Do you shoot in Jpeg or RAW

Always RAW - for the versatility it gives in post processing :)
 
JPG for sports and RAW if I am doing a setup shot.. team pic for example.. Also RAW if I must shoot at higher than iso 1600... JPG for everyhting else .
 
Raw, always. Not because a JPEG can't get the job done and make a perfectly good print but it means that you retain the ability to make some choices at the process stage that you can't with the JPEG.

Actually, I do shoot one JPEG every day to print straight from the camera to a canon dye sub printer. Sadly, it can't cope with a raw file.
 
Jpeg for all my disposible shots, wildlife, insects ect ect the ones where you are going to take alot of the same thing, i would hate to search through hundreds of 10mb unprocessed images to find a decent one,

RAW for landscape, far more flexible for exposure and post processing. Also open the HDR window :P
 
dazzajl said:
Actually, I do shoot one JPEG every day to print straight from the camera to a canon dye sub printer. Sadly, it can't cope with a raw file.
Click to expand...

Why just one JPG? Just interested to know really :D

I use both... 95% of the time RAW, use JPG if I need quick results, or I'm controlling conditions 100%
 
I shoot mainly in Jpeg.

I seem to get more punch from the in - camera processing than I do converting my own raws, although I will admit I'm no good at converting raws.
 
i went through some of my old photos lsat night, in particular, my gf's daughters wedding, which i shot it jpeg, now i know why i'll only shoot in RAW and have done since i bought my 30D sometime last week.
 
Why just one JPG? Just interested to know really
Click to expand...

It's a bit like a daily blog but rather than ending up online, it goes from the camera straight to a 6x4 on a portable dye sub and into the post. One postcard a day, so one shot. :)
 
RAW - I want to be in control of any post processing, not the camera.

The main advantages I get are the ability to adjust WB after the event (hugely important IMO) and have a bit more exposure latitude if I don't nail the exposre properly.
 
I shot raw with the canon when it was working and jpg on the panasonic. Better quality with raw on the canon and panny's raw is not a great deal of difference to the jpg to be honest.
 
Since I've had the 40D I've been shooting RAW + smaller jpg. Mainly because this allows me to have a "quick view" of everything taken, dump what's not worth keeping, and then look at the remainder in more detail from the RAW.

I keep the "good" raw images, the converted .TIF files, and the resultant jpg's. The original jpg files are all discarded.

Sound like a long process but it's not, and it works for me.

Steve
 
I started off shooting in just Jpeg...the learnt the joys of RAW so shot Raw + Large Jpeg for ages, and have very recently switched to shooting just RAW..will so how it goes :p
 
Pretty much only jpg. The raw on the Z2 is a firmware hack and is incredibly noisy even at low ISO settings.
 
Both, Raw with Large JPeg secondary file.

Raw allows versatility for when things go wrong, eg exposure etc, and JPEG allows quick and easy reviewing or printing of images when you can't get to photoshop for instance.
 
RAW and JPEG. Opening 100s of 15MB RAW files can be a headache, so once back home I use the JPEGs to quickly see what needs to be deleted and then delete all the JPEGs and the RAWs that were listed from the JPEG screening.
 
Raw, unless I'm doing Sports or Motorsports
 
mostly jpegs, but starting to use raw now.
 
Always shoot raw, im a crap photographer and raw bails me out :)
 
RAW with a basic JPEG as well. File the RAWs and use the JPEGs for quick edits to upload as thumbnails to website. Useful when you have hundreds of shots to do. I only use the RAW's when a pic is purchased and do all my editing on that.

However with Lightroom I am thinking about just going down the RAW route and altering my workflow.
 
RAW all the way.

The reason being - I'm a late convert to digital photography, having shot film up to now. RAW to my mind is the electronic equivalent of a negative. Shoot in JPEG only, and it's like you're making prints from negatives and then throwing the negs away.

It's great being able to adjust white balance and exposure in the RAW file, and make an optimised JPEG, TIFF etc. from it.

A.
 
100% RAW for me, with high capacity CF cards being so cheap, also i love the flexibility RAW allows before the IQ starts to take a hit. :)
 
RAW convert here. Started off with DSLR shooting jpeg and wondering what the point of RAW was. Realised the results are just better with RAW. Now shoot RAW only. I use Picasa to review them on a laptop whilst travelling. No need for the camera to make jpegs as well as the RAW.
 
G&A Images said:
to the sports photographers why jpeg and not raw ??
Click to expand...

Because JPEGs are smaller, and so don't take as long to write to the card, meaning the camera's buffer won't fill up so quickly. This means you can shoot continuously for longer than you'd be able to if shooting RAW.
 
Used to shoot JPEG all the time, simply because the repro guys at my work wanted JPEGS because they A) take up less space when archiving from the server, and B) they are quicker to work on, especially when it comes to batch processing.

However, for the last six months I've moved over to RAW since I bought my Nikon D200. One reason I've gone to RAW is that I'm not happy with JPEGs out of the D200 (they just look a little muddy and fuzzy), but the main reason is that I can get so much more info out of RAW file than I ever could with a JPEG.

I still use a lot of layer masks to bring out skies in shots, but instead of having to adjust JPEGs and get results I'm not that happy with, using RAW I can just make an adjustment, save it as a new layer and then work on layers that I'm 100% happy with with much less time spent post-processing.

Darryn said:
100% RAW for me, with high capacity CF cards being so cheap....
Click to expand...

This is definitely a reason more people are shoting RAW. A few years ago a 2gb card would have been £30+. Now you can get one for a tenner.
 
Anorakus said:
RAW all the way.

The reason being - I'm a late convert to digital photography, having shot film up to now. RAW to my mind is the electronic equivalent of a negative. Shoot in JPEG only, and it's like you're making prints from negatives and then throwing the negs away.

It's great being able to adjust white balance and exposure in the RAW file, and make an optimised JPEG, TIFF etc. from it.

A.
Click to expand...

Exactly the same for me, only moved from film to digital at christmas.
 
I've pretty much converted to always using RAW. Usual reasons; a lot more control over processing and capturing detail, etc.

Although when I go to the 'Ring, .jpg is still the norm as it'd take forever to process 1000+ photos and I need to update my website within a day or two of returning from a trip, for sales.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top