GTinSoCal Loc: Palmdale, CA

I ask all my students this.
Why wouldn't you shoot raw?

The most common answer is:
to save time in post processing.

Wrong.
All the changes made without your consent are still made, you just have to accept them.

Camera raw converters load them as DEFAULTS. Don't want to take the time to develop your photo, then let the computer do it.
My guess is, the computer sitting on your desk has more computing power than the one residing in a corner of your camera. They will do the same thing.
On the other hand, you can take control and make all those decisions for yourself. Either way the choice is yours. With raw, it always will be.

Gordon

bobmielke Loc: Portland, OR

Although I shoot in RAW I can think of a few reasons you might shoot in JPG. Most P&S cameras only have the JPG option. Not everyone wants the control or editing options RAW affords. A good snapshot is all they want. All photos online are in JPG or GIF format. Lots of folks don't want to devote the energy or time to convert everything from RAW. When traveling JPG is fast and most cameras do a decent job of producing a photo for friends & family.

XJoeyX Loc: San Antonio, TX

I can (and often DO) set my camera to capture both RAW and jpg files at the same time. This way, I have my RAW image, ready for editing/enhancing whenever I want (and time permits) AND I have a nifty jpg image to email and/or share quickly and easilly, no conversion required, no muss, no fuss (particularly if I'm just taking snapshots).

-XJoeyX

Curtis_Lowe Loc: Georgia

I think the best of both worlds is shooting in both RAW & JPEG. This affords the convience of sharing that picture you just took with friends and family and even uploading to this forum.
But just suppose that that picture turns out to be a photograph and with just a little tweek could be your best photo ever. JPEG can't go back and looses quality everytime it is edited and saved.
It can be insurance just in case you do something wonderful!

XJoeyX Loc: San Antonio, TX

I agree completely. You have both insurance, and convenience...

-XJoeyX

docjoque Loc: SoCal

Surprisingly, many professionals DON'T shoot RAW, especially pro sports shooters and photojournalists. Many wedding photogs don't shot RAW either.

For pro sports, the penalty of the buffer limitation is the main factor. PJ photogs often have to send their pics off to their editors from the field, thus in-camera processing is essential.

A world famous wedding photog told me he no longer shoots in RAW at weddings because why in the hell would anyone shoot a reception in RAW unless you don't know light...meaning that the lighting is going to be the same in every corresponding section of the venue so you should have readings for correct exp/wb scoped out. Additionally, nobody that hires him for a wedding can tell the difference between RAW and jpg anyway.

When I first heard this, I was stunned. But then I started asking around, and found it to be true. I then got cocky and started shooting in jpg myself, and got a fantastic shot that I just couldn't get the wb right on,. After a couple months of fiddling with it, it's still not where I want it. If I had shot it in RAW, I could have taken care of it with a click. lol.

MtnMan Loc: ID

As I noted on the other discussion on this, I found yesterday after some frustration that shooting RAW disables the HDR capability on the Nikon 5100. That only matters if you want to shoot HDR. It isn't easy to understand why your option is grayed out though.
I also understand RAW limits the number of images you can buffer.
I am a newbie on this stuff so just experimenting.

Curtis_Lowe Loc: Georgia

I did not mention the drawback of limited burst shots, in hind shight I should have.
Both of the groups you mentioned that do not Shot RAW are pros and need the burst rate or need the convenience of a quick transmission of the photographs.
I got a big storage card and shoot both, jsut in case. I am not a pro but can understand the Wedding and Sports Pros take on the JPEG.

sontog Loc: S. California

I agree, RAW pictures should be taken if you have a graphics program to convert them to a format you can print or email. Personally I like to shoot RAW/jpg so when I organize my pictures I can make a directory for each format. JPEG pictures are much easier and faster to view on computers.

This brings up another issue that seems to give me heartburn: I have people tell me that they have a 14MP camera and take 6,000 pictures on a 2GB memory card. I don't understand the logic in that. You should "ALWAYS" take pictures in the highest resolution that your camera is capable of. Memory cards are cheap but if you ever take that once in a lifetime shot, you will always regret not taking it in the best resolution your camera can provide.

jplofvt Loc: Vermont

Hi,, I also shoot raw pretty much all the time. I shoot jpeg if I am shooting sports action or anything which requires rapid shots, RAW will fill your buffer much faster than JPEG, and you will have to constantly stop shooting in order for your buffer to clear.

drmeyers381

Hi, I am new to all of this picture taking stuff so could someone tell me what RAW is? Thank you.
David

Curtis_Lowe Loc: Georgia

You are correct, the buffer filling problem is camera specific and lessons some what when you get a new and expensive camera. Just in case you need justification for scratching an itch!

bobmielke Loc: Portland, OR

RAW is the uncompressed formatting of the entire data seen by your sensor. It's not edited or modified in any way. There's no processing such as color balance, contrast, sharpening or any of the other processes done by camera software when it creates a JPG file. A raw file contains 256 times more data than the same photo saved as a JPG file. The JPG process is known as a "lossy" compression because in order to get the file size down it discards pixels(data) every time you edit a JPG.

docjj

It also has a lot to do with the media card rated write speed. A fast card can usually keep up with the buffer, so that it does notget filled and make you wait to take the next image.

XJoeyX Loc: San Antonio, TX

Hehehehe I think we file this one under "Lessons Learned"... I did something even more stupid. I had just shot a couple hundred photos, and was in the process of dumping them to my computer. So, I created the directory that I wanted to put them in, and everything looked good. So I went ahead and reformatted the card. The only problem was... I had neglected to COPY THE PHOTOS TO THE COMPUTER!!! Talk about feeling dumb!!! Fortunately, I am not a professional photographer, so it was not as if I'd just lost someone's only dauhgter's wedding photos, but it STILL hurt!!

-XJoeyX