So I've gotten a lot of "you should take pictures of us" comments about our pics and I'm considering it. But where do I start? An ad on Craigslist? Do I charge? Anybody done anything like this and have some advice for an amateur photographer and his sexy assistant/model?
If youre are just starting and dont have professional equipment, you probably cant charge. If I was you I would start with TFP/TFCD (Trade For Pics/ Trade for CD). This way you can build up a portfolio and later charge. One place to find alot of models and put up a photographer profile is modelmayhem or onemodelplace. There is also a ton of sexy people on this site.
Good luck
Good luck
I agree with Kitty, as a person that works with professional photographers it is one of my biggest pet peeves when people who have point and shoots that dont even shoot in raw charge for photos.
But that doesn't mean that the camera makes the photographer its practice practice practice. work on it and build a portfolio.
Good luck. If you ever need any editing done I am fairly cheap.
But that doesn't mean that the camera makes the photographer its practice practice practice. work on it and build a portfolio.
Good luck. If you ever need any editing done I am fairly cheap.
I have a friend that does quite a bit of photography, and over the years, I've shared in his growing pains... the biggest thing he had problems with was learning what should be included in the fine print on his model release form. also, if he's photographing someone nude, he's had to learn the hard way to have someone else in the room as well to protect against any false and malicious accusations.
ALINEEDISU wrote:
I agree with Kitty, as a person that works with professional photographers it is one of my biggest pet peeves when people who have point and shoots that dont even shoot in raw charge for photos. But that doesn't mean that the camera makes the photographer its practice practice practice. work on it and build a portfolio. Good luck. If you ever need any editing done I am fairly cheap.
JPG vs Raw
If you have to ask then just shoot JPG.
This is pretty simple and I'll get into way too much detail later.
If you shoot hundreds or thousands of images in a day shoot JPG and don't worry. The quality is the same for almost all intents and purposes as raw, and the raw files would take gigabytes or tens of gigabytes and resultant hours to download, convert, catalog and burn to backup CDs. In fact, if you shoot this much then JPG can give better quality since attempting to shoot this much raw will constipate your workflow and you could miss making some images entirely as your cards fill up. You'd always be running out of memory cards or time waiting for the access light to stop blinking.
If you love to tweak your images one-by one and shoot less than about a hundred shots at a time than raw could be for you. In fact, if you prefer the look you can get from raw (it may be different from JPG in some cases depending on software) you can let your computer batch process images and save the results as JPGs, too. I almost never shoot anything in raw, and when I do I never see any difference for all the effort I wasted anyway. (I can see differences if I blow things up to 100% or bigger on my computer, but not in prints.)
UTAHPLEASURES wrote:ALINEEDISU wrote:
I agree with Kitty, as a person that works with professional photographers it is one of my biggest pet peeves when people who have point and shoots that dont even shoot in raw charge for photos. But that doesn't mean that the camera makes the photographer its practice practice practice. work on it and build a portfolio. Good luck. If you ever need any editing done I am fairly cheap.
JPG vs Raw
If you have to ask then just shoot JPG.
This is pretty simple and I'll get into way too much detail later.
If you shoot hundreds or thousands of images in a day shoot JPG and don't worry. The quality is the same for almost all intents and purposes as raw, and the raw files would take gigabytes or tens of gigabytes and resultant hours to download, convert, catalog and burn to backup CDs. In fact, if you shoot this much then JPG can give better quality since attempting to shoot this much raw will constipate your workflow and you could miss making some images entirely as your cards fill up. You'd always be running out of memory cards or time waiting for the access light to stop blinking.
If you love to tweak your images one-by one and shoot less than about a hundred shots at a time than raw could be for you. In fact, if you prefer the look you can get from raw (it may be different from JPG in some cases depending on software) you can let your computer batch process images and save the results as JPGs, too. I almost never shoot anything in raw, and when I do I never see any difference for all the effort I wasted anyway. (I can see differences if I blow things up to 100% or bigger on my computer, but not in prints.)
Well-said!
UTAHPLEASURES wrote:
JPG vs Raw
If you have to ask then just shoot JPG.
This is pretty simple and I'll get into way too much detail later.
If you shoot hundreds or thousands of images in a day shoot JPG and don't worry. The quality is the same for almost all intents and purposes as raw, and the raw files would take gigabytes or tens of gigabytes and resultant hours to download, convert, catalog and burn to backup CDs. In fact, if you shoot this much then JPG can give better quality since attempting to shoot this much raw will constipate your workflow and you could miss making some images entirely as your cards fill up. You'd always be running out of memory cards or time waiting for the access light to stop blinking.
If you love to tweak your images one-by one and shoot less than about a hundred shots at a time than raw could be for you. In fact, if you prefer the look you can get from raw (it may be different from JPG in some cases depending on software) you can let your computer batch process images and save the results as JPGs, too. I almost never shoot anything in raw, and when I do I never see any difference for all the effort I wasted anyway. (I can see differences if I blow things up to 100% or bigger on my computer, but not in prints.)
No Pros shoot JPG. If you have to ask, you don't deserve to call yourself a photographer. RAW allows for after camera changes like white balance. JPG is for amateurs. The professional recognizes that he is taking photos for someone else, the customer. Anything he/she can do to assure the photos come out successful, he/she should do. RAW allows for that.
MAVENX wrote:
No Pros shoot JPG. If you have to ask, you don't deserve to call yourself a photographer. RAW allows for after camera changes like white balance. JPG is for amateurs. The professional recognizes that he is taking photos for someone else, the customer. Anything he/she can do to assure the photos come out successful, he/she should do. RAW allows for that.
I believe you take great liberties with your generalization over such a trite detail of the art...and perhaps speak for others without accuracy.
While I respect and honor your opinion...it is simply that...an opinion.
I know of many photogs that shoot in BOTH formats, myself included, that tailor and balance the overall application of the technology with the desired outcome of the client.
Peace...
~J
MAVENX wrote:UTAHPLEASURES wrote:
JPG vs Raw
If you have to ask then just shoot JPG.
This is pretty simple and I'll get into way too much detail later.
If you shoot hundreds or thousands of images in a day shoot JPG and don't worry. The quality is the same for almost all intents and purposes as raw, and the raw files would take gigabytes or tens of gigabytes and resultant hours to download, convert, catalog and burn to backup CDs. In fact, if you shoot this much then JPG can give better quality since attempting to shoot this much raw will constipate your workflow and you could miss making some images entirely as your cards fill up. You'd always be running out of memory cards or time waiting for the access light to stop blinking.
If you love to tweak your images one-by one and shoot less than about a hundred shots at a time than raw could be for you. In fact, if you prefer the look you can get from raw (it may be different from JPG in some cases depending on software) you can let your computer batch process images and save the results as JPGs, too. I almost never shoot anything in raw, and when I do I never see any difference for all the effort I wasted anyway. (I can see differences if I blow things up to 100% or bigger on my computer, but not in prints.)
No Pros shoot JPG. If you have to ask, you don't deserve to call yourself a photographer. RAW allows for after camera changes like white balance. JPG is for amateurs. The professional recognizes that he is taking photos for someone else, the customer. Anything he/she can do to assure the photos come out successful, he/she should do. RAW allows for that.
Based on that dumb ass piece of information, I'm going to quit shooting....As soon as you produce evidence that all pros shoot in RAW format.
Please enlighhten me and then I'll go tell the "professionals" that I am aquainted with who sell lots of images to galleries and magazines and other collectors and publications, that they need to give their earnings back.....
Barry
Barry,
Dude, I applaud your interest and think you should go for it. The term "professional" is so - vague. I know a lot of "professionals" that suck balls at photography. I totally agree with THOUGHTGARDEN.
I know photographers who shoot on film (like the old stuff) and that is awesome. Others prefer digital formats. I've noticed that the two camps are kind of like snowboarders are to skiers (broad generalization) - both passionate about their craft and less interested in the other.
The truth is, no matter what you're doing (photography, art, math, sex?) everybody sucks at first. Like all masters of their craft, persistence and practice are key. Don't be afraid to suck. Don't be afraid to take risks. Embrace failures as growth opportunities and successes as an emotional payday.
As for being paid, that's a personal choice as to when you start. The truth is, you can charge as soon as someone wants what you can do for them. Value is perceived before it's realized.
If your photos are really yours, I think you've got an excellent foundation and are capable of amazing work.
Peace out with your crease out.
Jeff
Dude, I applaud your interest and think you should go for it. The term "professional" is so - vague. I know a lot of "professionals" that suck balls at photography. I totally agree with THOUGHTGARDEN.
I know photographers who shoot on film (like the old stuff) and that is awesome. Others prefer digital formats. I've noticed that the two camps are kind of like snowboarders are to skiers (broad generalization) - both passionate about their craft and less interested in the other.
