RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

One can shoot RAW with no need for post processing, just export it as a JPEG or, better yet, shoot RAW + JPEG.

Bill_de Loc: US

If you just export from an Adobe product the jpg will be processed with your products set defaults. If you export from camera manufacturer's (and some third party) software you can export with what you set your camera to do.

---

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Yes. Technically, I suppose it could be considered post processing, but it’s done with no other input from the user. I also recommend that the OP shoot RAW.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

The old timers here will generally recommend that you shoot jpeg in the beginning. I disagree. Shoot raw. The software to adjust raw images is relatively easy to use, and there are many decent options. Even if you just need to make some simple adjustments to tone, contrast, overall brightness, color balance (a big one), sharpening, etc etc. The number of commands to make these adjustments are far fewer than anything you will use on a jpeg image and still retain excellent image quality. Yes, it can be argued that Photoshop CC lets you use the same raw-like adjustments using the same interface as Adobe Camera Raw, but the results are rarely as good as you would get if you adjusted the raw file rather than a jpeg. To put it simply the raw adjustment learning curve is shorter and the outcome (image quality) is going to always be better. I have always found that moving from the simpler to the more complex (editing in a parametric raw file editor compared to editing tiffs/psds/jpegs in a bit map editor like Photoshop) is an easier path to learning and getting good results than the other way around.

A few more considerations. If you shoot raw and do not want to spend any time at first with post processing, you can download a free program called Instant Jpeg From Raw to quickly extract a medium quality jpeg from a raw file. This is great because all the pictures you will be taking from this point forward have better future editing capability that you give away when you let the camera produce the finished image at the outset.

Using a jpeg extractor is probably better than shooting raw+jpeg, if for no other reason than you will be quickly inundated with files which take up room on a hard drive. Using the extractor lets you be specific about what files you want to convert to jpeg for sharing or posting.

Finally, there are a couple of free programs that can read raw files, provide some very basic editing (personally I don't care for the editing capabilities and results) but are totally free. Irfanview and FastStone Image Viewer.

For quality raw editing and conversion to jpeg I like Photoshop and Lightroom, and On1 Raw.

This is a loaded question and expect lots of opinions. No one is right and no one is wrong on this. My suggestion is to pick the path that gives you the most options for now and in the future. Winslowe, Bull Drink Water Rmalarz, WayneT, Kmgw9v and others have nailed it - they clearly understand the process and the benefits, and are not afraid of suggesting the easier path to a beginner.

Doug RC Loc: Western Massachusetts

Very often folks ask me that question.
I always tell them .. If you want pretty photos to share and post online, right out of the camera, then shoot .JPG
Modern cameras do a pretty good job.
However if you are able and use and are confident with POST processing and want to do that .. then Shoot .RAW
seems pretty straightforward.

fjrwillie Loc: MA

You have gotten some great answers so far about the benefits of shooting RAW. With my first DSLR I started shooting in both RAW and JPG and processed only the JPG file. After reading many discussions here I took the leap to post processing RAW and have never looked back. Still capture in both forms, but about ready to switch to RAW only.

When shooting RAW you have to do some post processing with either the software that came with your camera or some 3rd party software. The advantage to post processing, other than bringing out the most in a photo, is you get to look at your work up close to see what you captured on an intimate basis. Shooting in JPG, posting up on the internet forgoes this evaluation. Simple discoveries may be you are always shooting photos unlevel, or getting blown out skies, cutting off part of the picture you didn't want to, learning to crop for a more effective result. Then there is learning post processing skills on how to enhance the shot. Looking at a photo you could say to yourself I wonder how this photo would look if it had more contrast, vibrance, clarity, sharpness or I want to bring a particular object out in the photo. You will not learn this by simply taking in JPG and letting the camera do the post processing.

Can you enhance a JPG, sure, but why limit the starting point when you have the RAW file.

My thought and probably worth less than 2 cents.

Willie

frjack Loc: Boston, MA

RAW and manual all the time. The greatest possible flexibility when taking the shot and when post-processing. The only time I ever use jpeg and perhaps auto is when asked (ugh) to take photos at something such as a cookout or party in which quality is a minor consideration. If you shoot RAW get an exernal hard drive to store and post-process. A 2gb drive will hold a massive amount of RAW photos.

blackest Loc: Ireland

What resolution is the embedded jpeg?

I think shooting both is the best way to start, although check what you get from each camera mode, I used a green automatic mode for a bbq the other day and it only saved jpegs.
Having the instant jpeg does mean you can get the photo's out fast, e.g for that bbq i just burnt the jpegs to cd's and gave them to the mothers and zero pressure on me to post process them.

