zneb240 Loc: New South Wales - Australia

I don't often replace/update my DSLR - to date I have updated only three times in approx. 10 years. In so many ways each new camera has been a huge improvement over its predecessor - particularly in image quality. My latest camera is capable of stunning image quality when compared to my first DSLR. In the past, I shot almost always in RAW as I was not keen to trust myself shooting those important images in JPEG - I wanted the latitude offered by the RAW format during PP.

This brings me to my point. When set up as I want it, my latest camera produces JPEGs of such extraordinary quality they need essentially no other work aside from cropping and some very, very minor adjustment. I'm almost ashamed to admit that I haven't shot RAW since just after getting my new camera :oops: I'm often disappointed with my clumsy work but never with the actual image quality - the camera always delivered.

I should mention I shoot probably 95% wildlife (which I often convert to B&W), occasional macro, sometimes 'general' type images of family etc. but very rarely landscapes or people/portraits. I personally don't enjoy sitting at my computer doing post work and prefer to limit PP to cropping and perhaps some minor tidying-up.

This leads my to my question: Will in-camera processing and cameras become so good (or are we there now) that an accomplished enthusiast photographer could confidently shoot in JPEG format at all times and will RAW format be the domain of commercial and professionals who need it for special purposes - but only then into the foreseeable future. In other words, is RAW format becoming obsolete?

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I shoot in both formats, depending on the situation. It seems to me that JPEG does a good job if the conditions are good. If things are questionable, raw lets me get a little more out of it in PP. I don't shoot to sell images, so I might be less critical that a pro. Still, I get lots of JPEGs that are perfectly acceptable.

I think some people will continue to shoot raw exclusively as long as it is available - just because they're used to shooting and processing raw. If a camera maker introduces and expensive DSLR without raw, it would not sell as well.

ejrmaine Loc: South Carolina

Not for me, I still prefer to make my own adjustments for White balance, Clarity, etc. to achieve what I saw in the viewer. I'm not comfortable giving up these decisions to a program in my camera.

Personally I enjoy post processing.

MMC Loc: Brooklyn NY

I know that nobody and nothing is perfect /except my wife/ and if I shoot RAW I always can try to improve my image. BTW what camera do you have?

Peter Boyd Loc: Blyth nr. Newcastle U.K.

Agree wholeheartedly

:thumbup:

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

Interesting perspective, and quite counter to my own. But, that's okay!! I shoot in raw 100% of the time. For me, it's like having the negatives with which I can develop the image at any point to enhance with new techniques, knowledge or software. I consider JPEG a disposable format, meaning, I can throw it away/delete it and know I can always reproduce it.

I'm not saying mine is the only way to do things. Just saying, that's how I do it. I will totally agree with you, however, that today's cameras will produce stunning JPEG images.

Ugly Jake Loc: Sub-Rural Vermont

Hahahahaha! Our wives must be related !!! I concur - a Canon jpg will (IMO) always be detectable as such - likewise Nikon and Olympus - their program settings are distinctive.

jimbrown3 Loc: Naples, FL

Raw is NON DESTRUCTIVE. You can go back multiple times and change the image. Every time you open and change JPEG the image gets compressed farther and you loose information. Just depends what you, personally, want to do. There is NO rule that is right for everyone. Cheers, and good shooting with your new gear !

bobmcculloch Loc: NYC, NY

I fell into that trap when I got my T4i, now I'm back to RAW +JPG almost always, when you want to make a shot look just right you need RAW, Bob.

amehta Loc: Boston

I agree that the out-of-camera jpegs are pretty stunning. I have barely done anything with raw files in 6+ years of DSLR use. I've just started doing some more raw processing, and it seems that I do things because I can, not because the image needs it.

I don't think it is becoming obsolete, but the use is more and more a niche area (like members of this forum).

I wonder if a DSLR would get a custom WB feature, where you take a picture of your WB device (gray card, color palette, etc), and the camera sets a WB memory to that to use for any pictures you select.

billyw42 Loc: Ohio

im just a novice, but i shoot with both raw and jpg . just got a bigger sd card to make up for the extra room taken up..

amehta Loc: Boston

Maybe your wives sent you both to the same "obedience school"? :lol:

The DSLR does give you a fair amount of control over the jpg, you're not entirely at the mercy of the camera's jpg engine settings.

Singing Swan

I understand that RAW gives the unchangealbe-ness to the photo, but exactly WHAT is it that is lost when you lose 'information' and when does this loss begin to make a difference??

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Of course not. The day will never come that a camera can read my mind.

There will always be a raw image captured by the camera. If you choose to start your editing from a second generation (jpg) version of your image you will be missing an opportunity to work with all of the information that you captured.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Personally not me, but I know there are a lot of Olympus shooters that shoot straight JPG because the SOC (straight out of Camera) colors are just that good...I'm sure if you google it (olympus jpg engine), you'll see some great examples. Blues are nice and saturated, reds are true, and greens are vibrant.