Raw or JPEG

[LoveOfSelene]

I'm just wondering.

[cdifoto]

JPEG. I'm MUCH more comfortable with it...even given its limitations. Tried some RAW at that wedding today and still didn't like what came out of it. I didn't even convert 'em to JPEG.

[ReF]

wait, jus to be sure, people who don't have the option to shoot RAW aren't voting right? it should be obvious, especially being in the dslr thread, but you never know what others are thinking

[Zuiko]

I always shoot RAW+JPG
You newer know :D

[Zuiko]

JPEG. I'm MUCH more comfortable with it...even given its limitations. Tried some RAW at that wedding today and still didn't like what came out of it. I didn't even convert 'em to JPEG.
RAW ia much better, but it takes time to finish it right. You must know what to do with it and you will be pleased then.

[AnalogueToDigital]

Having just started using a DSLR, I tried both on my recent holiday.

I really like what I can do with the RAW files in photoshop before converting to JPG. I enjoy the flexibility of editing (without losing quality) that I can get in RAW - but on a trip I cant shoot all my shots in RAW because I dont have enough memory cards! I will shoot RAW whenever I think the photo I'm taking could possibly be one that I'd like to print and display (A4 or A3).

[cdifoto]

RAW ia much better, but it takes time to finish it right. You must know what to do with it and you will be pleased then.

I've tried it different time and still don't like it. THAT makes JPEG better for me.

[Zuiko]

I've tried it different time and still don't like it. THAT makes JPEG better for me.
Sorry if I was upset you. I still can`t gett RAW files to look like photos which my friend makes but I hope I will learn enought to do so. I just want to tell you: dont give up :)
Sorry if grammar is not good (or spelling) :o

[cdifoto]

Nah you didn't upset me at all. I just wanted to emphasize the fact that neither is outright "better" than the other...it's a preference thing.

JPEG is faster for burst mode (especially important with sports), RAW is more versatile.

[D Thompson]

I shoot RAW 100%. Love the flexibility. I went to a seminar by Ed Pierce early last year and was convinced of the RAW deal :D . Yes, you need more memory and a more processing time, but to me it is worth it. May not be to you.

[Zuiko]

JPEG is faster for burst mode (especially important with sports), RAW is more versatile.[/QUOTE]

Not for Oly E1. . .RAW+SHQ JPG = 3fps /12 frames buffer
. . .but on other camera that can be a good reason to shoot in JPG, I agree.

[mystic]

Interested that a good friend of mine has this year, attended 4 of the courses run for Canon EOS users in Cambridge, UK. Starting with " get to know your EOS" and going right through to the advanced stuff they recommend using only jpeg for everything! Then they go about justifying this by a series of blind tests using prints shot an enlarged using both jpeg and raw.

Candidates failed to spot the differences on the finished prints, irrespective of experience, which I found interesting.

Their whole principle seemed to revolve around, shooting and saving the jpeg as a master ASAP to avoid recompression loss and spend more time enjoying your EOS than sat behind a pc editing all day.

Ah well each to their own I say.

Mystic

[astro]

Both.
I shoot jpg about 80% of the time, and raw the rest.

[George Riehm]

My vote went to RAW, but JPEG is great for snapshots of family and outings with friends. In those cases I also adjust color and contrast to be a little more bold.

If I'm out on a "shoot" (meaning I'm going out to take photos of a specific thing or area like The Canyon) then I stay in NEF (RAW).

[patrickt]

A few years ago I shot some photos using raw and JPEG with my Olympus C5050Z. You couldn't tell one from the other and the raw software was cumbersome.

Now I shoot only in raw. I found a program that was easy to use and did virtually all of my post-processing using the raw file. I would say on 80% of my shots, the results would have been the same with JPEG but the other 20% would have been a nightmare. Yesterday I shot some photos in a small museum in a village. I swear every artifact had a different combination of lighting but with raw, adjusting the white balance in post-processing was a breeze. I also have better results bringing highlights down and shadows up in raw.

On my average picture I spend probably ten seconds adjusting the raw image. On a few others I spend perhaps a minute. Then, I convert them all, usually to JPEG for printing and occasionally to TIFF.

For me, raw works well.

[Warin]

I use JPEG a fair bit, as the company that prints the programs for the hockey team I shoot for decided they didnt like RAW/NEF workflow, and asked me to switch to JPEG Fine.

For my own shots, I prefere RAW, forthe higher degree of controlability in post processing. I find it humourous that so many people want to get "the perfect shot" directly our of the camera, without any sort of postprocessing work. It would be nice, but not entirely practical.

