Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I shoot raw only. If I need a jpeg I'll generate it from a raw file.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

when I shoot in raw, I can choose to convert to jpeg or tiff. sometimes I shoot in jpeg fine or extra fine. my choice my reasons.

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

Just a waste of space! You may want to go back to any jpg that you didn't edit and ease it.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Storage space??? PhotoKurtz since you like a true UHH person did not give any info about your camera, I assume it is a 4 mpix camera and you have a 2 gig CD card and a 20 gig HD on your computer... so yes storage space is a problem for you.

If you shoot 100 photos on a weekend trip, then you will have perhaps 5 real winners. To do RAW processing on the other 95 is foolish. Yes, you could do batch, but that does not give good results unless the photos all are taken at like conditions. JPEG in camera is pretty smart and give a quick sorting method. From a practical sense, raw is your backup for the 5 you are going to perfect. Storage space... have you looked at the price of hard drives lately?? Cost is LOW!!! Size is BIG!!! So dry your eyes and get up to date with today's big storage. Trash 95% of your photos. Do not tell me you are using 2 gig SD cards with 4 speed purchased at the Dollar Tree!! Large capacity, fast cards are now reasonably priced.

Ken Rockwell gives his opinion:
"If you love to tweak your images one-by one and shoot less than about a hundred shots at a time than raw could be for you. In fact, if you prefer the look you can get from raw (it may be different from JPG in some cases depending on software) you can let your computer batch process images and save the results as JPGs, too. I almost never shoot anything in raw, and when I do I never see any difference for all the effort I wasted anyway. (I can see differences if I blow things up to 100% or bigger on my computer, but not in prints.)"
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

Only save a JPEG if it is the only copy

pecohen Loc: Central Maine

I rarely shoot jpeg, mostly RAW. If you have the RAW file then you can easily create a jpeg file and with your camera manufacturer's software very likely a jpeg file that is identical with the one your camera would have produced. Since you have many examples of RAW+jpeg, just check this out for yourself. Then decide for yourself whether there still is any good reason to save a jpeg.

Occasionally I do save one - if I don't have the RAW file or perhaps if it is some collection of jpeg files that I have created for some particular purpose (like posting on the internet or for a slide show) and I think I may need them again. But this is the unusual case, usually I just save the RAW file and in fact I am trying to train myself to discard more of these and only keep the best.

tturner Loc: Savannah Ga

I wonder if these were the same people who said film will no longer exist. But the bigger question is for those who prefer jpeg, what options will be available.

crazydaddio Loc: Toronto Ontario Canada

RAW+ jpeg small for windows explorer quick check. I only shoot RAW but am considering going this way for ease of workflow. (Ie quick check and delete both before import to LR). .... I shoot a lot of "deleters". Took over 5000 at a wedding...kept 800....

pecohen Loc: Central Maine

I'd not be too worried about them. Jpeg may eventually disappear but it will be replaced with some improved format of the same sort. The vast majority of snap-shoe enthusiasts have no interest in doing any post-processing.

Shooting RAW is strictly for professional photographers and for photography enthusiasts who are trying to get the most out of their shots. That is not apt to change.

ELNikkor

I tried loading RAW software into my computer and my computer rejected the NEF CD. (I have an old Toshiba), so I seldom shoot RAW, only jpeg, get a lot of great photos, don't spend much time in post, no storage problems. If I ever see an awesome shot, I shoot both RAW + jpeg, just in case some day I upgrade my computer.

winterrose Loc: Kyneton, Victoria, Australia

Just make a nice 8x10 of every photo. That would save ALL your precious memory.

dynaquest1 Loc: Austin, Texas

Like they said in the movie "Jaws," "I think we need a bigger boat."

I do not know what camera you have or how many card slots it has...but perhaps it is time for a bigger memory card. 64GB cards are pretty hefty storage and if you truly do fill one of these up during a shoot, just carry a second one for the overflow.

I agree with most here that shooting both RAW and JPG is not necessary unless your JPGs are turning out pretty well and you don't want to have to post process every exposure you shoot.

Good Luck!

anotherview Loc: California

RAW only if it suits your purpose.

That said, some photographers shoot both yet rely on their expertise to capture a subject well enough in the JPEG file format not to need the RAW file, except as a backup or in case the JPEG version falls short.

This view comes from reading about accomplished practicing photographers who earn their living doing photography.

For my part, I shoot in the RAW file format simply because it provides so much more information to allow adjustment later in Adobe Camera Raw.

I do usually shoot in JPEG with my Canon G 9X because it gives a fine rendering with a file size large enough for later ACR editing.

Note: You can always later do a single delete or a global delete to remove the JPEG images to free up storage space.

dynaquest1 Loc: Austin, Texas

Wait! You shot over 5000 exposures at a wedding? That's one shot every 5 seconds for 4 hours and 15 minutes.