wanton ?

If its for the web, just jpg

More important is the quality of photographer than raw or jpeg. Just an FYI, photojournalist's shoot in jpeg and thats print.

Ever wonder why those magazines dont accept JPG?

what part of what I said is wrong? NONE...
Shooting JPG is for amateurs you lose at least 75% of your data because jpg is an 8bit per color format and most cameras shot at 12 0r 16 bits per color

Only newspapers

heres why

your lets say your nikon shoots 12 bits per color thats 2^36th

thats 4096 levels of each color...red green and blue

jpg immediatly degrades it to 8 bits per color..thats 2^24th BIG DIFFERENCE

thats 256 levels of each color. and thats before it compresses it

Only magazines that print on pulp paper will accept jpgs for anything larger that a very small photo and many wont accept that.

I shoot for print all the time...yes I make JPGs but only as proofs to determine which shots will actually go to the editor in RAW format

Anyone who has ever had color balance problems in jpg that they had to correct knows the limitations with a raw imagine there are no limitations.

Real photographers only shoot raw...sorry but dats the way it is...dont believe me...ask one.

Of course composition is a whole different ball of wax.

To say someone who shoots raw is more of a real photog than a guy who won a pulitzer shooting jpeg's is silly. I read 5 different photo mags a month and some use jpeg's for ease and portability. Not every "real" photog shoots glamour or product. I took a class and they showed a jpeg print that was blown up to poster size and it was beautiful. Actually to get a really good print out of jpeg you have to be a dead on photog.

but disk space is cheap memory cards are cheap bandwidth is cheap why in gods name would anyone want to immediately degrade their photograph by 85%? It makes no sense, like others here have said you can always downgrade your raw to jpg but you can never upgrade your jpg to raw

many things go into a good photograph, pulitzer prizes are for journalism and if a person is in the right place at the right instance and snaps a polaroid of george bush's death face as he is sucked into a vortex of water and wind...ya he is going to win a pulitzer but he wont win any photography contest with it cept for maybe one sponsored by polaroid.

But I digress.....now consider this. Lets say you get the perfect shot of a guy on a snowboard and you send HO Sports the full sized JPG and HO Sports say thats incredible we want the exclusive rights to that photo, send us the raw image and we will send you a check for 10K.

Guess what...the raw image is worth 10K the Jpg is worth....NOTHING they wont buy it.

I shoot both.

you have a point.

owned:1orglaugh

I do both. If I think there's a chance I will have use for it later, blow it up, etc., like landscapes or urban or maybe have a chance to publish it, I do RAW, especially non-adult stuff. For example I am stashing some shots in RAW for a book (urban shots) I hope to publish one day. Also if I was doing magazine work, RAW+jpeg no doubt.

For internet/adult, if you get the white balance right when you make the shot, I have very little need to waste disk space on RAW, no matter how cheap it is these days. I travel a lot and don't want to haul 3 hard drives around, etc. Even stuff I've got for DVD cover: jpeg fine/max.

No disrespect to RAW shooters though, as it gives you maximum flexibility. I just try to limit the RAW I shoot.