Shoot JPEG again with 5D3

[pwp]

[Why don't we at least try to learn how to use the camera as an effective RAW processor, simply because it is?

Raw is very fast if you learn to use the tools.  I use jpeg where appropriate, and have nothing against it, but I also know how to process 3000 raw images from a days shoot in a couple of hours or less in raw.

Every technique is 100% valid if it works for you. 2012 cameras & software have handed us a lot of choices. Good! But use the camera as a RAW processor? OK, but what's the point?

99% of the commissioned work that come through my business requires premium output, and stuff-ups could mean a lost or irritated client. So RAW works best here. And JPEG works best for others. All good.

And I'm with Dr Mt Spokane, RAW processing gets very fast with evolved technique and a brisk approach. Last year I did a job shooting an indoor swim meet. The light was a mixture of mercury vapor, fluro and daylight. I usually shoot mRAW at this venue on the Mk4 but the camera was inexplicably set to JPEG for half the meet. I wondered why my buffer was so deep! It actually took longer in post to fix those JPEG's than it would have to process the mRAW files.

Everyone's got their own RAW vs JPEG story. It's whatever floats your boat.

PW

[Tcapp]

[Why don't we at least try to learn how to use the camera as an effective RAW processor, simply because it is?

Raw is very fast if you learn to use the tools.  I use jpeg where appropriate, and have nothing against it, but I also know how to process 3000 raw images from a days shoot in a couple of hours or less in raw.

Every technique is 100% valid if it works for you. 2012 cameras & software have handed us a lot of choices. Good! But use the camera as a RAW processor? OK, but what's the point?

99% of the commissioned work that come through my business requires premium output, and stuff-ups could mean a lost or irritated client. So RAW works best here. And JPEG works best for others. All good.

And I'm with Dr Mt Spokane, RAW processing gets very fast with evolved technique and a brisk approach. Last year I did a job shooting an indoor swim meet. The light was a mixture of mercury vapor, fluro and daylight. I usually shoot mRAW at this venue on the Mk4 but the camera was inexplicably set to JPEG for half the meet. I wondered why my buffer was so deep! It actually took longer in post to fix those JPEG's than it would have to process the mRAW files.

Everyone's got their own RAW vs JPEG story. It's whatever floats your boat.

PW

My boat floats on water. 

[bycostello]

if you can get it right in camera then you don't need raw

[pwp]

if you can get it right in camera then you don't need raw

Absolutely correct. And if you can't always get it right in camera you need RAW. My hit rate is not 100%, so....

PW

[briansquibb]

if you can get it right in camera then you don't need raw

Absolutely correct. And if you can't always get it right in camera you need RAW. My hit rate is not 100%, so....

PW

Also artistic effects are really hard with jpeg because as soon as manipulation starts then the IQ drops

[jaayres20]

if you can get it right in camera then you don't need raw

Absolutely correct. And if you can't always get it right in camera you need RAW. My hit rate is not 100%, so....

PW

My hit rate isn't 100% and I still shoot JPEG.  As long as the WB is very close and the exposure is pretty close then there isn't ever a problem for me. 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

if you can get it right in camera then you don't need raw

Absolutely correct. And if you can't always get it right in camera you need RAW. My hit rate is not 100%, so....

PW

My hit rate isn't 100% and I still shoot JPEG.  As long as the WB is very close and the exposure is pretty close then there isn't ever a problem for me.

Thats why we have both.  If it works for you, then you will be happy, at least until a couple newer technology processors come out and your images start to look poorer.
 
 
For archival material, images you want to keep forever, consider RAW.  The reason I suggest this is that RAW converters continually improve, and you can always reprocess a raw image and get better results with a newer raw converter.  JPEG results are locked in.  I have some images taken at ISO 3200 when I first got my 5D MK II in 2007 and LR2, and they were noisey.  Reprocessing them with LR 3 and now 4 makes them sharper, and less noisey.  My older JPEGS stay the same, and tend to look awful compared to the reprocessed raws.
 
I do use jpegs for images with a short life span, ones I will throw away, but for family photos, ones I want to be available forever, I shoot raw and process a jpeg for current use knowing it can always be reprocessed when a better raw processor arrives.