# Photoshoots...JPEG or RAW ?



## ADAMJAY (Jul 2, 2015)

Lets just say for an engagement shoot, you're going to be shooting for about an hour and giving your client the pics on a CD (not trying to sell prints or anything like that) Would you shoot in RAW or JPEG ?

Me, personally, I would shoot in JPEG that way it wouldn't take me forever to edit them. I would use Express Digital Darkroom and just adjust them a little, and be done with it. BUT, I am also some what new and can't charge an arm and a leg in my area just because EVERYONE knows someone that does photography and will get the "hook up" from a friend that does it.

Am I doing this wrong? should I be shooting RAW? For me I use lightroom when I shoot RAW, that would take me hours upon hours to edit each picture like that.


----------



## TrolleySwag (Jul 2, 2015)

Tagged for later.


----------



## Vtec44 (Jul 2, 2015)

If that works for you then by all means shoot in JPEG.  There's nothing wrong with it as long as your clients like your work.


----------



## Buckster (Jul 2, 2015)

If you're doing a good job with your camera, then your editing shouldn't take long at all.

I don't do many free shoots, but I always shoot RAW, no matter what.  I want the capability later, just in case I need it.

If you can't decide, then just shoot RAW + JPG, then choose and use whatever works best for you later.


----------



## BrickHouse (Jul 2, 2015)

I would shoot RAW, edit the first photo of each new 'scene' and then sync to the others.


----------



## ADAMJAY (Jul 2, 2015)

BrickHouse said:


> I would shoot RAW, edit the first photo of each new 'scene' and then sync to the others.


Not sure how to do that, but that might be a great idea. Thanks!



Vtec44 said:


> If that works for you then by all means shoot in JPEG.  There's nothing wrong with it as long as your clients like your work.


Everyone has been happy with them, at least they say so lol
But I know, if I were to shoot in RAW and spend more time then they would be better. For me though it seems like it would take much much longer. Or at least the way I go about it, it would.


----------



## Dao (Jul 2, 2015)

For Canon (not too sure about others brand), I will shoot RAW.  If you like the effect or settings from the camera pre-programmed styles, you can upload the files to the computer and have the Canon software do a batch export.  That will use whatever settings you set for the photos and save them in JPEG.   However, if one of the photo you like to do more with post processing, you will have a better file to start from.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 2, 2015)

omg, raw.


----------



## dennybeall (Jul 3, 2015)

I shoot in raw quite a bit so if I forget to change over to jpg I sometimes need a quick fix. I put memory card in the laptop, bring up the nef files in Bridge, select them all and go to Tools - Photoshop - Image Processor.
When PS comes up you can select the size and quality of the jpg's and their location and push the button. All done.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 3, 2015)

It's a matter of knowing what will work which I think takes learning and experience.

Are you doing this wrong? I don't that there's necessarily a right or wrong but there is best practice.

Providing photos on a CD only isn't necessarily the best option. Underpricing isn't a good option. Doing what seems the most quick and easy doesn't sound like the way to develop this into a good business. If it takes hours to edit then your skill level seems to need improvement.

I think it seems necessary to be good enough to be competitive and develop good marketing and business skills. Look at American Society of Media Photographers or PPA to find info. for pro photographers.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 3, 2015)

Shoot RAW + JPEG, Fine compression, large or medium sized. Best of both words.


----------



## TCampbell (Jul 3, 2015)

I shoot RAW.  Jarod Polin (Fro Know Photo) shoots RAW.  ;-)

RAW collects more data and doesn't flatten or normalize similar hues or tones which results in a loss of data -- harming adjustment latitude.  You can do so much more with RAW.

I was a bit surprised when you commented that it would take "hours upon hours" to process each image if you shoot RAW.  This made me wonder what you could possibly be doing that would take so long.   I can edit RAW images FASTER than JPEG.   RAW is easier to adjust.   Tools such as Lightroom really streamline the process even faster because you can sync global adjustments to an entire shoot (everything shot in the same lighting) at once.


