Jpgs are fine and as Tannin points out, a "good" jpg will usually print up just as well as a converted RAW image. There is a cost to using RAW, although I've never lost an opportunity due to file digestion times. The added processing time becomes almost a non-issue once you are comfortable with a given RAW conversion program. I think it adds like 1-2 minutes to my post processing workflow.
The main reason I use RAW is because it provides 12 bits of data versus 8 bits in JPG/TIFF. If you always hit the exposure on the head, have a well lit subject and don't have dynamic range issues within your image, JPG will do the job very well. If, on the other hand, you have problems with one or more of these, RAW can really help.
Lost shadow and highlight detail can be extracted from a 12 bit RAW file. Usually at least 1 stop worth, minimum. You cannot extract ANY lost detail from an 8 bit JPG or TIFF. If your histogram overlaps either limit (or both limits), you have to live with it shooting JPG. Sure you can brighten dark areas and subdue bright areas, but you won't recover any detail within these areas.
I shoot lots of birds and I'll be the first to admit, there's no substitute for getting the proper exposure. Depending on a number of factors (time of day, light intensity, colors of your subject, etc) you can't always get every part of the subject well exposed. For example, shooting a scaup or other bird with white coloring along with very dark coloring. Unless the lighting and angle of light is perfect you will either blow out the whites, or under expose the darks. It doesn't have to be one or the other if you use RAW. You can blow out the whites, to a point, and recover most if not all of the detail. Yes, by lowering the whites it will also make the rest of the image darker. If this is the case, you can "blend" two different RAW conversions to expand the dynamic range of the shot (ie; darken the whites so detail shows in one conversion and brighten the shadows in a 2nd conversion) and capture maximum detail.
Is it easier to use JPG? You betcha. Can you shoot more pics using jpg before the buffer fills? Yes, you can. If you are shooting JPGs in mixed or harsh lighting, can you recover lost detail and/or expand the range of the image? No to the detail recovery and yes you can expand the dynamic range of a JPG, but only if you take 2 separate shots using different speeds (same aperture) and "blend". Not very practical for bird shooting.
I don't consider myself a snob and I would never try to tell people that they are wrong to use JPG. But, I do know a good thing when I see it/use it...lol All I can do is point out the advantages and leave it up to the individual to choose what is best for them.
I shoot around midday (lunchtime break) quite often and RAW has saved many images that would have otherwise ended up in the trash
I haven't gotten to the point where I don't need the added margin of error that RAW provides me.
Steve
The main reason I use RAW is because it provides 12 bits of data versus 8 bits in JPG/TIFF. If you always hit the exposure on the head, have a well lit subject and don't have dynamic range issues within your image, JPG will do the job very well. If, on the other hand, you have problems with one or more of these, RAW can really help.
Lost shadow and highlight detail can be extracted from a 12 bit RAW file. Usually at least 1 stop worth, minimum. You cannot extract ANY lost detail from an 8 bit JPG or TIFF. If your histogram overlaps either limit (or both limits), you have to live with it shooting JPG. Sure you can brighten dark areas and subdue bright areas, but you won't recover any detail within these areas.
I shoot lots of birds and I'll be the first to admit, there's no substitute for getting the proper exposure. Depending on a number of factors (time of day, light intensity, colors of your subject, etc) you can't always get every part of the subject well exposed. For example, shooting a scaup or other bird with white coloring along with very dark coloring. Unless the lighting and angle of light is perfect you will either blow out the whites, or under expose the darks. It doesn't have to be one or the other if you use RAW. You can blow out the whites, to a point, and recover most if not all of the detail. Yes, by lowering the whites it will also make the rest of the image darker. If this is the case, you can "blend" two different RAW conversions to expand the dynamic range of the shot (ie; darken the whites so detail shows in one conversion and brighten the shadows in a 2nd conversion) and capture maximum detail.
Is it easier to use JPG? You betcha. Can you shoot more pics using jpg before the buffer fills? Yes, you can. If you are shooting JPGs in mixed or harsh lighting, can you recover lost detail and/or expand the range of the image? No to the detail recovery and yes you can expand the dynamic range of a JPG, but only if you take 2 separate shots using different speeds (same aperture) and "blend". Not very practical for bird shooting.
I don't consider myself a snob and I would never try to tell people that they are wrong to use JPG. But, I do know a good thing when I see it/use it...lol All I can do is point out the advantages and leave it up to the individual to choose what is best for them.
I shoot around midday (lunchtime break) quite often and RAW has saved many images that would have otherwise ended up in the trash
I haven't gotten to the point where I don't need the added margin of error that RAW provides me. Steve
