. Much harder with JPEG.

If you are still in doubt, have a trawl through my post history - there are plenty of occasions that I have acknowledged that raw is more advantageous, despite using JPEG at the time. I switched to JPEG about a month ago and not looked back.

 

[neil_g]

2) MAC V's PC who cares it's a bit like arguing over which brand of black paint to use in your darkroom, either will do the job fine anything ele is personal preferance.

i LOVE that analogy

 

[juno]

2) MAC V's PC who cares it's a bit like arguing over which brand of black paint to use in your darkroom, either will do the job fine anything ele is personal preferance.

I agree in essence but there's more too it than simply brand. Cheap Wilko brand paint isn't the same as Crown Solo.

 

[Stu Meech]

As I shoot a relatively low amount of frames when out landscaping, and use a colour cast inducing ND110, I shoot RAW so I can tinker to my hearts content when I get home.

On the odd occasion I do event/wedding work, or I'm on holiday, I'll shoot RAW to CF and JPEG to SDHC and then if I need to work on a picture then I can, if not I can publish it quickly!

 

[specialman]

RAW is the Film equivilant of a negative, and the jpeg is the print.

You'd be daft to choose jpeg over RAW unless you were supremely confident or where working on something where jpeg was prefered.

Ha....call me daft then!!!!

JPEG is fine as a pro; I have a decent computer, so it's not an issue about batch processing raw files; I have enough hard drive space for raw; I even have three types of software (LR2, Apertureand CS4) that I can process with, so that's not an issue. I see my shot as what they are, a record of how I saw things and how my mind likes to think it can process like a camera. Fannying around doing extensive tweaks to bring out every possible tone, only for crappy paperstock and abysmal printing (that are citing double each year) to ruin that hard labour seems pointless so I'll stick with poor old JPEG for the time being and will just have to live with the shame....