I think there's valid reasons to shoot either JPG or RAW, and it sound like the OP has gotten the feedback that he/she was looking for. I'm not sure it's necessary to try and convince people who have clearly established a functional workflow for themselves that their workflow is not ideal - everyone shoots their own way and manages their files their own way. while I shoot RAW+JPG always, I appreciate what awinphoto is saying regarding shooting JPG-only for certain jobs, and it certainly looks like it works well for him/her.
Yes, you're right. Awinphoto is welcome to shoot how he wants and there is nothing wrong with that. But this is a forum discussion and I find some of his arguments to be inaccurate and/or based on very specific circumstances and assumptions that aren't generally applicable.
Meh... what part am I not correct... exposure, I shot how I want it exposed, WB I shoot how I want it WB... As I said, I trained back when I had to present 4x5 negatives, 4x5 transparancy's and 4x5 prints of everything I shot... I didn't have the luxury to photoshop everything... I had to get it right, in camera... That's what I aim for now. I do some raw shots in which I intend to tweek and upsell in terms of wall prints, but in a small print (11x14 and smaller) trust me, there is little to no difference... The juice isn't worth the squeeze... my large wall portraits, you betcha it's worth it. While my company isn't as big as Doug Gordon's or as lucrative as Sal Cincotta's or fluid as Sandy Puk's or Sue Bryces, but i'm an artist, I'm a photographer, and frankly, time I would sitting in front of the computer, I could be doing other things... I've done the whole raw weddings... hello... remember 5d3, 5d2 and 7d's... I've processed them, saved to firewire HD's, processed them, I know EXACTLY how long they take to process... do not think i'm exaggerating... Granted my imac is 2 year old, so it's practically a dinosaur in todays speeds, but screw it, I've got my business set up for efficiency and maybe I'll be as profitable and busy as some of these top pro's... enough said.
Agreed. PP is often a crutch for those who can't get it right in camera. It's like when the red camera came out and everyone flipped over being able to switch WB in post, reframe in post, change exposure in post, etc. and declared it the only usable cinema camera. Aren't those all the things it's your job to do correctly on set?
That said, if there's a sign post or something in your otherwise perfect landscape, it's easier to clone it out than reframe, same goes for blemishes, etc. So overall efficiency and quality rather than dogmatic adherence to one part of the process or the other makes the most sense. No reason to criticize anyone's work flow if they're getting good results efficiently.
Agreed for the most part... and dont get me wrong, a sign post, blemish, etc... that stuff I'll take care of... i'm not afraid of photoshop... All i was referring to was as meh suggested that a jpeg converted from a raw was better than a standard jpeg from OOC was that I thought that extra step wasn't necessary for my workflow and what my clients want. Packlight, I do spend a bit in PS editing images that I know will sell... if i see an image that I know will be a hit, and usually i'll switch to raw for that shot, but even if I missed that during shooting and only have a jpeg, I will PS the heck out of it if needed until i've got a salable image. If shot and exposed and balanced correctly and if the settings are similar to how you normally would set your raws, you can get a great base image to jump off on... So i will do what I need to take my photos to the next step, but for me and my workflow, it's just quicker going that route than taking extra steps in raw conversions and typically a client would never tell the difference if I did an OOC jpeg or raw conversion jpeg. I know this is a sensitive topic as it flys in the face of everything everyone has learned, and me, but just keeping it real as a working pro.