----------



## ADAMJAY (Jul 3, 2015)

TCampbell said:


> I shoot RAW.  Jarod Polin (Fro Know Photo) shoots RAW.  ;-)
> 
> RAW collects more data and doesn't flatten or normalize similar hues or tones which results in a loss of data -- harming adjustment latitude.  You can do so much more with RAW.
> 
> I was a bit surprised when you commented that it would take "hours upon hours" to process each image if you shoot RAW.  This made me wonder what you could possibly be doing that would take so long.   I can edit RAW images FASTER than JPEG.   RAW is easier to adjust.   Tools such as Lightroom really streamline the process even faster because you can sync global adjustments to an entire shoot (everything shot in the same lighting) at once.



Ok, I exaggerated on the "hours upon hours" lol
I need to get off this forum and learn how to sync the adjustments!


----------



## Tailgunner (Jul 6, 2015)

Jpeg = the Camera telling you what "it" thinks you want. 

RAW is "you" telling the camera what you actually want in post.

Jpeg is compressed, meaning it ejects what it doesn't need and that info is gone forever. You can only edit a Jpeg so far before it becomes distorted. RAW is uncompressed and stores more information...sometimes more than you knew. If you don't nail the image right in Jpeg, too bad, you have to live with it. RAW gives you plenty of room to maneuver later in post incase you didn't nail the image. 

Anyhow, I used to shoot exclusively in Jpeg because I was new and didn't really understand editing RAW files. Today I only shoot in RAW and it has saved me many many times over. Not only does it save me, it's ability to capture information I'm not expecting is a huge bonus!


----------



## GWWhite (Jul 7, 2015)

I am with everyone else for the most part. Generally I shoot RAW. BUT, I won't waste much time on tight wads. If they want it cheap, they get it cheap! For those I would shoot RAW, do a batch conversion to jpg and you get what you get. No PP work, no fancy-schmancy, be thankful they even got photos. Any processing they pay for. Your time, equipment and knowledge has value. If they don't pay for it, they don't get it. But that is just my feelings on the subject. Others may not agree with me.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 7, 2015)

@GWWhite I dont believe anyone will agree with you, unless thier goal is to stop having clients.


----------



## GWWhite (Jul 7, 2015)

Then they just won't make a living at it will they? By doing what they are doing they will lose all their "clients" the minute they raise their rates to a fair level. The reason is their "clients" don't value the quality of their work. All they care about is how much they can get for as little money as possible.

Think of it like this. If they charge $600 for a cd/dvd and spend two hours shooting, then however many hours they spend in PP, all of that gets rolled up in the labor cost. How little is a "professional" willing to take for their professionalism, equipment and training?

I would HIGHLY recommend they talk to the PPA because that is not a good business plan. Once they give the client the world for peanuts the client will continue to expect that...


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 7, 2015)

GWWhite said:


> I am with everyone else for the most part. Generally I shoot RAW. BUT, I won't waste much time on tight wads. If they want it cheap, they get it cheap! For those I would shoot RAW, do a batch conversion to jpg and you get what you get. No PP work, no fancy-schmancy, be thankful they even got photos. Any processing they pay for. Your time, equipment and knowledge has value. If they don't pay for it, they don't get it. But that is just my feelings on the subject. Others may not agree with me.




If I agree to do a shoot for a client, regardless of how much I agreed to work for, they get as good a product as I can produce. I do _*not *_base the quality of my work or effort on how much someone is paying me. 
If someone is not willing to pay me what I consider a fair amount for my work, I simply turn down the job. 
Every picture I hand over to a client is representative of my body of work, and once bad work is out there, it often rears its ugly head when least expected. What would I tell a potential client who sees work of mine that was lower quality  because I did a job cheap for someone? "Oh, don't pay any attention to those mediocre photos I gave  your friend...they were cheap so I didn't do my best for them"? Not a conversation I want to have. Ever.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 7, 2015)

GWWhite said:


> Then they just won't make a living at it will they?


They are photographers aren't they? 

This suggests there aren't photographers out there making decent money on shoots.
This also suggest the only way you can make money as a photographer is to hire people that are unwilling to pay you your worth, give them sub-par work, and shoot as many as these types of clients as possible.

youre like the mcdonalds $1 menu of photoghrapy, but only giving the consumer .50 cents worth of food. 



> By doing what they are doing they will lose all their "clients" the minute they raise their rates to a fair level.


They will lose only the clients that were already unable to pay them their worth. They should not be in this market in the first place.  Why would anyone choose to hire you for sub-par "not-worth-my-time" pictures when they could hire the soccer mom down the street, for less money, and get a better end result?

That would be like Louis Vuitton going out of business because Wal-Mart sells $1 beach totes.



> The reason is their "clients" don't value the quality of their work. All they care about is how much they can get for as little money as possible.



The OP never suggested this was the case.  Even so, then this is a client that the photographer should not accept.  A good photographer can justify a higher cost.  They can explain to the client, the reason I cost $500 and the soccer mom down the street charges $200 is because I spend 2 hours after the shoot to post-process the images and do xyz, and I've been shooting 15 years, and yadda yadda yadda.  If they are unwilling to pay you, then so be it. 

But to have clients out there with sub-par work ensures you will not get hired again from any word-of-mouth clients from this session.




> Think of it like this. If they charge $600 for a cd/dvd and spend two hours shooting, then however many hours they spend in PP, all of that gets rolled up in the labor cost. How little is a "professional" willing to take for their professionalism, equipment and training?



This is why making a living in photography is something that should be thought twice about.



> Once they give the client the world for peanuts the client will continue to expect that...



Exactly.  Lazy work gets you shitty clients that will want to pay you even less after viewing your "auto-mode" work.


----------



## Claudillama (Jul 7, 2015)

Raw !!


----------



## Tailgunner (Jul 7, 2015)

GWWhite said:


> I am with everyone else for the most part. Generally I shoot RAW. BUT, I won't waste much time on tight wads. If they want it cheap, they get it cheap! For those I would shoot RAW, do a batch conversion to jpg and you get what you get. No PP work, no fancy-schmancy, be thankful they even got photos. Any processing they pay for. Your time, equipment and knowledge has value. If they don't pay for it, they don't get it. But that is just my feelings on the subject. Others may not agree with me.



I don't care if the photos are free, I put the same quality work into them as I would a high paying job. The last thing I want is to do is give someone a half assed photo(s). The thought of a half assed photo of mine being displayed by one of my customers is terrifying to me.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 7, 2015)

Which is why I stopped buying vehicles from GM, Ford & Chevy years ago.  They were all about pushing product out the door not about quality and it showed in their vehicles.  Now they are trying to play catch-up.


----------



## Tailgunner (Jul 7, 2015)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Which is why I stopped buying vehicles from GM, Ford & Chevy years ago.  They were all about pushing product out the door not about quality and it showed in their vehicles.  Now they are trying to play catch-up.



GM is Chevy. Anyhow, Ford caught up along time ago and in some cases surpassed other vehicles in certain classes by imports. And they did it without a buy out. I'm on my 4th Ford and no complaints. 

Keep in mind, the Big 3 owns a lot of imports or at least they used to before selling them during the last bailout. Ford used to own Jaguar for example...why do you think Jaguar is worth a flip? They was junk before Ford stepped in and turned them around. Ford sold off a lot of their imports like Vovlvo, Jaguar, and Land Rover but they still own some of Aston Martin, Mazda, and most of a Chinese manufacture. GM and Chrysler are the same...Mercedes used to own Dodge, the SLS Mercedes is built on the then new Dodge Viper chassis. Heck, the 300M used the same transmission as the E Class Mercedes for years. Chrysler used to own Lamborghini....Ford was within an inch of buying Ferrari until they told Enzo he wouldn't be allowed to continue racing Ferrari's. GM used to own Hummer (both mommy buses and Military versions). 

Imports are a gift of the Big 3. They both use the same parts suppliers. Imports simply don't have the buying power needed to keep parts suppliers in business like the Big 3. If everyone stopped buying domestic vehicles tomorrow, those parts suppliers would go bankrupt and imports would be out of parts.


----------



## raventepes (Jul 8, 2015)

I always shoot RAW. Too much gets lost in JPEG. 

If you're spending hours upon hours editing, then you need to get a bit quicker with edits. Also, just because you're shooting for an hour, doesn't mean your clients should be keeping all of them. Let them choose a specified amount of pictures for you to process, and let them choose which ones they want.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 8, 2015)

Tailgunner said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Which is why I stopped buying vehicles from GM, Ford & Chevy years ago.  They were all about pushing product out the door not about quality and it showed in their vehicles.  Now they are trying to play catch-up.
> ...


Sorry, but if do some research into average repair history for the various makes of vehicles over the last 30 years you will see that all three of the Big American manufactures consistently scored lower than many of the forgien models excluding of course the French and British vehicles.  The French can't build vehicle any better than they can fight a war and most of the British vehicles were know for their various foibles that needed constant attention.


----------



## Tailgunner (Jul 11, 2015)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Tailgunner said:
> 
> 
> > gryphonslair99 said:
> ...



Sorry but imports do break and when they do, they make up for it in cost. So whats up with imports are great with the exception of? LOL Cherry picking the list uh? I guess you're okay with Toyota and Honda and their airbag issue that they turned a blind eye to even after it killed a few people? I probably would have exempted them instead of British cars, ya, Range Rover sucks but breaking down on the side of the road is better than having your stirring wheel blow up in your face. Heck, Toyota has dropped in rating due to poor crash test but thats another story. 

Anyhow, I buy vehicles based on todays records, not records dating back to my diaper years.


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl (Jul 11, 2015)

RAW, raw, raw.
Always Raw. Even vegetables....RAW.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 11, 2015)

Tailgunner said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Tailgunner said:
> ...


You mean the Takata air bag issue?  The one that effects the following vehicles and manufacturers?
*AFFECTED VEHICLES (total U.S.-market number in parentheses, if known):*

*Acura: *2002–2003 TL; 2002 CL; 2003–2006 MDX; 2005 Acura RL

*BMW (approximately 765,000):* 2000–2005 3-series sedan and wagon; 2000–2006 3-series coupe and convertible; 2001–2006 M3 coupe and convertible

*Chevrolet (330,198, including GMC):* 2007–2008 Chevrolet Silverado HD

*Chrysler (approximately 4.75 million, including Dodge): *2004–2010 Chrysler 300; 2007–2008 Aspen


*Daimler (40,061):* 2006–2008 Dodge Sprinter 2500 and 3500; 2007–2008 Freightliner Sprinter 2500 and 3500

*Dodge/Ram (approximately 4.75 million, including Chrysler, not including Daimler-built Sprinter):* 2003–2008 Dodge Ram 1500; 2004–2010 Charger; 2004–2011 Dakota; 2004–2008 Durango; 2004–2009 Ram 2500 and 3500; 2004–2010 Ram 4500; 2005–2010 Dodge Magnum; 2008–2010 Ram 5500


*Ford (1,380,604):* 2004–2006 Ranger; 2005–2006 GT; 2005–2014 Mustang


*GMC (330,198, including Chevrolet):* 2007–2008 GMC Sierra HD

*Honda (approximately 6.28 million, including Acura):* 2001–2007 Accord (four-cylinder); 2001–2002 Accord (V-6); 2001–2005 Civic; 2002–2006 CR-V; 2002–2004 Odyssey; 2003–2011 Element; 2003–2008 Pilot; 2006 Ridgeline

*Infiniti: *2001–2004 Infiniti I30/I35; 2002–2003 Infiniti QX4; 2003–2005 Infiniti FX35/FX45; 2006 Infiniti M35/M45

*Lexus: *2002–2007 SC430

*Mazda (444,907):* 2003–2008 Mazda 6; 2006–2007 Mazdaspeed 6; 2004–2008 Mazda RX-8; 2004–2005 MPV; 2004–2006 B-series

*Mitsubishi (104,994):* 2004–2006 Lancer; 2006–2010 Raider

*Nissan (approximately 1,091,000, including Infiniti):* 2001–2003 Maxima; 2001–2004 Pathfinder; 2002–2006 Nissan Sentra

*Pontiac (approximately 300,000): *2003–2007 Vibe

*Saab:* 2005 9-2X

*Subaru (approximately 80,000):* 2003–2005 Baja, Legacy, Outback; 2004–2005 Impreza, Impreza WRX, Impreza WRX STI

*Toyota (approximately 2,915,000, including Lexus):* 2002–2007 Toyota Corolla and Sequoia; 2003–2007 Matrix; 2003–2006 Tundra; 2004–2005 RAV4

Yes, Honda, Toyota, Ford, Chevy, BMW, Jaguar etc.  All will need repairs.  However the frequency and types of repairs vary from manufacture to manufacture.  While the big three American car companies have improved their product, those improvements have not been new enough to provide a long term track record.


----------



## TCampbell (Jul 11, 2015)

<< - Is wondering when this thread will get locked for going completely off the rails.


----------



## Bryston3bsst (Jul 13, 2015)

TCampbell said:


> << - Is wondering when this thread will get locked for going completely off the rails.



I knew what was going to happen as soon as someone mentioned cars.

At the same time I don't think it's right to try to control the course of a conversation because it happens to move into another topic. Is this something you do when you are talking to people in person?

So the conversation varies a bit......if the original topic is strong enough it will come back. There shouldn't be someone lording over every thread making sure it goes as planned.

_"Oh.....we can't talk about that......because that wasn't what we originally started talking about in the first place. Stick to the original topic."_

Let the conversation go where it goes. Sometimes interesting things happen this way. Not every conversation has 'rails'.


----------



## iolair (Jul 13, 2015)

I shoot RAW + JPEG. But virtually never touch the JPEG's ... only if I need a backup (they go onto a separate card) or want to share something before I have a chance to get back to my computer.

Editing needn't take that long (yes, you can spend hours on it, but you can also just do some quick fixes) as long as you have decent software and personal workflow. I'm using Aftershot, and have toyed with RawTherapee before - so it doesn't have to be Lightroom.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 13, 2015)

TCampbell said:


> << - Is wondering when this thread will get locked for going completely off the rails.


Is this better???


----------



## DGMPhotography (Jul 13, 2015)

This thread pops up about every other week I've noticed. I would "search" the forums for similar threads and read through those first. 

I would say to always shoot RAW. As long as you've got a memory card that can support it, it doesn't hurt to take RAWs.  It gives you more capability to work with later. And if you're worried about it taking long... that's just laziness. Photography in my opinion is an art form, and art takes time and patience.


----------



## GWWhite (Jul 15, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> GWWhite said:
> 
> 
> > I am with everyone else for the most part. Generally I shoot RAW. BUT, I won't waste much time on tight wads. If they want it cheap, they get it cheap! For those I would shoot RAW, do a batch conversion to jpg and you get what you get. No PP work, no fancy-schmancy, be thankful they even got photos. Any processing they pay for. Your time, equipment and knowledge has value. If they don't pay for it, they don't get it. But that is just my feelings on the subject. Others may not agree with me.
> ...



That's actually my point. The original poster said "BUT, I am also some what new and can't charge an arm and a leg in my area just because EVERYONE knows someone that does photography and will get the "hook up" from a friend that does it.". Clearly if that is how the market is in that area it is because it was made that way by people who under sell the quality of the work they produce. Is it worth losing a client if they don't value your work? Absolutely. And the business model as described WILL result in failure due to the fact that the "market" in their area doesn't value their work thanks to non-professionals who work for cheap. Folks, let the people who do it for cheap or free have the clients that don't value your work. Go after the clients who respect and value good work. If you can't afford from a business stand-point to give them what they pay for, then as Pixmedic said, don't take the job... They just aren't worth it and you can't run a business that way.


----------



## AceCo55 (Jul 15, 2015)

Nevermind ... RAW, in the OP's situation, is the best choice.
(Not to say RAW is always the best choice in every situation.)


----------



## Braineack (Jul 15, 2015)

I local couple asked me to shoot their marriage at the Celebrant's Office. 

It will be a 30min commitment and I'll have to waste a lunch break doing it.

I'm not getting paid, and since they want cheap, I'm just going to use my Iphone and I'll just txt them the photos when I'm done (downsized of course).


----------



## AceCo55 (Jul 15, 2015)

Braineack said:


> I local couple asked me to shoot their marriage at the Celebrant's Office.
> 
> It will be a 30min commitment and I'll have to waste a lunch break doing it.
> 
> I'm not getting paid, and since they want cheap, I'm just going to use my Iphone and I'll just txt them the photos when I'm done (downsized of course).



Will you be needing a second shooter?


----------



## table1349 (Jul 15, 2015)

Braineack said:


> I local couple asked me to shoot their marriage at the Celebrant's Office.
> 
> It will be a 30min commitment and I'll have to waste a lunch break doing it.
> 
> I'm not getting paid, and since they want cheap, I'm just going to use my Iphone and I'll just txt them the photos when I'm done (downsized of course).


