woodfrog Loc: Tennessee

I started out shooting RAW+JPEG in order to have a comparison to process by. Over time 90% of the processed RAW files looked better than the SOOC JPEGs. I shoot RAW only now.

Allen hammer

I had been doing all processing including all the items you mention using Corel Paint shop Pro and using it on jpeg from my now gone Rebel 5Ti. Don't understand why so many folks seem to think you can not do any extensive processing with Jpeg files and some app other than ps or lightroom. Guess I am not discriminating enough. Anyway I got a trial of a DxO photo program and it allowed me to recover my Raw pics just fine. Thanks for your comments

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I shoot and work with RAW, but I keep the JPEG for seeing (In Windows Explorer) what images I want to work on.

jdubu Loc: San Jose, CA

There are plenty of programs that will extensively edit and process raw and jpeg files, but Photoshop is the standard and has been for many years. I employ a number of programs for my work, but the mainstay for me has always been Photoshop. Other plugins and programs are not without their usefulness, I also use DXO Photolab and Viewpoint, Topaz and Nik suites and they are great.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

Someone said this subject has been beaten to death. There are places for shooting JPG like journalistic photography, sports photography, and snapshots. Photographers who consider themselves professional and fine art shooters mostly shoot RAW. I don't shoot anything JPG because I see the difference in my editing and finished product. The answer to your proposal is this: "Shoot the way that pleases you. You don't have to please anyone else unless they are paying you – then you damn sure ought to shoot RAW.

Vietnam Vet

Make sure your settings are accurate and shoot jpg

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Works for some images but not for the more challenging ones. But making accurate settings is a good thing in either case. Dynamic range considerations will determine if you can get away with jpeg.

btbg

Almost all the sports pros I know shoot RAW, including myself. It's a myth that journalists and sports photographers all shoot JPEG. It depends on who you are shooting for and what rules they have. Reuters requires JPEG most others don't. The only reason I ever produce a JPEG is either because I have to e-mail the photo and a tiff file is too large, or because we need the jpeg for web. Otherwise it's all RAW files converted to Tiff for printing.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Use "quote reply" so we know what you are replying to..

There are things you cannot do when the originals are jpeg, or at least not as well as working with RAW. RAW has a lot more leeway and when imported into Light Room you do not modify or destroy the original. It keeps a file of changes and every time you open the image it calls up a copy of the original and applies the latest set of changes. Refered to as "non destructive" processing.

Bill_de Loc: US

Raw is hyped a lot around here, in some cases by folks who obviously, from their work, don't really know how to take advantage of it.

However, it is not all hype. True photographic artists can do wonders with raw files that can't be done with JPG. We have a number of those folks here also.

I am not an artist. In fact if you listen to some of the RAW fanatics I'm not a real photographer.
I shoot both RAW and JPG and 99% of what I post online are pure JPG. Occasionally I need to use the RAW. I am very familiar with working in RAW as I shot raw exclusively for many years. I also find RAW can help with larger prints.

I recommend that folks shoot both. Use the JPG as long as you are getting good results. Dabble with RAW and see what develops. I like having a HEMI V8 under the hood of my JEEP. Most of the time I don't need half the power it is capable of producing. But when I need it, or just want to play, it's nice to know it is there.

--

---

tdekany Loc: Oregon

You should re read what those people are saying about editing JPEGs. They are not saying what you think they are saying. Do you really think that millions of very talented photographers are misinformed and you know something they don’t? I hope that is not what you are trying to say. But like many replies suggested, follow what ever works for you. Nobody really cares, really.

https://www.markmetternich.com - do you think he shoots jpeg files?

http://ljhollowayphotography.com - how about her?

Like almost everyone else, I also don’t care what format one shoots. Much more interested in the final product. I want to see a picture that makes me say WOW!!!

I would hope that that is what most of us are after. Not fixating on technical bs.

But, and it is a very big BUT, I will never ever understand the logic behind shooting JPEGs IF you are going to move the sliders around in PP. It just doesn’t make any sense.

A good cook buys raw meat to prepare, isn’t that right?

What ever you do, good luck to you and produce quality stuff any way that works for you. Just try to remember that there is always a very good reason why the majority does things a certain way in photography. Even if you don’t understand it yet. With time and experience, you will.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

I'm curious what you mean when you say, "LR for editing, it will strongly resist overwriting an original jpg." That phrase makes no sense to me as a long-time LR user who had edited RAW and JPEG many hundreds and/or thousands of times. LR never "overwrites" anything, it just layers meta data over the top and that metadata is only applied upon export.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

My mother-in-law would never buy anything but cooked meat to serve . . . tells you what kind of cook she is (or isn't). . .

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Lol, it sure does!!