Quote Originally Posted by Ron Kruger
Thanks, CA. Good point, but I'm finding with the newer versions of software, exposure and white balance can be adjusted in JPEG format as well--maybe not with the same latitude or to such a high degree, but well enough to fit any of my mistakes. Whether to shoot RAW or not really is coming down to a cost/benefit ratio (cost being file size and processing time).
Which leads into another question I would like you and DRG to consider:
I'm experimenting with trial versions of Lightroom 2.2 and PSE 7. What I'm finding is I can do everything with PSE (plus a lot more) than I can with LR. It's just that LR's features are a lot more simple and automatic, sort of like the difference between point-and-shoot and DSLRs.
Even though I put most of my effort into getting the shot right at the beginning, I can almost always improve shots a bit in software with cropping and minor adjustments, the same way I usually improved B/W images in darkrooms years ago.
But I shy away from doing very much, because many of my markets ask photographers not to alter pix much in software. (My goals are much different than the guy trying to get the best image for prints, create special effects or post to the net.) I take a lot of shots of most scenes, then delete down to the best image or two to process. They all need to be cropped to standard sizes and within the maximum range of dpi that allows a file size small enough to email. Occasionally I come up with an image with perfect composition and focus, but not exposure. But 99 percent of the time, I do little more than crop and and sometimes click "auto contrast."
I'm coming to the conclusion that PSE 7 is the best choice for me, because it has a much larger image view, it's built for cropping and offers many more features and latitude for "fixing" photos, if the need arises.
I also believe that full versions of PS, at least for me, are overkill, and are more suited to design artists than regular, old photographers.
What do you you guys think? Or anyone else that wishes to chime in.
As far as software goes, if PSE works for you for most things, why not use it? I use PS. I've used PSE. The truth is I don't like either of them. (I've never used LR). PS lets me do what I need to do. That's why I use it. The only reason PS and PSE are so popular, in my opinion, is that PS was first to market. I find the interface inflexible and non-intuitive. You can do almost anything with it; it's powerful, but it feels so dang kludgy.

I used to use something that was intuitive and fast. It was a 'home' product with high quality professional features. I could do almost everything in it I can do in PS now, but it couldn't handle anything but JPEGS and I needed to go with a better format. I can't think of the name right now.

I still say that if your camera can shoot both RAW and JPEG simultaneously do it. I don't buy the argument about storage. You can get a 2GB class 6 SD card for $7 now if you shop around. That's 100 or so 12 megapixel images stored in both data formats. Compare that to film and processing for a single roll of 35mm. I just bought 200 recordable DVDs (Sony, not some off brand) for $30 on sale. That's a LOT of storage for a very small price.

At the very least shoot both. If at the end of the day you find your JPEGs are fine, then delete the RAWs if you don't want to mess with storage. It's true you can play with exposure in software with JPEG, but it's not even in the same league as doing it in RAW. Every time you add a bit in digital you're _doubling_ the dynamic range. So the 14 bit file doesn't have roughly twice the dynamic range of the 8 bit file. It's 2x2x2x2x2x2 (36 times) the dynamic range. So if you start having to make adjustments near pure black or pure white you'll find a lot more detail there. And if you don't need it you don't have to use it. I just have a feeling if you set that camera to shoot JPEG only one of these days there will be a very loud, "Dang!" coming from Kentucky.