frjack Loc: Boston, MA

RAW. Am in Europe now. Shooting RAW almost exclusively. The shots I want to keep or post I work on a bit, perhaps just a tweak of white balance or a bit of sharpening or sometimes a lot more. Over the weekend wil take some photos of the beginning of a pilgrimage. Those I will shoot automatic and jpeg (best quality). At best they will go on a web site or into a newsletter. Have no desire to spend hours tweaking photos for such an event.

One of the unexpected advantages of shooting RAW is it forces editing down the number of photos for a day of shooting or a trip. Nah, I don't feel like adjusting that one too. It is almost the same thing as the one I just worked on. Delete.

Decide on how you want to use the particular shots and then adjust RAW or jpeg accordingly.

mikedidi46 Loc: WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA

I shoot both, mostly to ensure I have options when I post process

mrjcall Loc: Woodfin, NC

Agree with most of what you're saying, but your statement above needs just a bit of clarification. RAW, in and of itself, has nothing to do with being 'non-destructive'. Certain post processing software allows changes and additions which THEN are non-destructive, eh? Perhaps that is what you meant, but not what you said. :shock:

If the questioner has PP experience, then no reason to take up space with RAW +JPEG, just shoot RAW and save space. If there is a need to shoot and immediately post to social media or similar, then both is fine and possibly necessary. :thumbup:

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

RAW, RAW, RAW. You can always go from RAW -> JPEG, but once you give up the extra bits you cannot get them back. At least you won't be kicking yourself in the backside because you blew so many highlights and you can't recover the detail in the shadows that you wanted.

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

Another thread showing how many there are that cannot take photos correctly! Think back to film. The really good photographers needed very little, if any, "post processing" to get good images!! In the "beginning" of photography (ie: Ansel Adams) the film left a lot to be desired, but as time went on the film improved to where a lot of his work became largely unnecessary.

Learn proper exposure, composition, and how to set your camera and you will NOT NEED the raw format!

TheDman Loc: USA

Translation: I don't know how to post process, so I want people to think it's not necessary!

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

:thumbup: :thumbup:
Absolutely. Many older "pros" and "experts" seem convinced that nothing moves on. For them, what WAS best IS best, instead of keeping an open mind to new ideas, and accepting that last year might be old hat.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

according to the industry, the JPEG has not been modified or upgraded since 2000 and is still an 8 bit image. Raw is a 12 or 14 bit image and has greater bit depth. This is not to say that JPEG does not have its uses. It is to say that if you take 2 shots of the same image, the end result of the Raw file will have greater depth and detail. Raw is also lossless meaning that you can edit over and over with out losing your image. I have Jpegs on my computer that have been opened and saved over the years and are now totally missing parts of the image, usually in the brightest and darkest areas. This never happens in images shot in raw.

You, as photographers, can make the decision to shoot in JPEG, or Raw as a decision for yourselves because you know best what your needs are. But, as a professional, who's income depends on being able to go back to an image taken 15 years ago and pull it out for resale, my money is on Raw. Jpeg over the years is only slightly better than Gif and again has not had ANY changes since its final release in 2000. It can not be modified or changed because it is an adoption of a world wide standards organization and owned by them.

http://www.have-camera-will-travel.com/field_reports/raw-vs-jpeg.html

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Your definition of messed up may be very different from mine. You really can't make any final judgements on image quality based on what you may see on a 3" lcd in ambient light. As to using an EVF, I not sure how an electronic view finder would help here. Can you see the image taken through the eyepiece on your camera?

XKaliber

In your intro above you make no mention of your Post Production capabilities. Are you comfortable with Adobe Elements, Lightroom, and/or Photoshop? (or the other handful of other adequate PP software)

Shooting in RAW is for the purpose of having all that additional digital data to play with and get the absolute most of the data you capture when pressing the shutter release button.
Unless the captured data is addressed in some way through post production it will look quite drab and lackluster. If you have no plan for Post Production by you or someone else, there is very little reason to "waste" the memory space.

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

Shoot both then you have the option either way.

Teacher22 Loc: Texas

Yes, I have Lightroom4 and Photoshop11. Plus I have knowledge in processing.

Jim Plogger Loc: East Tennessee

RAW, RAW, RAW....Always! :) :)

jimvanells Loc: Augusta, GA

Try shooting large raw and small JPEGs. Memory is cheap these days and I buy 64gb 90 mbs per second cards at Costco.com for $36 plus shipping ~ $3. I have been using them for a year and each card will hold 2,000 pictures in my 5D III. After a day of shooting, download to a different storage device so you have 2 copies. You must remember that every electronic device will fail at some time or another.

Jim

(Download)

katbandit Loc: new york city

i only shoot in a RAW file..it gives me all the information on the photo and i like to be able to tweak it to my satisfaction...if you shoot jpeg you are very limited to post editing..