The truth is, no matter what you're doing (photography, art, math, sex?) everybody sucks at first. Like all masters of their craft, persistence and practice are key. Don't be afraid to suck. Don't be afraid to take risks. Embrace failures as growth opportunities and successes as an emotional payday.
As for being paid, that's a personal choice as to when you start. The truth is, you can charge as soon as someone wants what you can do for them. Value is perceived before it's realized.
If your photos are really yours, I think you've got an excellent foundation and are capable of amazing work.
Peace out with your crease out.
Jeff
All I can add is that if you look at Thoughtgarden's pics, you can see he knows what he's talking about.
I have yet to see anyone capture the essence of a person like he does!
We recently had a wonderful photographer do some boudior photos of her, they're great so far (only have seen 2, she's still editing and such we reckon), but I know they'd be far better if Thought had done them.
Thought, when you coming to Florida man? We have beaches, sunshine, and Mickey Mouse (enticing you yet?)!!!!
I have yet to see anyone capture the essence of a person like he does!
We recently had a wonderful photographer do some boudior photos of her, they're great so far (only have seen 2, she's still editing and such we reckon), but I know they'd be far better if Thought had done them.
Thought, when you coming to Florida man? We have beaches, sunshine, and Mickey Mouse (enticing you yet?)!!!!
The difference between a pro and an amateur is simply a matter whether a person is paid or not. It also implies that the "Pro" is better which is not always the case.
As far as formats go..............shooting in RAW format does not make photos better and photos can be manipulated and touched up without having to be in RAW format. (including the white balance and pretty much everything else)
I have learned and am still learning that photographing people is an art that is completely different than shooting landscape or any other subject matter. I would estimate that 90% of my images that taken of people are deleted upon first review versus about only 10% of anything else.
There are some VERY good photos on this website and some that are not so good. That said the subject matter is typically top notch in my opinion. There is nothing more beautiful than skin.
As far as formats go..............shooting in RAW format does not make photos better and photos can be manipulated and touched up without having to be in RAW format. (including the white balance and pretty much everything else)
I have learned and am still learning that photographing people is an art that is completely different than shooting landscape or any other subject matter. I would estimate that 90% of my images that taken of people are deleted upon first review versus about only 10% of anything else.
There are some VERY good photos on this website and some that are not so good. That said the subject matter is typically top notch in my opinion. There is nothing more beautiful than skin.
Link to another OPINION..Tounge n Cheek. 
Should You Capture Digital Photos In Raw or JPEG?
RAW or JPG for Digital Photo Capture?
From Steve Bohne
There is so much misinformation about RAW and JPG that even many professional photographers and graphics designers are confused. I won't name names, but there are several so-called "experts" who spout misinformation on the web and at seminars, and they are sponsored by brand name companies.
I'm a full time professional photographer.
I work with JPG files every day. I never shoot Raw for my day-to-day work. That does not mean everyone should work just like me, but you should know some facts and forget the fiction.
1) If you're working with images that are vitally critical, shoot RAW: any major exposure or color correction is easier to make.
2) No, Raw files will not be sharper than the JPG files, and anyone who says they will doesn't know what they're talking about.
3) The secret to using JPG files is: Set a proper White Balance, make a proper exposure.
If you are using Auto White Balance (AWB), you may find your color is not consistent from one file to the next, so set a custom white balance. Read your camera's manual to do this ? it's not very involved on most of today's cameras.
Once you set a custom white balance for your studio work, you will not have to change it when working in the studio. Most cameras today permit you to have 2 or 3 custom white balances. Outdoors (or even in the studio) a product called the ExpoDisc can make this an easy process.
If you include a gray/white/black card in the first scene, you can set your color balance and density in Photoshop on the first image, then apply that curve to each following image. Much faster than RAW.
4) If you photograph in JPG, the file does not degrade with each subsequent opening of the file. If you:
A. open a JPG
B. save it with a new name
C. work on it
Your original has not been degraded, and there is nearly no change to the overall pixel quality of the new file. Remember that working on any digital file is basically discarding data. You can't add data ? no way, no how! You can only alter or discard it.
5) Your files will be sharp if printed in JPG ? in fact, if you send files to a lab via FTP, most insist on JPG. I belong to a group of photographers who, back in the pioneer days of digital, took the same image in Raw and JPG. They made a 30x40 from each file, and had the lab keep a note of which was which (they mounted them on different substrates). Not one professional photographer ? including several who owned labs ? could tell the difference!