[cwphoto]

Interested that a good friend of mine has this year, attended 4 of the courses run for Canon EOS users in Cambridge, UK. Starting with " get to know your EOS" and going right through to the advanced stuff they recommend using only jpeg for everything! Then they go about justifying this by a series of blind tests using prints shot an enlarged using both jpeg and raw.

Candidates failed to spot the differences on the finished prints, irrespective of experience, which I found interesting.

Their whole principle seemed to revolve around, shooting and saving the jpeg as a master ASAP to avoid recompression loss and spend more time enjoying your EOS than sat behind a pc editing all day.

Ah well each to their own I say.

Mystic

That's interesting. I'm good friends with one of the Canon Professional Sales guys and he preaches from the same hymn book - he can't understand why I choose to shoot RAW either.

Must be something in their global sales/marketing policy training or whatever.

[Rhys]

I take photos. I don't play with RAW files. Simple really!

If a photo's bad then it's bad and RAW isn't going to save it.

[timmciglobal]

I use RAW alot. It's got some huge advantages, first of all being WB selection later. Difficult or diverse lighting situations it's priceless in my mind. The second is specific and exact control over every aspect of image production before it hits jpeg.

Raw's also provide, imho, a better "Base" to work off of though a jpeg with in camera processing and WB will usually be good too. Raw just gives more flexibility.

Tim

[cwphoto]

One of the main reasons I like RAW is that it allows me more time to spend on the creative side of photography (eg; composition, lighting, posing etc). I don't need to fiddle with WB etc on the fly - geez, changing ISO from shot to shot was enough of a distraction after fifteen years of film habits without all this other stuff!

[Chucko]

I will shoot raw when I want to post-process and print, JPEG only when the photos are destined to be emailed or posted on the web.

My attitude is that any image I really care about should be shot raw. Raw doesn't scare me because I have several years' experience scanning slides and post-processing in Photoshop. PP does take some time, and the raw files chew up a lot of space, so I can understand how working journalists may prefer JPEG.

Shooting JPEG is like taking print film to a drug store; some automatic equipment that doesn't know what you were thinking when you made the shot is making contrast, highlight/shadow, and color balance decisions for you. I'd rather have the final say on those decisions.

[Zuiko]

I take photos. I don't play with RAW files. Simple really!

If a photo's bad then it's bad and RAW isn't going to save it.

I started to shoot RAW after one ATP finale. Friend asked me to shoot the event for his company because they sponsored ATP Umag. After the finals my friend was in the bunch of people like president of the republic, president of the. . . and he was sad when we looked at the photos and WB was incorect. There was 3 diferent type of light source and spot lights circled. . .and the results where bad :)
If taken in RAW . . .
Sorry on bad english :o

[Rhys]

I started to shoot RAW after one ATP finale. Friend asked me to shoot the event for his company because they sponsored ATP Umag. After the finals my friend was in the bunch of people like president of the republic, president of the. . . and he was sad when we looked at the photos and WB was incorect. There was 3 diferent type of light source and spot lights circled. . .and the results where bad :)
If taken in RAW . . .
Sorry on bad english :o

Mixed lighting is a nightmare in any format. I don't think RAW would have fixed that. I have fixed colour casts in photoshop.

[erichlund]

I shoot RAW, mainly for control and the fact that you can always get back to the original. Also, jpg on the D70 wasn't its strongest suit. However, the D200 is very capable of producing excellent jpgs, something I may explore for situations like last Saturday at the zoo. I took a lot of photos, and with all the people and the need to move on, none are going to go down as high art. They're snapshots. So jpg, with the camera set up with boosted sharpness, contrast and color, should work out just fine, and save lots of card space to boot.

Cheers,
Eric

[wxcloud9xw]

I shoot entirely in RAW except for unimportant candid snap shots. I like being able to correct WB, shadows, and sharpness before I convert it back to high quality jpeg for prints. If you were to take only jpeg and you needed to do some heavy editing, you might wind up with artifacts in your image after your done saving because you only started out with 8bits rather than 12. The more bits you have the more room you have for editing without loosing quality after conversion back to jpeg when your done.

[cwphoto]

Mixed lighting is a nightmare in any format. I don't think RAW would have fixed that. I have fixed colour casts in photoshop.

Yeah it does - do it every week of the year.

[Jason25]

Depends on the situation.

If I'm shooting snapshots or long bursts, then jpg.
If I'm shooting with a purpose, then raw.

Each has its advantage at times :)

[thebac]

RAW, the AWB of the D70 is too crappy for me to leave it to chance.

Aside from WB issues (custom is a pain with changing lighting conditions), I'm quite happy with the JPEG output.