Hey Cris,

I know that you don't want a RAW-JPEG war here but once it gets into your workflow there really isn't a noticeable difference in time--at least for me there hasn't been. I really can't imagine shooting solely jpegs again--and I am close to the ultimate control freak in the studio. The benefits far outweigh the detriments [and I don't really see any detriments].

OK I'll shut up...for now!

Cris --

Steve is right. What if, in the studio, after the fact, you want more shadow detail? What if you want to warm up a shot by a few hundred degrees kelvin? Cool it down? Rezzing up and down through the conversation software often yields a better starting point than doing so with the various bicubic flavors?

You limit the future capability of your image by shooting jpeg. I emphatically encourage you to shoot raw from a date certain forward (say, this Jan 1st?)

Integrating it into your workflow will make the who process almost seamless.

Cheers,
John

I believe that the single greatest disadvantage to shooting jpeg is the instant loss of possibilities, especially for future RAW processors. It is true that under the perfect light a jpeg is all you need, that is assuming that all the other settings in the camera are what you want, sharpening color balance and so on. Since it is rarely perfect in outdoor light I shoot only RAW files. Furthermore I can use the image processor in Bridge to create jpegs from my RAW files using the ACR settings which will end up creating superior quality jpegs anyway. However, the future of RAW processing will be improving and all I can say is that Adobe is working it into the next version of CS.

Shoot much and shoot RAW

Marc

Hey Folks,
Let me jump in with my 2 cents here?

[QUOTE=JohnHarrington]It is penny-wise and pound-foolish to not shoot RAW.

On landscape and fine art images I certainly agree, but for the typical portrait / wedding / headshot / commercial portrait shot (assuming you're shooting with a DSLR) JPEG is money. The client cannot see much difference in a print / page created from JPEG or RAW so the added time and dollars it takes to process the RAW file is the fooish element.

I suppose, if you were fortunate enough to capture a narrow-latitude image perfectly, you would not need the extra data from RAW to improve on it, but who can say that they can do that all the time every time?


Ouch. That one stings a bit. : )
What professional can NOT shoot a perfect exposure and white balance under controled conditions? As I like to say.. "Take the Money" because there's nothing wrong with designing your workflow to maximize profits.

Further, if you have an image that, at 8-bit, has colors that are out of gamut, you will loose that fidelity, however, at 12-bit you'll capture those colors, and be able to control how they are rendered in the end.

Absolutely! If you need the added color volume, use it. For landscape it would be silly not to.

Thanks!
WC

StephenDantzig:
I have said it here before: I am a recent convert to RAW and won't ever purposefuly shoot just jpeg again!

A portrait studio shooter using only RAW?
Refusing to use JPEG?
Thinking there's no efficiency difference between shooting RAW vs. shooting in JPEG?
Oh boy.

Best of luck with that.

Hey Will!
Good to hear your comments on this! I have personally fit the RAW conversion process into my workflow and it works easily for me. The benefits still far outweigh the detriments for me.

Hope you are well!

Steeever!