Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

My camera has one card, I still shoot both.
More convenient (for me) to be all on one card. One card to read (half the work).

(It would be interesting if the manufacturer's primary intent with two card types was to accommodate users of "other cards" so they didn't have to go out and buy another set of cards if they changed brands. Making their cameras more attractive/versatile with the cards.)

charlienow Loc: Hershey, PA

Raw plus jpeg. Raw on primary drive. Jpeg on secondary drive.

Chuck

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

I used to shoot JPEG, then I shot RAW + JPEG, and now I shoot only RAW. I post process every image worth keeping, at least to some degree; and I no longer bother with wasted JPEG images.
JPEGS are fine, but when I began seriously processing, I work with RAW only.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

In situations where there is an opportunity to control lighting precisely (color temperature, intensity, directions, ratios, specularity, etc.), it can make sense to use JPEG when there is an immediate need for the image, OR when there is NO budget for post-processing before printing or posting to the Web.

It is important to understand why the JPEG standard exists at all! JPEG compression was developed out of a need to reduce file size, so that less storage space and less network bandwidth would be needed to handle billions of images. It was conceived as a storage and distribution format, not as a capture format. In the early days of the Internet, pre-World Wide Web (1993 and earlier) people would scan to TIFF, process in Photoshop, and convert to various sizes of JPEGs. Images to be sent over the Internet were both low resolution and highly compressed. A 50KB file was big!

Another use for JPEGs was in "Desktop Publishing". That was the early use of Macs and PageMaker for pre-press preparations. JPEGs could be used in files sent to early laser imagesetters, so that halftones and text could be combined all at once, digitally, to create page negatives. Previously, text negatives and halftone negatives were made separately, and "stripped" together on a light table, a very labor-intensive process.

When Kodak developed their digital cameras in the early 1990s, they were extremely low resolution devices (around a megapixel or less). They captured raw data, which had to be post processed. But Kodak realized very quickly that users would need immediate feedback about exposure, and would (more importantly) have a reason to buy incredibly expensive pioneering devices! So they put JPEG processors in them. Journalists were some of the first users of these cameras, along with military and industrial users. They had the need for speed to press!

Thus began the practice of putting ever faster and more sophisticated JPEG engines into dSLRs, point-and-shoots, and eventually, smartphones and MILCs.

The problem is that John Q. and Mary P. Public weren't ever informed of the limitations, disadvantages, and caveats surrounding the use of JPEGs. Professionals have ALWAYS known those boundaries, and when necessary, stayed within them with EXCELLENT results. As professional photo educator and master portrait photographer, Will Crockett, is fond of saying, "Raw is for Rookies, JPEGs are for professionals." What is meant by that gentle poke is that it is much easier to record and manipulate a raw file to get professional results than it is to *control environments* sufficiently to achieve the same look in difficult situations.

I worked for decades in the school portrait industry, running parts of our optical lab, our digital lab, and then the last seven years as a training content developer and trainer. We had a 100% all JPEG workflow. We controlled EVERYTHING, from the contract, to the camera, to the shipping dock. We knew what we were doing and made it look great (well, at least until we were bought by a bigger company). So that is why I use JPEGs the way I do, in a controlled, careful, thoughtful manner, for subject matter that makes sense.

OTOH, I record (I don't SHOOT anything!) raw files most of the time, now, simply because I'm semi-retired and have time to post-process. I'm also well-equipped and know what I want. It's much easier to get the look I want when I'm able to use the camera's full dynamic range to create the end product.

Working with JPEGs is likened to working with slide/transparency films. Back when I was an AV producer, I had to control everything AT THE CAMERA, just as I did later with JPEG capture. That meant using a bag of filters for color correcting the light. It meant using incident meters, incident flash meters, color temperature meters, and reference targets (gray cards and Kodak Q-13 color patches).

When I used color negative films, I could relax a bit. Color correction was done in "post" (after processing the negative, it went to a Kodak Professional Video Analyzing Computer for visual analysis and color adjustment). As long as the exposure was within a stop or so of "normal," I could get what I wanted. If I was being anal about it, I'd still use my color correction filters in weird lighting situations, but it was less necessary.

Now, with raw capture, I use an exposure and white balance target for both JPEG and raw capture, but in most situations, I don't need it for raw capture. I work on a hardware-calibrated and software-profiled monitor, so what I see is nearly identical to what I print.

My main advice is to use the right tool for the job. When you know that JPEGs were never meant as a file to be post-processed, you can decide whether you are going to learn to expose and white balance correctly at the camera, or simply accept the limitations of bad exposure and poor white balance when you don't. You can decide whether you want to learn a post-processing tool or two, and whether accurate color means anything to you.

Since you are reading this on a photography forum, my hope is that you will choose tools consciously, and appropriately for the results you want to achieve.

I know from watching millions of images go through a lab that decent knowledge and a "pretty good" camera can make much better images than no knowledge and a high end camera, and that anyone can use JPEGs OR raw capture correctly in the right situations. Newbies shouldn't expect magic, no matter how much money they spend. Read the manuals, watch tutorials, go to seminars, and pay attention to what good photographers do and say. It's a life-long process.

NCMtnMan Loc: N. Fork New River, Ashe Co., NC

Based on the comments here, apparently I'm not a photographer. I shoot RAW+JPG all the time. Maybe that means I'm only half a photographer. I have enough other decisions to make on a daily basis, so eliminating this one is a no-brainer. Memory is cheap. Just wish I could upgrade mine.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

A RAW file is God's way of telling us how hard it is to be a camera.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

Very good!

User ID

Yes that *would* be very interesting !
But what is their real purpose, if any ?

(Download)

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Sales.... It's more versatile?

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

At least in some of the newer cameras, having dual card slots of different types is required to support certain high density video formats and maximum frame rates for still photography. The Lumix GH6 uses Compact Flash Type B when recording high bit rate video such as Apple ProRes and ProRes (HQ). At and below 600Mbps, it can use far less expensive SDXC II V90 cards. It's a speed = quality thing. CF-B is also used at 75 fps for stills.

User ID

Many possible answers. None seem to stand taller than others.

rwilson1942 Loc: Houston, TX

RAW

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Only raw. Because I can get better IQ results in every photo, I can take photos that are impossible to take shooting JPEG, and it's faster and easier both behind the camera and later in post -- saves all that time at the computer post processing.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

I've shot and edited 10's of thousands of jpg's, and many thousands of RAW. I've learned that 99.99% of the time I can edit the heck out of a jpg.

Of the many issues that make for a good picture, RAW is near the bottom of the list.

If you know a little about how your camera works, jpgs are all that is needed. If you don't know how to use your camera, then RAW format might be slightly more forgiving but then you probably don't know how to edit either. Editing skills normally come after learning to use your camera, and todays camera's make the minor advantages of raw unnecessary 99.99% of the time.

If you do know how to use your camera and edit, raw is seldom needed other than to clog up your hard drives with needless giant files.