Having the raw file gives the option of using it or deleting it, thats a good option to have, also you will be better at postprocessing a year from now so having the raw file means you can revisit your older photo's.

Peter made the very good point that Raw and jpeg need pretty much the same processing power as each other and its really only a question of storage space that's a downside of raw processing.

Processing power and ram, well with photoshop and multiple layers that is demanding, but lightroom is pretty light weight I've found it usable on a 2Ghz dual core with 3GB ram. Because it's a recipe maker rather than a pixel based editor most of the time you are not working with the full resolution image, which makes it pretty quick. When it applies the recipe to the full resolution image on export, then it makes your computer work but go make a coffee, read something, the import process and building initial previews is slow too, but you don't need to be involved. It's like using a washing machine press start and come back later when it is done.

The fella thats colorblind ok postprocessing color could be problematic but black & white photo's don't need accurate color in fact you probably tweak the color channels to a horrible level to get great tones in the black and white photo.

So start capturing raw from the beginning, it's not like you will never take a good photograph for the first few years, you might not be able to do a good job of processing it for a good while yet but when you have the skills developed you can go back.

cull cull cull, don't post process bad photographs, if you're selective about what you work on you will have time for a shower

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Shoot both and use bracket... JPEG is usually quite sufficient. RAW ... tweak if you screw up on all 3 of the bracketed JPEGs. Also do not mention in church that you shoot photos in RAW, they may think you are nude....

Bracketing allows your oops and RAW for correcting.... but bracketing allows you to do HDR... hi dynamic range... With HDR, you see the dark and see the bright at the same time.....

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

I shoot everything as RAW. Once I've uploaded the images into Lightroom and worked the images, I will convert them to jpg for printing, HDR conversion etc. EVERYTHING is sorted and stored in RAW. JPG versions are saved in a jpg folder for printing etc. and then saved into a "working" folder on an external drive or a folder named for the subject or customer. If I am going for HDR, I usually take a RAW photo in Lightroom and make several virtual copies, adjusting the exposure, etc. in each for combining into HDR. This guarantees that all of the photos in my HDR are EXACTLY the same. In combining photos made from multiple shots in camera for HDR, the shots are taken a second or two apart. If, there is something moving in the photo, even leaves blown by wind, a bird or airplane flying or anything, it will have moved within the frame in the multiple shots taken in camera.

cthahn

Shoot RAW all the time. You can always go from RAW to JPG, but never from JPG to RAW. Never loose any information in RAW.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

If you like processing and want to process every shot you want to keep, then raw would work for you. JPEG is usable out of the camera. Raw allows more leeway in processing. I shoot raw just because I can, and I want to be like all the cool guys.

Lowrider Loc: Kennesaw, GA

I just recently bought a camera that shoots RAW so I shoot both RAW and JPEG at the same time. So far, maybe 1 out of 10 needs RAW processing. That isn't really why I take pictures so it is mostly a waste for me. I take so many pictures I can't print and hang them on the wall. Not enough wall. I don't shoot professionally I shoot for my own pleasure. I have yet to show one of my photos to someone and have them say, "you should have done some post processing." Personally, I think we are talking about two different things.
One is taking the best picture you can with the camera you own. The other is about processing. If you take a picture with the thought that you will "fix it in post processing," I think that is o.k. Just not for me. I am an outdoor person and my camera gets me out there. I am in it for the hunt not for the cleaning and eating.

All I am saying is there is more than the obvious reason for shooting in either format. Some are just esoteric to the person. Photograph, like any hobby develops over time. What might be right for you today might not be tomorrow. Do both and develop your own style. My thought is that right now I don't have the time to do the post processing but when I retire at the end of the year, I want that option.

cmcaroffino Loc: Sebring, FL

Algernon gave you a great answer. For myself I shot JPG for years because I didn't know how and was intimated to learn RAW. The last few months I have been shooting more RAW and find I really enjoy the post processing. Still have lots to learn but having fun watching tutorials and trying new things, and seeing all the variations available to a single picture. It opened up a whole new realm of enjoyment for my photography hobby. I still shoot both depending on the situation but tend to shoot RAW for landscapes, nature stuff etc. and JPG when I don't want to spend the time processing RAW files. They both have their place and its finding what works for you and above all else have fun and enjoy yourself.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

Make yourself happy and experiment. I shoot raw and that makes me happy.