In my own situation, I sent a 24x30 family photo to a lab for printing. They made a display print and put it on display in their lobby. Everyone, including the lab owner, thought it was film. It was a JPG from a Fuji S2 ? the owner thought I had scanned the film and sent him a TIFF on CD!
6) Here's a biggie: you do not have to photograph on the least compressed setting when you photograph JPG to get the best image quality! I normally photograph weddings and portraits of groups of 3 or less in medium JPG on my Canon 20D. You will not be able to tell the difference ? regardless of how large you print ? between the "high" and "medium" settings!
Why? Because you are still taking all the information from the sensor and it is being oversampled. I did not realize this until I spoke to my friend, Claude Jodoin. Claude is a technical editor and contributor to several professional digital imaging magazines, as well as an equipment tester/reviewer. He told me to try it on a wedding with 2 cameras. So I took (back then) 2 Canon 10D, and shot the altar groups twice: once with a camera set at High JPG and the other set at Medium JPG. I then returned to my studio and made a file 16x20 @ 268 dpi. I printed an 11x14 section of this image on my Fuji 4000 printer. The two prints were indistinguishable!
Does this mean you should never photograph in Raw mode? NO! Some cameras don't even have JPG mode (such as the Sigma SD9 and SD10). Others have a color bias in JPG mode: the Canon 1Ds Mark II and 1D Mark II being examples. If I photograph with my 1D Mark II in JPG mode, the file is noticeably saturated in the reds. I can correct it in Photoshop, but I would avoid this if I photographed in Raw. So maybe even I will end up photographing in Raw some of the time!
I hope this has cleared up some of the confusion and myths that are still rampant.
By Steve Bohne, Master Craftsman Photographer
www.bohne.com
Steve Bohne has been a full time professional photographer for over 30 years. He holds both the Masters Degree and the Craftsman Degree from the Professional Photographers of America, and is a member of the American Society of Photographers. He is a recipient of the Art Leather/Brides magazine "Wedding Photographer of the Year" Award. He lives and works in Michigan, photographing with Canon and Fuji digital cameras. His studio does portraits, weddings, and commercial images. An album of his photographs resides in permanent display at the International Photography Hall of Fame and Museum in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Should You Capture Digital Photos In Raw or JPEG?
RAW or JPG for Digital Photo Capture?
From Steve Bohne
There is so much misinformation about RAW and JPG that even many professional photographers and graphics designers are confused. I won't name names, but there are several so-called "experts" who spout misinformation on the web and at seminars, and they are sponsored by brand name companies.
I'm a full time professional photographer.
I work with JPG files every day. I never shoot Raw for my day-to-day work. That does not mean everyone should work just like me, but you should know some facts and forget the fiction.
1) If you're working with images that are vitally critical, shoot RAW: any major exposure or color correction is easier to make.
2) No, Raw files will not be sharper than the JPG files, and anyone who says they will doesn't know what they're talking about.
3) The secret to using JPG files is: Set a proper White Balance, make a proper exposure.
If you are using Auto White Balance (AWB), you may find your color is not consistent from one file to the next, so set a custom white balance. Read your camera's manual to do this ? it's not very involved on most of today's cameras.
Once you set a custom white balance for your studio work, you will not have to change it when working in the studio. Most cameras today permit you to have 2 or 3 custom white balances. Outdoors (or even in the studio) a product called the ExpoDisc can make this an easy process.
If you include a gray/white/black card in the first scene, you can set your color balance and density in Photoshop on the first image, then apply that curve to each following image. Much faster than RAW.
4) If you photograph in JPG, the file does not degrade with each subsequent opening of the file. If you:
A. open a JPG
B. save it with a new name
C. work on it
Your original has not been degraded, and there is nearly no change to the overall pixel quality of the new file. Remember that working on any digital file is basically discarding data. You can't add data ? no way, no how! You can only alter or discard it.
5) Your files will be sharp if printed in JPG ? in fact, if you send files to a lab via FTP, most insist on JPG. I belong to a group of photographers who, back in the pioneer days of digital, took the same image in Raw and JPG. They made a 30x40 from each file, and had the lab keep a note of which was which (they mounted them on different substrates). Not one professional photographer ? including several who owned labs ? could tell the difference!
In my own situation, I sent a 24x30 family photo to a lab for printing. They made a display print and put it on display in their lobby. Everyone, including the lab owner, thought it was film. It was a JPG from a Fuji S2 ? the owner thought I had scanned the film and sent him a TIFF on CD!
6) Here's a biggie: you do not have to photograph on the least compressed setting when you photograph JPG to get the best image quality! I normally photograph weddings and portraits of groups of 3 or less in medium JPG on my Canon 20D. You will not be able to tell the difference ? regardless of how large you print ? between the "high" and "medium" settings!
Why? Because you are still taking all the information from the sensor and it is being oversampled. I did not realize this until I spoke to my friend, Claude Jodoin. Claude is a technical editor and contributor to several professional digital imaging magazines, as well as an equipment tester/reviewer. He told me to try it on a wedding with 2 cameras. So I took (back then) 2 Canon 10D, and shot the altar groups twice: once with a camera set at High JPG and the other set at Medium JPG. I then returned to my studio and made a file 16x20 @ 268 dpi. I printed an 11x14 section of this image on my Fuji 4000 printer. The two prints were indistinguishable!
Does this mean you should never photograph in Raw mode? NO! Some cameras don't even have JPG mode (such as the Sigma SD9 and SD10). Others have a color bias in JPG mode: the Canon 1Ds Mark II and 1D Mark II being examples. If I photograph with my 1D Mark II in JPG mode, the file is noticeably saturated in the reds. I can correct it in Photoshop, but I would avoid this if I photographed in Raw. So maybe even I will end up photographing in Raw some of the time!
I hope this has cleared up some of the confusion and myths that are still rampant.
By Steve Bohne, Master Craftsman Photographer
www.bohne.com
Steve Bohne has been a full time professional photographer for over 30 years. He holds both the Masters Degree and the Craftsman Degree from the Professional Photographers of America, and is a member of the American Society of Photographers. He is a recipient of the Art Leather/Brides magazine "Wedding Photographer of the Year" Award. He lives and works in Michigan, photographing with Canon and Fuji digital cameras. His studio does portraits, weddings, and commercial images. An album of his photographs resides in permanent display at the International Photography Hall of Fame and Museum in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
JSTJIM72 wrote:
All I can add is that if you look at Thoughtgarden's pics, you can see he knows what he's talking about.
I have yet to see anyone capture the essence of a person like he does!
We recently had a wonderful photographer do some boudior photos of her, they're great so far (only have seen 2, she's still editing and such we reckon), but I know they'd be far better if Thought had done them.
Thought, when you coming to Florida man? We have beaches, sunshine, and Mickey Mouse (enticing you yet?)!!!!
As always...thank you! I'm always all about Mickey! lol
BACKATIT wrote:
The term "professional" is so - vague. I know a lot of "professionals" that suck balls at photography.
People are so easily hung up on the semantic game.....*sigh*....
I love my Nikon D300s. It records in RAW (NEF) on the SD card and on JPG in the Compact flash card at the same time. I have found when I was brain dead shooting and opened up the images on the computer, I was saved by being able to adjust the white balance of the RAW images.
But don't rag, on point and shoot cameras either. I use my nikon D90 as a point and shoot camera.
As to professional photographers, HA. The misses has modeled for many, and they vary drastically in their professional approach. On one shoot, I look over and the photographer had both hands under her cheeks claiming to adjust. Not cool. She has a hairdresser / makeup artist that travels with her. Gay an sunlight, but fantastic. he should have been the one playing with her tush...lol..
Really just saying that even the ones that claim professionalism, may not be...
Mr. Simple
But don't rag, on point and shoot cameras either. I use my nikon D90 as a point and shoot camera.
As to professional photographers, HA. The misses has modeled for many, and they vary drastically in their professional approach. On one shoot, I look over and the photographer had both hands under her cheeks claiming to adjust. Not cool. She has a hairdresser / makeup artist that travels with her. Gay an sunlight, but fantastic. he should have been the one playing with her tush...lol..
Really just saying that even the ones that claim professionalism, may not be...
Mr. Simple
you can shoot in different formats? this is amazing! why didnt someone tell me this before? lol
A definition of a professional photographer: A "pro" NEVER shows anybody the mistakes. - Anonymous
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that!" - Anonymous
How do you get the professional photographer off your front porch?
Pay him for the pizza.
Buying a Nikon doesn't make you a photographer. It makes you a Nikon owner. - Anonymous
People say photographs don't lie, mine do. - David LaChapelle
The quickest way to make money at photography is to sell your camera. - Anonymous
If you saw a man drowning and you could either save him or photograph the event...what kind of film would you use? - Anonymous
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that!" - Anonymous
How do you get the professional photographer off your front porch?
