Raw: I know I will get replies telling me good Raw is, but, as a non-expert photographer with my new Nikon I find JPG Fine about as good as I need and easier to use. No doubt experts...

viscountdriver Loc: East Kent UK

I know I will get replies telling me good Raw is, but, as a non-expert photographer with my new Nikon I find JPG Fine about as good as I need and easier to use.
No doubt experts will not use anything else but I bet the average Joe could not tell the difference and with modern edit programmes a huge amount can be done with JPG

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

I use JPEG Fine also and am happy with it.

Dennis

DrWilk Loc: .

For the majority of uses and users Jpeg is perfectly fine. Its when you need to do just a little more to that special shot that you'll wish you had shot RAW. If you don't PP or enlarge and print your pics than stay with Jpeg if youre happy with it.

boydimages Loc: California

One reason for RAW is you can increase the dynamic range in your image. That said many newer cameras are also doing this with JPGs. Nikon has what they call Automatic D-Lighting to help with this. I'm sure other cameras have something similar. Or, they just do it with no setting adjustment needed.

viscountdriver wrote:

I know I will get replies telling me good Raw is, but, as a non-expert photographer with my new Nikon I find JPG Fine about as good as I need and easier to use.
No doubt experts will not use anything else but I bet the average Joe could not tell the difference and with modern edit programmes a huge amount can be done with JPG

amehta Loc: Boston

viscountdriver wrote:

I know I will get replies telling me good Raw is, but, as a non-expert photographer with my new Nikon I find JPG Fine about as good as I need and easier to use.
No doubt experts will not use anything else but I bet the average Joe could not tell the difference and with modern edit programmes a huge amount can be done with JPG

I would suggest you shoot raw+jpeg for now. Use the jpegs and save the raw files. If you do start doing raw processing in a few years, you can come back to some of the "keepers" from today and enhance them.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

viscountdriver wrote:

I know I will get replies telling me good Raw is, but, as a non-expert photographer with my new Nikon I find JPG Fine about as good as I need and easier to use.
No doubt experts will not use anything else but I bet the average Joe could not tell the difference and with modern edit programmes a huge amount can be done with JPG

I'm strictly a raw shooter but I see nothing wrong with jpg. I enjoy the post processing just as I did the darkroom in the film era.

If I ever get tired of raw I'm almost certain I'll be satisfied with jpg.

redhogbill Loc: antelope, calif

viscountdriver wrote:

I know I will get replies telling me good Raw is, but, as a non-expert photographer with my new Nikon I find JPG Fine about as good as I need and easier to use.
No doubt experts will not use anything else but I bet the average Joe could not tell the difference and with modern edit programmes a huge amount can be done with JPG

in your case ,I then would use jpeg, it suites you and works for you! when you get to the point of wanting to experiment more you will start playing with RAW.
Raw take's up 3x's more storage {depending on what setting you use "in camera"} per photo!! something to think about
personally I use Raw and can barely tell the difference between finished product!
I use RAW mainly to have the original file I can go back to.

good luck

redhogbill Loc: antelope, calif

amehta wrote:

I would suggest you shoot raw+jpeg for now. Use the jpegs and save the raw files. If you do start doing raw processing in a few years, you can come back to some of the "keepers" from today and enhance them.

this too, is a really good idea! but just consider storage factors,

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

viscountdriver wrote:

I know I will get replies telling me good Raw is, but, as a non-expert photographer with my new Nikon I find JPG Fine about as good as I need and easier to use.
No doubt experts will not use anything else but I bet the average Joe could not tell the difference and with modern edit programmes a huge amount can be done with JPG

FWIW - I shoot raw with my D7100, that gives me a raw file that is between 24 & 30 MB in size... if I shoot JPG, the file size starts out as a 24 MB raw file, then the camera converts it to a 14 Mb JPG file - what happened to all the other data? It got deleted or compressed in a lossy compression routine.

I prefer to get all the data my sensor saw, and let me decide what details to change/delete.

With raw you get to change white balance, you don't get the same settings choices with white balance in JPG.

I write JPG files when I output from my Post Processing software.

If you find that JPG is all you need and you never do much of any post processing, great.... I enjoy the post processing work associated with capturing raw myself.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

raw or jpg matters only if you intend to PP you image capture.

amehta Loc: Boston

redhogbill wrote:

this too, is a really good idea! but just consider storage factors,

Storage factor: external hard drive for about $50/TB, hopefully not more in the UK.

For 20-25mp images, compressed 14-bit raw files are about 30MB, and 1TB would hold about 30,000 images.

Ok, storage factors are considered. :-)

amehta Loc: Boston

Rongnongno wrote:

raw or jpg matters only if you intend to PP you image capture.

Also if you ever decide in the future that you want to do some PP with the image. I do not think that intent when making the capture is enough.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

viscountdriver wrote:

I know I will get replies telling me good Raw is, but, as a non-expert photographer with my new Nikon I find JPG Fine about as good as I need and easier to use.
No doubt experts will not use anything else but I bet the average Joe could not tell the difference and with modern edit programmes a huge amount can be done with JPG

In my un-expert opinion, raw seems to be at its best when rescuing poorly exposed images.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

jerryc41 wrote:

In my un-expert opinion, raw seems to be at its best when rescuing poorly exposed images.

Wrong raw is at its best when an image is taken correctly. Using raw to repair is ridiculous and frankly an annoying concept that is propagated all over.

SOOC is more important than ever when using raw. You would drive Cadillac in a muddy field now, would you?

redhogbill Loc: antelope, calif

amehta wrote:

Storage factor: external hard drive for about $50/TB, hopefully not more in the UK.

For 20-25mp images, compressed 14-bit raw files are about 30MB, and 1TB would hold about 30,000 images.

Ok, storage factors are considered. :-)

:thumbup: :thumbup: