good2gonc Loc: Greater Raleigh, NC Metro Area

Not to muddy any water but if I am not mistaken the D500 has 2 card slots (1-SD and 1XQD). Thus I would set the camera up to dual capture with one card for Raw and 1 card for JPG. Shoot the raw 14 bits uncompressed and the Jpg as Fine. That way you have 2 cards with the same image but different format. If one card goes bad you still have the other card and you can compare them once you get where you can see them both on a computer. I shoot raw as my main format but I have a backup JPG if I need it. Also sometimes the JPG files are good enough without any post processing. I use Adobe Lightroom and Camera Raw to work over my Raw images. I do have a Mac so I am not bothered by the glitches in Windows (just kidding)

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Color space has no effect on raw files. Neither does white balance.

ADL allows the camera to recover some of the highlight and shadow information much like you would when recovering that information when you develop from the raw file. If that's the only correction you need then the JPEG SOOC might be just as good as the JPEG you develop from raw. There are a cfew caveats:
- Just as good may be good enough.
- If you want to do further editing of the JPEG tonality, you need to convert to 16-bit TIFF.
- ADL is arbitrary. You can't recover highlightsor shadows separately. You may need to bracket. You may also need to adapt the level of ADL to the scene.

There are few decent JPEG-only editors but if all you need to do is crop and resize, ADL may be all you need.

While it is possible to accomplish almost the same result using ADL, it's still easier to develop from raw. At least you are starting with more than 8-bit color.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

And that, Sir, is a fair and valid opinion, with a possible exception or two. So far as I am aware, Photoshop elements mostly deals with 8 bit files, so there would be little perceived difference between JPEG and raw files, the beneficial data in raw files (12, 14 or 16 bit) has already been discarded, so there is no difference left to see.

If your computer lacks power, and if you are happy with the results, then there is no problem, but that doesn't negate the value of raw format files that contain more image data.

Robert Velasco

Why shoot "Raw"? Over the years I have vacillated from shooting raw to shooting in jpeg. I use a Nikon D610 which produces very large Raw images. It is hard to review these pictures because my computer lack the power to do this quickly. I examined my photos and decided that I could shoot in jpeg and would not lose much...??? Why? Well, I post process using ADOBE Elements 15 and it has a Raw image processing component...this means that I can open a jpeg image using this component and then "ALL" the adjustments I can make to a raw file I can make to a jpg file. This is why I reverted to shooting in jpg. Well, now I am back to shooting in raw again...why?..because the adjustments that are made to jpg images using the raw component do not result in the same quality of image as can be obtained by modifying a raw image with the raw component. Specifically, adjustments to raw files using the raw component do not "hurt" the original image. If you sharpen an image, for example, on the jpg image you will get noise with is almost impossible to adjust. With the raw image, you can soften the sharpening process and NOT get that irksome noise. What I particularly like about editing an image using raw is that you can tweak the exposure and the color temperature of an image. You can also increase exposure in shadow areas that results in a superior image rather than that which can be gotten from the shadows and highlights commands used for jpg images. What I really like is that when you process an image the raw processor records your actions and you can come back later and see what you did which is something you can not do with jpg images. Specifically I would say that raw image processing is that process you do to images as a whole unlike jpg processing where you deal with individual elements in the jpg file....for example, removing stuff from a picture that detracts. There is no clone command in raw processing. Anyway, enough said....shoot in raw and get better images...in the long run, you will be better served.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

The quote is, "The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance."
--Bob

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

I shoot RAW because it allows me to post process with a file that contains far more information than a JPEG file contains. I post process because I can recover shadows and highlights that are not recoverable from a JPEG. I use the histogram on my mirrorless camera to ensure that I don't over or under expose. The histogram also tells me if I need to take multiple exposures to capture the full dynamic range of the scene. I watch the histogram in my post processing application while making adjustments to exposure, contrast, levels, etc., to ensure I don't lose information by pushing the adjustments too far. I process in ProPhoto RGB because it has a wider color space than sRGB and Adobe RGB. When post processing, I perform adjustments in approximately the following order: Incorporate camera-based adjustments for distortion and chromatic aberration, crop and adjust horizon; adjust white balance; adjust exposure; adjust highlights and shadows; adjust white and black levels and contrast; adjust color. If necessary, I output a copy of the adjusted RAW file as a PSD file to Photoshop for adjustment of specific elements of the image and for spot removal. I then save the PSD file in Photoshop then return the file in TIFF format to my RAW processor/catalog. Then I sharpen and export a JPEG file, depending on whether I intend the file to be printed or to be viewed on a computer screen. In addition to the JPEG I output, I maintain the original RAW file and the adjustments I made in both the RAW processor and in Photoshop. I never delete or modify the original RAW file. Depending on the image, I will also save a PSD and TIFF file because those represent final documents at different stages of processing. I can process most files in a few minutes in my RAW processor. If I do additional processing in Photoshop, that takes anywhere from a few minutes to hours, depending on how I intend to use the final image.

TheShoe Loc: Lacey, WA

This seems to be a very popular topic; hence, I have not read every post. From what I have read, nobody has mentioned some very basic and pervasive distortions such as keystone (maybe you are like my wife and are blind to keystoning) that are not corrected in the camera produced jpg. You can edit the jpg to eliminate them, but then you are subjecting the image to loss of data that you cannot predict or control. If shooting raw, this is not a problem.

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

The camera is a tool to capture and record light. You can record light in 8-bit JPEG format or in a 16, 14, or 12 bit RAW file. That means you capture 512, 64, or 16 time as much information in a RAW file as in a JPEG file. That is why RAW files are preferred for adjustments in post processing and result in higher quality images after post processing.

But not all photographers want to make the effort to learn how to properly process a RAW file or need more than an out-of-camera JPEG for their intended audience. These practical photographers are similar to the practical farmer who doesn't bother spend a lot of effort to cook and season slop he feeds to his pigs. Most photo viewers and most pigs wouldn't notice the difference.

DanielB Loc: San Diego, Ca

Zoom into the Jpeg (200% or more) and you'll notice the Jaggy edges this is because Jpeg is a compressed file and you loose pixel data with it. RAW is uncompressed where every pixel is recorded and stored, thus the larger file and more ability to do finer edits and recover more detail, color and contrast in your photo's.

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

Pigs? Seriously! You certainly have a way with words Harvard?

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

I wouldn't 'fix' keystoning if I started off with a 'raw' file; I also wouldn't 'fix' railroad tracks that seem to converge as they recede in the distance.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

I am not sure about the "before any PP" thing that people always refer to when discussing raw files. I don't know what "PP" they are talking about. Why does there need to be any post processing at all in this scenario? In nay case, I do far less post processing with raw files than I did with JPEGs and any that I do is much faster and easier than working with JPEG files.

I am comparing CR files (Canon's proprietary raw file format) as viewed in DPP (Canon's program that comes with their cameras) to JPEGs.

Keep in mind that I am not talking about theory, but rather subjective personal experience here. Others can address the technical issues. I am talking abut personal satisfaction - dramatically improved results, less time required.

Mike

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

I guess some people like trees and buildings that visibly tip toward the centerline of photos. At least it is symmetric.

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

Just wanted to see if anyone read my post.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

I don't believe that the CR files (Canon's raw format) as viewed in DPP (Canon's program for editing their raw files) can properly be called "JPEGs." Nor do I think that PSP files, for example, viewed in Adobe programs are JPEGs. GIF files are not JPEGs, nor are PNG files nor TIFF files. Therefore, a file does not need to be displayed as a JPEG in order to be seen.

Files in all image formats need to be interpreted by software, do they not?

Mike