RAW

Dude, loading MF film is like asking someone with a first generation Sony Mavica to cover the Super Bowl.

Too hard! It took me a roll to figure that one out, but actually I enjoyed playing around with the Mamiya 7 rangefinder around D.C.

How many years later I can now scan the stuff?

 

Another thing to consider strongly when deciding if you should use raw or not is your own needs and desires.

While the benefits of raw as stated above are all accurate and true, some people just don't really need it, based on what they are looking to get from their photography. Raw can really make the difference in eeking out the small imperfections and making fine-tune adjustments to a photograph before printing it large, such as a 24" or larger print. But a lot of people who only intend to make small prints, 8x10 or less, or those who really have no desire to post-process, can do just fine in jpeg.

Most of the comparisons that conclude the differences between jpeg and raw are small are correct, at least when comparing what comes directly out of the camera. Raw includes more processibility to change or alter various aspects of the shot versus jpeg, no question. But in many cases, none but the obsessed and expert will truly notice that much if any of a difference. We are enthusiasts here, so we are nitpicking over pretty small differences. The average consumer wouldn't notice most of the time.

So you just have to decide what you want, how committed you are to post processing and trying to alter your shots, and whether your displays or prints will be improved significantly enough to outweigh the huge increase in harddrive space and the extra work for raw.

A Bentley Continental GT can carry 2 people comfortably and their luggage at nearly 200MPH. An Infiniti G35 can carry the same folks and their luggage, but only up to 135MPH. But if you only intend to drive 70MPH, and never exceed that speed...are you ever really getting the benefits of the extra 60+MPH top speed on the Bentley? Jpeg and raw is a similar argument. Raw is the Bentley...it's better, no question. But the Infiniti (jpeg) still performs well within your needs. So it now comes down to the finer differences within your needs - the Bentley will accelerate faster...but the Infiniti is still decently fast. The Bentley sucks up alot more gas and costs a ton more...the Infiniti is a little more downmarket on materials and build quality, but still decent enough to be considered luxury to most people.

I'm personally happy with JPEG, at least for now. Though I enjoy post-processing, I also enjoy the challenge of trying to get things right when I shoot rather than fixing my mistakes afterwards...and jpeg forces me to be more right from the outset since I can't fix as much after the fact. And I don't need any reason to take up even more harddrive space than I already do with jpegs...I've already got 140GB of photos and growing fast! Also, my prints rarely exceed 24" on the longest side - and jpegs have been fine for those so far (assuming they were well-taken photos to begin with!). And I've managed a surprising amount of recovery from jpegs as it is (dig back and find my Norway girl post to see how much shadow recovery can be restored on a jpeg). So for me, for now, jpeg works fine.

Someday, my demands may go up, and I may decide that shooting raw is worth it. But I've been getting by fine with jpeg, and it has met and fulfilled my needs to date. I'll never say never, but more people need to decide if they really need the bestest, fastest, most top of the line of a particular thing, especially if they're never going to use more than 50% of its ability. If you are an enthusiast who does intend to wring the most out of every shot, post process for hours, and print big...then raw more than makes sense!