Make sure to have your apple watch with you.  You can use it as a remote for your phone thus staying out of the way.  Perhaps putting your phone in the Magistraits breast pocket to photograph the bride and groom.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 15, 2015)

you know what, maybe ill just pull a public records request and get security footage of the event and send them screen grabs.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 15, 2015)

Braineack said:


> you know what, maybe ill just pull a public records request and get security footage of the event and send them screen grabs.


Is the security footage in Raw, JPEG or some other format.   Sounds like a lot of post processing work if you us the security footage.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 15, 2015)

I can just take pictures with my camera in jpg (low) of the screen.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Jul 15, 2015)

AceCo55 said:


> Nevermind ... RAW, in the OP's situation, is the best choice.
> (Not to say RAW is always the best choice in every situation.)



It says you quoted me... but I don't see what it is you quoted!


----------



## AceCo55 (Jul 16, 2015)

DGMPhotography said:


> AceCo55 said:
> 
> 
> > Nevermind ... RAW, in the OP's situation, is the best choice.
> ...



Sorry - I edited out my original reply after thinking what I had said was not relevant in THIS thread.

What I was saying was that not all photographs are "art" - which is the point you had made. The example I was going to illustrate was sports photography with deadlines. So one might have 800 - 1000 keepers which need to be processed and uploaded the next day - or submissions that day.
In THIS situation, it makes more sense to shoot in JPEG ... which is what a lot of sports photographers do (me included).

However, I then went back to the OP's original message and in their situation RAW made a lot more sense. So what I was going to say, was not really relevant in this thread.

I was just going to point out that, in some situations, it makes more sense to shoot JPEG rather than RAW. I shoot JPEG for my sports but RAW for my personal stuff.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 16, 2015)

AceCo55 said:


> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > AceCo55 said:
> ...



Oh great.  Fights have started around here over lesser concepts.  Usually revolving around what is or is not art.  This may get good now..........


----------



## jake337 (Jul 16, 2015)

Tailgunner said:


> Jpeg = the Camera telling you what "it" thinks you want.
> 
> RAW is "you" telling the camera what you actually want in post.



I'll have to disagree.   Although I too shoot in RAW I must say that the camera never tells you what it wants.   The user is always in control.   Well maybe not with every cameras body out there but most modern camera have the option for customized picture settings via the software that came with it as well as some control in-camera.

Again, I'll always agree that RAW is the best choice but to say shooting in jpeg gives away all control is completely false.


----------



## AceCo55 (Jul 17, 2015)

gryphonslair99 said:


> AceCo55 said:
> 
> 
> > DGMPhotography said:
> ...



"Keep Calm and Carry On" ... nothing to see here!


----------



## DGMPhotography (Jul 17, 2015)

gryphonslair99 said:


> AceCo55 said:
> 
> 
> > DGMPhotography said:
> ...



Nonsense, I see no fight here. 

I think you make a perfectly valid point, Ace. I'm sure not all photographs would be considered art. That would depend on the photographer, and the eye of the beholder.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 17, 2015)

Ah to be young again seeing the world with rose colored glasses.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





For fun use the search function regarding "is it art" .  That topic around here is third only to the subjects of religion and politics for its volitility.


----------



## cbarnard7 (Jul 19, 2015)

Poor OP- looks like (again) ego and weird comments derailed your original question. I would suggest you shoot in RAW and become more confident in your editing abilities. Eventually, you'll be able to batch/sync things to speed editing up a lot. Check youtube for tutorials. There's no reason (in my opinion) to shoot RAW+Jpeg...you'll either be editing a lot or not. Good luck!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G850A using Tapatalk


----------



## manicmike (Aug 6, 2015)

TCampbell said:


> I was a bit surprised when you commented that it would take "hours upon hours" to process each image if you shoot RAW.  This made me wonder what you could possibly be doing that would take so long.   I can edit RAW images FASTER than JPEG.   RAW is easier to adjust.   Tools such as Lightroom really streamline the process even faster because you can sync global adjustments to an entire shoot (everything shot in the same lighting) at once.



This is what I was going to say. Basic edits are much quicker, especially when you need to adjust things like white balance.  IMO.


----------

