Photos courtesy of Amazing Travel Photos
The question whether to shoot RAW or JPEG with a digital SLR was address in this article RAW vs. JPEG. The basic conclusion seemed to be that RAW allows more flexibility and theoretically higher quality, while JPEG is simpler and faster. Here is my take on the subject.
Do you want to be a shooter or a post guy? These are two different sets of skills. Here is the difference in a nutshell: shooters work in the light with others; post guys work in the dark by themselves.
What do you like doing? Do you prefer dealing with technical stuff like RAW converters, or dealing with organic stuff like people. What talents do you bring to the table? Where do your interest lie?
In my lifetime, most photographers were shooters only. Someone else, like the photo finishing lab, did all the heavy lifting in post production. The people who worked in finishing labs and were specialists. A relatively small number of photographers also did their own darkroom work–mostly students, hobbyists and fine art photographers. Most commercial and retail photographers couldn’t afford to waste time screwing around in a darkroom.
JPEGs for Shooters, RAW for Geeks
Regis, here is my final answer. Do you like being in the light, or are you drawn to the darkside? If you are a shooter, then shoot JPEGs. If you are a geek that appreciates the technical details of post production workflow, then shoot RAW.
Other Opinions
The reality is that this a very complex decision that could have a big impact on the future value of your photo library. Here are two opposing opinions. one for JPEG, one for RAW.
Ken Rockwell makes the case for shooting JPEGs in his article JPG vs Raw: Get it Right the First Time. Rockwell is a pro photographer with strongly-held views who writes a lot about cameras.
Here is a counterpoint to Rockwell’s case by Petteri Sulonen: Sermon From A Raw Convert. Petteri is an accomplished amateur who shoots mostly landscapes and travel scenics.
