avemal Loc: BALTIMORE

Shoot Raw or Jeg
I get good results shooting JPEG with Lightroom.
I understand Raw will give more detail . The big difference is the size of the file but the edit will give more true detail. THOUGHTS please.

Bill Munny Loc: Aurora, Colorado

Use the search button for this topic, miles of lines on it. If you like JPG, than just stay with it. It all ends up other than RAW anyway. I shoot nothing but RAW, but that is my choice.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

Simple in my mind. Shoot raw if you have that capability in your camera. Why? Because Shooting in Raw format will give you more control over how your photograph shows and even be able to correct several small flaws when you capture the photo, such as the exposure. You can easily fix the white balance in RAW file if the white balance cannot be properly set with the camera when taking a photo.
If you choose to shoot in RAW, the photograph can be enlarged beyond the sensor's resolution of you camera and the scene of image will contain high contrast.
The quality of a JPEG file generated from RAW format is much better than the one directly shot in JPEG. So you can shoot in RAW and then convert it to JPEG

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

I shoot RAW, but you should do what you like best. If you like shooting JPEG and are happy with the results you get don't change just because somebody does something different.

avemal Loc: BALTIMORE

Thanks too all. Makes sense.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

For excessive dynamic range, there are options to shooting raw. I like simple and fast and get it right in camera. I have NEVER shot raw and probably never intend to.

Today's sensors are much better than in the past - when raw was more beneficial and there were few options.

..

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

You misunderstand the benefits of RAW photography. File size is irrelavant. If you ever shot film, think of RAW as the negative, and think of photographers in the dark room, dodging, burning, masking manually to get the perfect exposure. If you ever saw an unretouched Ansel Adams print, SOOC, you would be shocked.

In addition, JPEG is a compressed file format. Each time you open a JPEG and save, it is compressed and you lose detail

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

If you have the time to take advantage of what RAW will give you then shoot RAW. If it doesn't really matter and you are happy with the results of shooting jpeg then shoot jpeg. It's a personal choice that only you can make for yourself. I personally shoot both.

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

You always shoot raw. Cameras cannot shoot jpeg. However, a photographer makes a conscious decision about the level of quality that is adequate, whether they intend to process the image further, what the image will be used for, etc - and set the camera to produce jpegs and toss all the other data that the camera recorded away.

It seems a little short-sighted to me. There is no question that raw produces a superior image, and that setting the camera to convert to jpeg can come really close, especially when the photographer is in control of lighting and contrast - but recording raw files provides more creative opportunities.

Also, since you are already familiar with Lightroom's develop module - editing a raw file is just as easy and fast as editing a jpeg. I have not shot jpegs, except for demonstrations, since 2006, and I don't think I will ever again. Regardless of how "cool" the new cameras are with their new features and bells and whistles. I still get better results with raw.

I look back on my early digital jpegs and curse myself for not investigating raw capture earlier.

I can't believe that this is still a question, and that there are some that just flat-out refuse to even consider shooting raw . . .

That's my $.02.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

For most of my work I shoot jpg fine. Enough detail for most of my needs.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

I agree one hundred 💯 percent. I converted only about a year ago but the resulting improvement is noticeable. I had not noticed the iq loss in resaved jpegs, but further analysis shows it in as few as three resaves. If you have adequate post processing software there is no need to save anything but RAW camera files and exported JPEGs.

Andy

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

I have those self inflicted bruises as well. Why, why, why didn’t I figure this out sooner? <cough> - Ken Rockwell<cough>

UHH brought me to the light. I occasionally shoot SOOC jpegs for work documentation, but for any photo I ever intend to display, it’s nothing but RAW.

Andy

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

I always shoot RAW; and post-process every image to some degree.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Oh, and I do PP all my JPEGS in Elements.

..

TonyP Loc: New Zealand

My advice is to shoot both if you are happy with the jpeg results you are currently getting.
That way, if you capture a really important or stunning picture you have the options offered by RAW post processing to make adjustments that you cant make with a jpeg.
PS Elements makes this easy too.
I was a late adopter of Digital Photography (never thought it would catch on!) and a later adopter of capturing RAW.
Now I shoot exclusively RAW with my D7100 and jpeg + RAW on the LX100. Wish Id done it earlier.
Camera and computer storage is relatively cheap these days.