Teacher22 Loc: Texas

Just wondering Raw Or JPEG shooting on an upcoming Europe trip.....I have the equipment to do both and could possible be able to display or sell some of those photos. I would be interested in your professional opinion.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

RAW is my preference.
--Bob

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

I always shoot raw for any photos I might want to display in any manner. I want all the data I can get in those, and plenty of leeway for any editing they may need to make them the best they can be.

twillsol Loc: St. Louis, MO

:thumbup: :thumbup: Me Too!

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I would bring lots of 32GB cards and shoot Raw + JPEG. Best of both worlds. Raw lets you save shots that didn't quite turn out.

http://digital-photography-school.com/raw-versus-jpg-why-you-might-want-to-shoot-in-raw-format/

http://reframe.gizmodo.com/why-you-should-be-shooting-raw-in-one-simple-gif-1607230731

anotherview Loc: California

While I agree fully with this approach, at the same time, using the RAW-JPEG file format camera setting could make sense, too, if the user lacks present experience developing RAW images, but intends later to learn how to develop these images.

I always shoot in the RAW file format, have done so since April 2008, and never looked back.

BTW: This thread may arouse the usual contrarians who disdain the RAW file format for their own reasons. Ignore them, except as a courtesy to hear them out, if you have nothing better to do.

Once you realize the power of Adobe Camera for developing RAW image files, you will, little doubt, want to continue this approach for getting the most out of your photographs.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

If you have the ability to shoot RAW do it!!!! Be sure to back up your photos if you can. Especially if you are planning on selling the photos. Jpg is a compressed format that allows the camera and processing to make decisions you might not choose. Raw is a non-destructive format that you can edit and still have the original "negative" to work with later. If you shoot both, you are just wasting storage you could have used for extra raw shots.
This is a trip to Europe and there will be lots of photo ops. Also, make sure you have a couple of extra batteries and a battery charger, with an adapter for the European currents. (often available at the air port when you arrive over there, or a Radio Shack or similar store.)

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

I have yet to hear a relly good reason not to shoot both. Except certain situations when swaping out cards is not possible. But a vacation does not fall in any of those categrories.

Take lots of cards and shoot both.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

My reason for not shooting both is that you can use the space for more shots and not duplicate. Also, if the camera can shoot both, it possibly uses 2 cards and you could shoot Raw with raw auto backup to the second card if you are that paranoid.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Depends on your expertise. From your very question you may be at the same level as me. I shoot raw & jpg - I enjoy developing the raws using Silkypix, although I have used others including DXO. Usually I am pleased with what I get. However, I do find that jpgs out of the cameras (with my personalised settings) are usually just as pleasing and sometimes better. Also I can still edit the jpgs - even in Silkypix. So it depends on your storage capacity. If it is limited - go for jpgs only. You can always save as Tiffs later to preserve data.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

This is a very controversial area of photography and as such opinions will vary although I am afraid there will be a bias toward RAW files. Not all cameras shoot a good JPEG file but in general modern JPEG files are of excellent quality.
Dynamic range has been always better with RAW but many cameras can open the shadow areas and many softwares do the same with little concern for noise.
RAW needs special software to edit and the file requires lots of manipulation to make it the way you want your final picture to look. JPEG files are smaller, little manipulation is needed and they are also of excellent quality for enlargements. Straight out of camera a JPEG looks much better than a RAW file.
JPEG are universal files meaning that they are recognized by all editing softwares. It is what professional labs print and it is what your monitor see best. My eyes cannot see the differences between a RAW file and a JPEG when it comes to quality.
One peculiarity of a JPEG file is its looseless compression and you should always use with your JPEG LARGE and FINE. To remedy that I use a copy of the file to edit and the original one is saved as a TIFF, a lostless file.
Although RAW is a very popular file I know many professionals using JPEG, including excellent wedding photographers. I shoot the majority of my files as JPEG in the sRGB color space, especially with my Olympus mirrorless camera.
I am sure the Nikon D4 is an excellent professional camera. I find most interesting that the default file type from the factory is a JPEG and sRGB the color space, which is the color space your monitor sees best and the one that color labs print. The sRGB color space has millions of colors that neither you nor anyone else can see. Adobe RGB and ProPhoto have trillions of colors that no human eye can see either. Once you have edited your RAW file you need to make it a JPEG in the sRGB color space for the web or for printing. After so much work I just always wondered what happened to the original file when compression to a JPEG and the compression of the color space took place. To me it is obvious that something had to give.
Both are different files and in my humble opinion JPEG has the advantage of being usable straight out of camera. I use RAW at times but I have never made a RAW file any better than my JPEGs although I am sure there will be many RAW files users that will differ.
Be confident, both files are excellent and the selection of one or the other depends on individual needs.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Which is only a real issue if you cannot switch out cards. If you are taking a trip to Europe and cannot afford to spring for a few extra cards, you probably cannot afford a trip to Europe.

Also the pictures are not duplicates, they are very different. One is unprocessed and one is ready to use or "prêt-à-porter" since we are going to Europe. Each file has a very different use. One you can start to show and use immediately and the other you can process into something more.

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

RAW or RAW plus JPEG. Personally, I shoot RAW only. Never shoot JPEG because too much information is discarded when the camera processes a JPEG. ;)

Mr PC Loc: Austin, TX

The one time I DON'T shoot in both Raw and JPEG is when I'm doing continuous shooting of birds in flight or other high speed action shots. The buffer fills up after only a few shots. Maybe a camera with 2 card slots wouldn't suffer from this nearly as much, but at 40 or 50Mb per shot, I can't imagine a camera that could keep up for long. The extra leeway that RAW files provide for getting creative and making a good shot much better makes me lean towards wanting a RAW version of everything I shoot. While they take a lot of room, storage has gotten ridiculously cheap. You can get a 2TB drive for around $100-$125 these days. Hope this helps.

drmarty Loc: Pine City, NY

:thumbup: :thumbup: