Shooting RAW anyone?

[SharLamb]

I'm wondering if shooting Camera RAW is worthwhile when, with Bridge, you can now edit jpg as if it were RAW.

Any thoughts?

I think RAW takes up a lot more memory. For us who do not aspire to be professional photographers, is it worthwhile?

[Wendy]

Hi Shar ...

I tried shooting RAW for a while but decided that it just didn't give me enough to justify the size of the files ...

However, when you open jpgs in Camera Raw you don't seem get all the options that you do if you open a RAW file

Wendy

[troush]

Like Wendy, I tried for a while. But, my Nikon does a pretty go job of post processing, and I found that the .jpgs are pretty darned good. Now, I have been known to shoot raw on very important occasions, or if I have trouble with the lighting (washed out background, or low light).

-Trish

[dmrdm]

In looking at my photos, it looks like I started shooting them 2/08. Think my husband started a few months before me. I don't aspire to be a professional, I just like what you can to with it. I don't worry about the size. Memory is so cheap these days.

As Wendy mentioned, if you shoot JPG and edit in RAW (in either Bridge or CS5) , your options are limited.

I love RAW and can never ever see going back to shooting JPG's. Listen to Scott Kelby some more or read up it, maybe you'll get hooked (or maybe not). You've been taking some classes lately, what have those people been saying about it?

Good luck deciding what you want to do.

[connieg]

Spilling the beans here, I never shoot in raw for these reasons.
I don't have a program that will edit or open raw photos. I found PSE5 isn't compatible with my camera. I went to Adobe and downloaded the fix and I still can't get them to open. Maybe it's just me not really understanding the raw process.

[Jan]

Ditto what Wendy and Trish said...

[estherf]

In looking at my photos, it looks like I started shooting them 2/08. Think my husband started a few months before me. I don't aspire to be a professional, I just like what you can to with it. I don't worry about the size. Memory is so cheap these days.

As Wendy mentioned, if you shoot JPG and edit in RAW (in either Bridge or CS5) , your options are limited.

I love RAW and can never ever see going back to shooting JPG's. Listen to Scott Kelby some more or read up it, maybe you'll get hooked (or maybe not). You've been taking some classes lately, what have those people been saying about it?

Good luck deciding what you want to do.

These are my feelings, also. Even though I am not professional, I do a lot of photography for the church and family.

I started when I got my Canon Rebel XTi. Even though it does a good job with jpgs, I found I could improve on most of them. Now I would never go back, even though my new camera is my pride and joy!

The ACR editor can do a lot of things with jpgs, I always seem to want those extras available.

[photodoc]

I have tried shooting in RAW. It is really helpful in tricky light situations, and you can do a lot more with the photos. The main drawback for me are the time it takes to write to the card--when I'm taking pics of kids, I want to be able to fire off a lot of shots. RAW does slow you down a bit.
I've done the option were my camera will shoot RAW and will take a hi res JPEG simultaneously. My processed image is usually better, but often only I can see the subtle differences.
I haven't decided if it's worth it or not. Typically I shoot only JPEG unless it's a really significant event.

[mariah]

I shoot Raw and Jpgs, but I usually just toss the raw files as my camera does a great job processing my files.

[Loretta]

I tend to shoot just JPGs but occasionally I'll shoot both RAW and JPGs, but I haven't found it to be much of a benefit when in it's in RAW so I don't use it much. I think I don't know enough about it.