Should I be Shooting in JPEG or RAW?

[tirediron]

I'm going to side with AcadieLibre on this one. Shoot RAW, convert to .jpg and save the RAW files for later.

[morgan]

my camera has an option to get both raw & jpg. When i made the switch from jpg to raw, i used this setting. i now feel comfortable to shoot in only raw. i wish i would have used the setting to capture both from the start. I love editing my raw images now that i know how to do it. i'll never go back!

[PKMax]

I'd shoot in RAW to begin with, I originally shot in jpg because I hadn't really understood what the point of RAW was, but shooting JPG loses a lot of information in the photo that you can't recover. it's also a lossy compression, so it loses some individual pixel information by merging pixels with neighbouring pixels to make up areas of colour if the pixel colours are similar enough.

the way in which the camera produces the JPG means that whatever settings you had switched on at the time in the camera, like a vivid mode, or sharp mode etc, these actually modify the image to form the JPG, where as if you shoot in RAW these settings are only stored in the RAW file as what the camera was set to, so it's a more versatile image.

I have on occasion gone back to an old JPG file that I've taken to try and process it, and it's a lot harder to play with and I wish I'd shot it in RAW at the time. I also found that some software won't play with JPG and requires RAW for some things, like some HDR software if your trying to do Single Photo HDR etc.

[PKMax]

Regarding the Histogram, I tend not to have it on the screen all the time, because my first check of the photo is, Does it look like what I expected, or like. and the histogram gets in the way.. but I do when I've got the photo I want have a gander at the Histogram to make sure I've got a good range in there and haven't blown out the whites or something. (unless I wanted too.)

[mindforge]

Regarding the Histogram, I tend not to have it on the screen all the time, because my first check of the photo is, Does it look like what I expected, or like. and the histogram gets in the way.. but I do when I've got the photo I want have a gander at the Histogram to make sure I've got a good range in there and haven't blown out the whites or something. (unless I wanted too.)

I usually don't use the histogram when I am shooting... I do use it later in my RAW conversion and in post processing.

[tegan]

I know all the reasons for shooting RAW but someone should mention the caveats and reasons for hesitation.

1. It is easier and faster to preview jpeg than it is to preview RAW.

2. Minor changes can be done faster in jpeg, than working through RAW.

3. Multiple shooting is faster in jpeg than RAW.

4. Some newer cameras are producing better quality jpegs that require less
processing than the RAW versions.

5. Jpegs can be edited in 16 bit which was once only possible with RAW
formats.

6. Could you differentiate between jpeg original and editing, versus RAW
original, editing and conversion to jpeg?

7. If minimal editing is required, then jpeg is faster than working through
RAW format, editing and conversion.

8. RAW versions can be used like negatives but even for pros a negative is
not always necessary and negatively takes up space and needs to be put
into a database of some sort, despite the fact that it may never be
looked at again.

Tegan

[Travis]

I know all the reasons for shooting RAW but someone should mention the caveats and reasons for hesitation.

1. It is easier and faster to preview jpeg than it is to preview RAW.

2. Minor changes can be done faster in jpeg, than working through RAW.

3. Multiple shooting is faster in jpeg than RAW.

4. Some newer cameras are producing better quality jpegs that require less
processing than the RAW versions.

5. Jpegs can be edited in 16 bit which was once only possible with RAW
formats.

6. Could you differentiate between jpeg original and editing, versus RAW
original, editing and conversion to jpeg?

7. If minimal editing is required, then jpeg is faster than working through
RAW format, editing and conversion.

8. RAW versions can be used like negatives but even for pros a negative is
not always necessary and negatively takes up space and needs to be put
into a database of some sort, despite the fact that it may never be
looked at again.

Tegan

These are all good and valid points....

If you are one to take the time to set up your camera there is plenty of latitude to post process your images.

The only reasons I see to shoot RAW are :

(1) You suck so bad with your in camera set up, that you need that extra information to square up your image

(2) You are the type of shooter who regularly extensively edits your image

(3) You are getting paid, in which case it is silly to not take all precautions

(4) You are an advanced hobbyist who is uncomfortable in discarding the mostly useless information discarded when a camera converts an image to jpg


The RAW vs JPG thing is really a personal preference thing. There is no right or wrong decision. I now shoot RAW all the time, but that's only because Lightroom2 makes the conversion process so quick a seamless. If I still had to use a heavy developer/editior like photoshop or psp..... i'd most likely still be shooting jpg unless the shoot was really important...