Pay him for the pizza.
Buying a Nikon doesn't make you a photographer. It makes you a Nikon owner. - Anonymous
People say photographs don't lie, mine do. - David LaChapelle
The quickest way to make money at photography is to sell your camera. - Anonymous
If you saw a man drowning and you could either save him or photograph the event...what kind of film would you use? - Anonymous
BACKATIT wrote:
Barry,
Dude, I applaud your interest and think you should go for it. The term "professional" is so - vague. I know a lot of "professionals" that suck balls at photography. I totally agree with THOUGHTGARDEN.
I know photographers who shoot on film (like the old stuff) and that is awesome. Others prefer digital formats. I've noticed that the two camps are kind of like snowboarders are to skiers (broad generalization) - both passionate about their craft and less interested in the other.
The truth is, no matter what you're doing (photography, art, math, sex?) everybody sucks at first. Like all masters of their craft, persistence and practice are key. Don't be afraid to suck. Don't be afraid to take risks. Embrace failures as growth opportunities and successes as an emotional payday.
As for being paid, that's a personal choice as to when you start. The truth is, you can charge as soon as someone wants what you can do for them. Value is perceived before it's realized.
If your photos are really yours, I think you've got an excellent foundation and are capable of amazing work.
Peace out with your crease out.
Jeff
Hey Jeff - I was kinda being sarcastic - I have been shooting professionally as a side job, since my real job unfortunately pays better - for over 10 years and I was trying to make a point to the poster who said that a real pro only shoots in RAW format, so I guess in his eyes I can't be one - but thank you for the response!
And feel free to check out my stuff here:
www.bcgphoto.com
Feel free to let me know if I suck!
Barry
And here's me in the middle of a tsunami: The photographer caught up in tidal wave... who carried on taking pictures...
NOW THIS GUY IS A PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER! WITH THE BIGGEST BALLS
NOW THIS GUY IS A PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER! WITH THE BIGGEST BALLS
Barry, u don't suck ballz.
Ok, Since were off the sexy stuff for now, I have a question. I am looking for some studio lighting. I would like some 500 w/s hansel's.
Anyone have some they would like to part with?
Mr. Not so simple tonight...
Anyone have some they would like to part with?
Mr. Not so simple tonight...
UTAHPLEASURES or THOUGHTGARDEN??? We need a few dozen hot women in various states of sexxy dress and a showdown.. Kinda like a shoot out at the OK coral but fun to watch.
Bob
Bob
BACKATIT wrote:
Barry, u don't suck ballz.
Thank you!
BNBON wrote:MAVENX wrote:
[quote=UTAHPLEASURES]
JPG vs Raw
If you have to ask then just shoot JPG.
This is pretty simple and I'll get into way too much detail later.
If you shoot hundreds or thousands of images in a day shoot JPG and don't worry. The quality is the same for almost all intents and purposes as raw, and the raw files would take gigabytes or tens of gigabytes and resultant hours to download, convert, catalog and burn to backup CDs. In fact, if you shoot this much then JPG can give better quality since attempting to shoot this much raw will constipate your workflow and you could miss making some images entirely as your cards fill up. You'd always be running out of memory cards or time waiting for the access light to stop blinking.
If you love to tweak your images one-by one and shoot less than about a hundred shots at a time than raw could be for you. In fact, if you prefer the look you can get from raw (it may be different from JPG in some cases depending on software) you can let your computer batch process images and save the results as JPGs, too. I almost never shoot anything in raw, and when I do I never see any difference for all the effort I wasted anyway. (I can see differences if I blow things up to 100% or bigger on my computer, but not in prints.)
No Pros shoot JPG. If you have to ask, you don't deserve to call yourself a photographer. RAW allows for after camera changes like white balance. JPG is for amateurs. The professional recognizes that he is taking photos for someone else, the customer. Anything he/she can do to assure the photos come out successful, he/she should do. RAW allows for that.
Based on that dumb ass piece of information, I'm going to quit shooting....As soon as you produce evidence that all pros shoot in RAW format.
Please enlighhten me and then I'll go tell the "professionals" that I am aquainted with who sell lots of images to galleries and magazines and other collectors and publications, that they need to give their earnings back.....
Barry[/quote]
Wow I can see why I never bother to post! But that being said. To the original posting of CUTEANDHORNY just enjoy and practice practice practice.
Peace