Planedoctor From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 286 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1951 times:
For high-volume shooting (sports) I shoot jpeg. No time to edit much. For landscapes, portraits, etc. I shoot RAW. The 16-bit (12-bit, really) of RAW gives you much smoother gradations when you mess around with curves a lot. For shooting planes I still shoot RAW most of the time. But like Bronko said, you should look at the advantages/ disadvantages before making your choice.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 4, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1890 times:
OK. its a bit extreme, but I think about it as RAW="negative" JPG="print".
The prints may be stunning, but, if you haven't kept the negative, you can never go back and create a fresh print.
So why might you want to create a new print? Sometimes your initial thougts on the pic change - I've often gone back to an old image and decided it was better "printed" darker or lighter. Also every month we see new processing software appear - I like to be in the position to go back to older images and perhaps improve the sharpening or reduce noise a little more.
While you can of course re-edit a jpg, it is important to realise the jpg processing is destructive - every edit you make is throwing away irreplaceable data. Sort of like scanning a print to edit the image (OK, I'm exaggerating for effect )
TS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1860 times:
I have been shooting in raw converting to tiffs then keeping the tiffs on a cd and deleting the raw files.
Doesn't make much sense to me. To use Colin's comparison that would be like burning your slide after getting the pic printed. Plus, RAW files are much smaller than TIFs. I'm not yet in the situation of having dozens of gigabytes of files, but in the future I'll make a JPEG copy of every RAW file I want to keep. This way it's easier to archive the files than just having the RAWs.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 7, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1855 times:
I'd look on archiving .tifs as the least useful option - you have all the hassle of processing, extra storage requirements, but you still don't have an "original" for future work/experimentation.
For thos who feel that the need to process RAW files is too time consuming, note that the Canon RAW files (not sure about other makes) contain an "embedded" jpg image. If you don't want to process all your RAWs, you can simply extract all the embedded jpgs (a quick one click process with most RAW software) and use these jpgs for review, indexing etc.