Okay, I'll start something in this section just for fun.

I LOVE RAW because I love to edit all those big, juicy files and make them do exactly what I want them to. HAHAHAHAAA!!!!!!

I need to go to bed. And sleep.

I'll play too. One big advantage people don't usually think about when shooting RAW is the files are inherently protected from accidently being overwritten. Most software won't save over a raw and any changes are usually instructions on how to process the file with no changes actually made to the original.

For those that say "I get it right in camera" so they don't have to process the RAW files, I say "so what"! You can have your cake and eat it too with RAW. Get it right in camera, download them to DPP (Canon), ctrl-A and let it process them all as shot. You still get the shot you took and the advantage of RAW. It only costs you a few extra minutes since the computer does all the processing for you and you don't have to sit there while it's churning them out.

To me, JPEG is for "don't care" pictures. Test shots, snapshots etc. Why not use the full extent of the equpiment you paid for?

Hi Colleen! (Yes, you and Anne dragged me over here too!) I LOVE RAW TOO!

Me too Me too!!! If RAW had arms, I would hug him.

Welcome Kari, I remember you on photo.net!

Hi Jason, Thanks!
I have been looking here a little bit, but I have found myself becoming more hooked.... although I can't give up PN yet.

I love RAW so much I don't even remember how to go back to JPEG on my camera, and I'm ok with that

Well Hi Kari, didnt know that was you! I still go to PN and read, but rarely post anymore. Welcome to OSP!

So funny. I too am a RAW lover and finnally after bugging my scared friend to death about "crossing over" she sat with me while I breezed her through it and now Im her hero.
She was so jazzed about what a wonderful world of manipulative goodness that just graced the grooves of her harddrive, she screamed outloud and found a whole new sense of motivation.


Yes, its that good.

I love it RAW!

I'm sure a lot of JPEG folks will say "Just set it in-camera and get it right"

I'll get the shot right but what if I don't want that certain contrast for that certain photo? I can change it within my camera but here's what happened:

While I was busy changing my settings at a wedding ceremony, I had missed a few shots of some kids playing together. It was a total Hallmark moment and I missed the shot.

This is me. I love RAW. I was hesitant at first but when I finally tried over a year and half ago, I quit with jpeg and have been shooting RAW 100%.

In the RAW.

I have heard that most pros have gone with high quality jpegs but I don't buy it. I think a larger percentage of pros choose RAW because they want to milk every bit of color and quality out of their images. And for less experienced shooters, it's like having insurance against those color or exposure goof-ups.

RAW is not the holy grail but it gives me warm fuzzies anyway.

Raw is like the God of photography....

so forgiving

JK

i just love the amazing jpgs from our 5D. nothing gets better than an amazingly nailed jpg.

really? nothing? . . . what about nailing an amazing double (5)D?

5D RAW shooter and resident 'politically incorrect' guy apparently.

OK, I've got a question for all of you RAW shooters...

I've just accepted an assignment (yeah!!) to shoot a CD rear cover image and to cover the CD release party for a local worship group. Cool assignment, but they hired me because the photog they hired for the front cover used flash and there are shadows in all of the images. I only have one flash (minus the D70's built-in flash) and some flood lighting on-site.

And then I started thinking (yes, I do do this on occassion) can't I just shoot RAW in manual mode - let's say 1/250 at f/5.6 or f/8 - and correct the under exposure in my computer?

Now, if "yes" how do I correct the RAW image without CS2 or Nikon Capture (I only have PS CS)? I could always use the demos of these programs too.

Hold on Sam.... be careful here. It depends on how underexposed you are. Yes, you can pull a few stops out of an underexposed image, but I don't like to ever go more than a full stop. Even then, it depends on the ISO. The higher the ISO, the less forgiving it is. with 1600 ISO, I don't like to be more than 1/2 stop under. It has saved my butt a few times when I was off, but I still try to shoot dead on. A file looks much better if properly exposed, even a raw file.

The only time I have purposely underexposed a RAW image is if it is a "get the shot, or not get the shot" situation with the amount of light I have. Example... I was shooting a gymnastic meet where no flash was allowed. I was shooting max aperture on my zoom lens (2.8) max ISO (1600). I knew I needed at least 1/125 to catch the action, and in reality, even 1/180 or 1/250 would have been better. My ambient light was reading at 1/90. I knew I would have gotten just a blur at that shutter speed. So, I bumped it up to 1/180, and brought the file up in RAW. It did add more grain than I like. But, it was either that, or not getting the image at all.

LaCour went RAW two years ago and never looked back.

Holy cow! I didn't know so many people responded to this! I was trying to be funny! But everything I said was completely true.