# RAW or JPG



## shooting_rubber (Mar 22, 2008)

Which one do you shoot and why?


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

For important shots I shoot both since my camera can do both at the same time. There are pros and cons actually so it's not a cut and dried answer. 

Google is your friend...

RAW vs jpeg - Google Search


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

This is a debate that will go on 'til the cows come home with passionate defenders of both sides, so good luck. What it really boils down to is what are your needs, capabilities & time lines.

I won't add to it save to say we use RAW for all our portraiture (individuals, families, grads, glamor, nudes) and landscape (both generally a much slower workflow), whereas we use JPG for all our sports & event images (generally a much faster workflow).


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

For work in the film and TV business, with few exceptions it's jpeg all the way. For my own landscape and urban shooting, it's RAW. More developing versatility with RAW, whereas at work it's all about optimal but highly expedient results - under ridiculous deadlines, natch.

The more work I do in Lightroom, the more I appreciate what RAW can do for my work.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Both, as a matter of routine. I don't always use the RAW files, but I like to have them available if I choose to process them further. 

Now, if I only had the discipline to quickly delete the extra file formats that I don't/won't use. Later, later...


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

I shoot exclusively jpeg. Occasionally in severe lighting situations I will shoot an over/under set and blend them together as a way of handling extreme lighting conditions but these are always people free shots. If I was to go for a more expensive camera it would be more for the larger sensor area and the ability to capture more detail, rather than RAW capability.

That said if I was doing certain things with my camera I would consider RAW format to be essential. Top of that list would be wedding photography. To me the ability to bring out the detail in the brides dress and the traditional black tux would outweigh my preference for light weight cameras and my aversion to a battalion of external HDs. I would also include product shoots, again being able capture very fine detail is crucial and weight is not.

I feel the next camera fad, which I will avoid, will tend more to touch screen controls rather than improving the beast. Hopefully in a couple of years that will make way for a sensor about half way between the 12x16mm used on high end cameras and the 4.2x5.6mm sensors on the lower end stuff. A 7.5x10mm would be about perfect but even a 6x8 mm sensor would noticeably improve detail capture on low end cameras and still allow for 10:1 or perhaps 15:1 zoom lenses.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Exclusively raw with my Nikon D50, and no doubt it'll stay that way when I get my next Nikon DSLR towards the end of the summer. My Panny FZ20 is jpeg only, and that's okay. I'll probably pick up a good pocketable point & shoot in a few weeks (still trying to decide which one it'll be) and it'll likely be jpeg only.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Personally I prefer raw to jpeg because I like the flexibility in postprocessing. I have a specific workflow which also includes specific actions or presets. RAW files allow me to tweak the images to my specific preference. In this case, the more data the better.

Otherwise, if you have the equipment and are technically proficient to the point of nailing each and every image perfectly...shoot jpeg, but if you need colour correction, white-balance correction, exposure correction, sharpening, etc. shoot RAW.


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2011)

I shoot raw pretty much exclusively. I don't need instant turn-around on my shots and space is cheap these days, both in memory cards and hard drive space after the fact. I'd rather have the flexibility to do what I want with the shots after the fact. Also you have to consider that when you shoot in camera jpeg you are allowing the camera to make a lot of decisions for you that don't really have to be made at that time and are almost always better made after the fact by more intelligent software (as opposed to the camera making the choices for you). You lose absolutely nothing shooting raw except a small amount of time downloading the images (RAW are considerably larger file size than jpeg) and a small amount of processing time to export jpegs after the fact -- with RAW you are still capturing the exact same information from the camera sensor, but further up the output chain, before the camera "bakes" it into a jpeg. Also worth considering that jpeg is a lossy format and RAW is not. While modern cameras do great high quality jpegs it is still a lossy format, you're not capturing all of the data that the sensor passed along.

About the only time I would consider shooting jpeg personally is if you're shooting a live event or something that needs to get processed and posted instantly is .. or if you're in a situation where you don't have much card space and you need to capture a lot of material and really need to scrimp. I have shot RAW+jpeg on occasion because I thought it might be handy to have instant access to the jpegs ... but in the end I still never did use the jpegs a single time I did this so I just shoot RAW exclusively now.

To me jpegs are the modern equivalent of polaroid insta-matic type shots vs. RAW being more like 35mm (or better) film shots ... to put it into an old-school perspective. With jpeg you get what you get ... yes you can manipulate afterwards but you are fairly limited when you compare to what you can do after the fact with RAW. Also it really depends on what you're trying to do with your shots. If you're taking "snapshots" then jpeg is totally fine, if you are taking shots that you might want to work up or do something more than simple tweaks or crop with then RAW might be a better choice.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

When I first got into the DSLR world, with a Nikon D80, I found out quickly that I had a RAW+JPG setting which I used. The problem was that I typically transferred my JPG's to my MacBook Pro, and the RAW files to my iMac which had larger storage available. Felt I was doing extra steps to make this happen. But having the JPG allowed for quick transfer/sharing while RAW gave me the option of working with the image later, when time would permit. 

Earlier this year I bought a D7000. Two card slots and a setting which allows for RAW on one card and JPG on the other. 

I also remember a statement made at a MacWorld workshop by a professional photographer. Having both the RAW and JPG of the same shot might resolve an ownership issue, if someone ever tried to pass off a copy of one of your JPG images as their own.


----------



## gnrd (Apr 3, 2009)

I shoot Raw as I edit my photos in Lightroom 3 (and maybe a little bit of Photoshop CS5). I often shoot with a basic jpg as well as RAW for difficult lighting shots so I can have some frame of reference when working on the RAW file. I only started shooting RAW last year and always thought it was more work to process....well I think it is more work but you can get much better end results with RAW and in the end, that's what is important to me.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

I used to shoot RAW+JPEG but rarely even viewed the JPEGS so now shoot RAW exclusively. It's probably overkill most of the time, but it's nice to have the added flexibility.

Generally I'd echo post 9: with cheap and plentiful storage, there's no reason not to go RAW. With my Panasonic cameras (12 MP), a 32 GB card holds a couple thousand RAW shots, which is plenty for me as I'm not someone who takes thousands of shots in a day.

The clincher is that with programs such as iPhoto or Lightroom, there really isn't any functional difference in postprocessing. It's now just as easy to tweak or transform a RAW file as a JPEG, only the results are almost always better with RAW.

For another analogy: ten years ago, hard drive space was expensive enough that it might have made sense to rip a CD at a low, noticeably lossy bitrate (JPEG). That restriction doesn't really apply anymore, so might as well rip to a lossless format (RAW).


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

For me it depends.

I shoot RAW+JPEG when I am on a trip with my girlfriend. It makes my life easier and gets my girlfriend of my back asking me to process the pictures. My camera has 2 slots one for CF and SD. So the RAW goes to CF and JPEG goes to SD. I give her the JPEG's so she can pick and choose which pictures she wants and takes them to go get printed.

If I am by myself shooting pictures I shoot only RAW and fill both cards.


----------



## gnrd (Apr 3, 2009)

I shoot Raw because it's easier to tweak stuff in Lightroom 3 - however if i had a 2 slot camera I'd probably shoot one card RAW and one card JPG for same reasons as Joker eh


----------

