The Digital world has made photographers at all levels change their ways of thinking, and working. Having spent 25 years in a commercial photolab, I was part of the old-fashion workflow... Now the photographer has to create their own workflow, those who understood what happened to the film, beyond the camera, understand the digital process better... The question of shooting RAW or allowing the camera's software to create a jpg file is common. Which way is better, which is faster, which is easier, you must ask yourself, are you looking for convenience or looking for the best quality... Just how much should I allow my camera to do for me, and could I do it better. Personally the answer is easy, I will always seek the best quality, even if, I am just taking snapshots... until a camera comes with Photoshop installed, I will shoot RAW, and see what the sensor captured, why would you want anything less? whether you are shooting professionally, or just a hobbyist, always seek the best possible image. Todays cameras offer many features, that can easily confuse you, or worse... give you a false sense of security. Histograms are available on almost every DSLR, and many point-n-shoots. every image will have a different and unique Histogram, there are no general right or wrong ones, so making any sort of exposure adjustment from this will only be a guess, at best... all cameras come with built-in meters, know, and understand how your meter works, understand the scene you are looking at, then make your exposure decision based on this knowledge and your own creativity, away from normal if you choose. all cameras now have beautiful LCD displays, the modern day Polaroid, for those Pros who remember... your LCD's main purpose, and only purpose, is to check your composition... it should not be used to check your exposure or sharpness... most all LCD screens have adjustments for brightness, so you changed the brightness to match your working conditions, now you are going to make a critical exposure decision... Hmmmmm trusting your meter... would be the best choice... while most LCD screens have acceptable resolutions, your critical decisions need to be made later, on a far bigger screen... Most working Pro studios shoot "tethered" to a large screen, to critically check images... Sharpening... most cameras have adjustments for sharpening, it is true, all digital files will need to be sharpened at some point... the amount of sharpening varies greatly depending on the use of the image, being for the web, or to be printed, and yes, different printers, different medias require different amounts of sharpening... so, turn off any "auto" sharpening, unless your camera knows how you are going to use your images... Sharpening is difficult at best to remove or reduce accurately if it has been overdone. There is a good reason why most agencies, printers, magazines all prefer to work with RAW images, whenever possible... They are interested in Quality... Yes, of course you can get acceptable images, by allowing your camera to make all the choices for you... But, in almost every image you take in RAW, you can make it better... If... your images can be made better, then why not...
Well there are two things to what your saying here....keep in mind this is just my :2cents: 1 - In my opinion it comes down to education, what I mean is that even if you could capture the perfect shot you'll need the background on good programs like photoshop to know how to adjust/enhance images. Photshop is a great software, a tad overwhelming if you don't know much about it but with proper re-search/education on it it's a great tool....but like I said it comes down to education. 2 - Knowing how to adjust/enhance image is just one part of it, knowing how to capture that perfect shot is another thing. So far I've taken two photography courses, I enjoyed them and the more I learn the more I see how complex photography actually is. It's a very neat experience though not to mention very addicting, I mean when you learn something new you just want to go out and put it to good use...once you peak there is always something to learn. I'm enjoying the photography 'hobby' and look forward to further enhancing my knowledge. Any who the reason why I'm sharing this is because stating to shoot in RAW is one thing but knowing what to do within the RAW perimeters is a whole different ball game. Me personally I'm no pro photographer, I hope to get there one day but I see know it will take some time to get familiar with all the terms and techniques when it come to photography. Again just my opinion.
Thanks for your two cents... If you studied and learned only one aspect of photography, it should be composition... a well composed image, will work, regardless the exposure/focus/technique... and a poorly composed image can never be helped enough, with any technique you try to use, still poorly composed... as a photographer, you should always realize that the viewer, is more important, than yourself... I can show an image to 10 different people, and get 10 different opinions, does that judge the image, good or bad, not really... just their opinions, based on their backgrounds, their mood at the time... composition controls how the viewer's eyes travel through your images, does your eye continue to travel within the image, seeking more detail... or does the composition lead your eyes out of the image... learning to "see" as the viewer will see your image... yes... learning to use RAW, takes a little more time. many cameras will save both files for you, this allows you to play/experiment/compare... the best thing about RAW, is you can open the file numerous times, and save many versions, as you learn... while always keeping the camera original... I use Photoshop daily, yet, also try to use it as little as possible, to make corrections, rather than try to enhance... as with all photographers, I would much rather be behind the camera, instead of in front of the computer... wink/smile...
I have to admit that when I first got Photoshop, it was so big it frightened me off for a while! I evetnually dibbled and dabbled a bit with weak results until I found an online free tutorial in segments which my limited memory could handle. I've been using PS for a few years regularly now and it still surprises me how much of it I dont really use! I would thoroughly recommend shooting in RAW if you have the time and doing a little experimentation. Your pride of work will be so much enhanced. It's having the time to do it.
I think the decision depends on what your needs are. Obviously raw gives the most options. If you can shoot JPG and get the results you like with any photo editing tool (for basic tweaking), shoot JPG. I can saw that some cameras like my D70s does not generate great JPGs without more customization. The raw output is better. The D90 does a better job (with tweaks) especially in white balance performance. If you do a lot of white balance, raw is best since you can change it easily. If you find yourself always doing a lot of post processing in PS then shoot raw. Some cameras can shoot both so you can have both (with some loss of number of shots that can be stored).
