JBGLADSTONE Loc: Oregon

My question is, is there a better quality by selecting Raw only vs Raw +jpeg or jpeg only vs Raw+jpeg?

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Only shoot raw if you are intending to post process all or most of you images. If you will rarely post process, stick with jpegs. If you export unedited raw images to jpegs, as a general rule they may look flater and duller with less sharpening or contrast compared to jpegs straight out the camera. The advantage of shooting raw only comes into play if you post process.

I shoot raw only. I edit every image I keep.
I export edited raw files to jpegs in my raw processor of choice, DXO Photolab Elite.

siamesecatmanuk Loc: Leicestershire UK

Think the answer to your question is the quality of Raw is consistent whatever else you set your camera to record,of course RAw file has far more latitude to edit whatever bits of your photo you might want to change.
Graham
Ps I shoot and edit Raw in Zoner photo pro 18

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

Quick answer, NO. You simply have two different file formats that you can work with as needed, although I cannot think why, if you are a fine art type photographer, that you would want to have both files to take up space on your computer. If you were a journalist or maybe a wedding photographer I can see the practical application. Other than those two things, why not just take RAW photos and work with those. Just my thought on it.

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

For subjects of average tonality, contrast and color you are not likely to see a difference between raw and jpeg. An example would be if you shoot products or portraits under studio lighting.

However, if you shoot extreme contrast scenes or those with wide gamut color - you can shoot to preserve highlights (which may result in images looking underexposed), and use post processing to restore shadows and mid-tones.

If you shoot raw+jpeg, you sometimes have to make a choice - shoot to protect highlights or shoot to achieve good mid tones - data lost in the shadows in jpeg is very hard to bring back. It is much easier to restore darker tones with raw.

I stopped shooting jpeg in 2006. I prefer to not lose shooting opportunities because I am either fiddling around with the camera settings, or thinking I am shooting raw when actually shooting jpegs. I also use a raw processing workflow instead of one for raw and one for jpeg.

The other reason I don't shoot jpeg is that while you can edit them, the range of adjustment is limited compared to raw. In short, I get better results, faster, with raw. So there is no need for me to shoot jpeg. Besides, even weddings, which are demanding as far as turnaround - I use raw, because I can usually provide the couple with a full set of decent proofs for review and selection before they wake the following morning. I typically add as many as 1500 images to the computer, review, cull and adjust them in about 90 mins. I have a fast ethernet connection, so in about 15-20 mins they will be on the client side of my website, and they will have an email with a link to the images and their private password. If they want results faster they can hire another photographer. NOTHING is that time sensitive in my world.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

All images are recorded in RAW but if you set your camera for JPEG then the internal processor makes the conversion as it writes to the memory card using the settings the company programs in. When you convert your RAW in PP the result is your settings and will not look exactly the same. Unless you find out your manufacturer's JPEG settings and use them when you PP.
I shoot RAW 99.99% of the time but I got used to doing PP on RAW because my first DSLR was a Sigma SD10 which only did RAW. However Sigma's PP software had a one click batch conversion feature you could use after you imported the images from your memory card. I had the computer set to save the conversions in a separate folder so I ended up with both RAW and JPEG. I did this for a bit over a year until I had developed my PP skills. Then I stuck with the RAW only and did my own PP on all images I wanted to print or send to someone.

So using RAW+JPEG has nothing to do with the quality of the recorded image. It just gives you two versions of the image: one RAW for your own prefered PP work and one JPEG with the look that the company's settings produce.

BebuLamar

I shoot RAW+JPEG. It has nothing to do with the quality of the image. It takes up more space but I never run out of space on the memory card so it doesn't matter. I actually rarely use the JPEG.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

I got in the habit of shooting raw+jpg when I had no easy way to scroll through the photos to decide which to edit (this was prior to learning about FastStone Image Viewer).

I still leave my cameras set that way because occasionally I use the jpg. But after a period of time, it's very simple to delete the jpg's from your computer. In Windows File Manager, sort the folder by "type" and select the jpg's with a quick keyboard command.

In order to facilitate the above, if I edit a raw and save as jpg, I place a 1 in front of the file name.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

There's probably a deep question here in "is there a better quality" ....

Do you plan to edit your RAW files? What software are you planning to use?

Whether you shoot JPEG or RAW, how are you planning to use the resulting image files?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Correct, two different file formats.

I shoot RAW+JPEG so I can view the (JPEG) images in Windows Explorer when I copy them to the computer.
Comes in handy for me. I look at the images and if I want to work on it, open the RAW file. I don't work on an image until I want to print or post it.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I will just mention that storing multiple formats of the image substantially decreases the max burst size before the buffer fills. Your manual will give you the actual numbers. Btw, it’s the processor time to write to both cards that’s the issue - you get a decrease if you store raw + raw, raw + jpeg or jpeg + jpeg. The only process using both cards that doesn’t affect the max burst size is using the 2nd card as an overflow after the 1st card fills.

CamB Loc: Juneau, Alaska

Yes. Raw gives you the best possibility for producing zinger images. Any image editing program will quickly produce a jpeg from your raw file if you need one. So unless you need a jpeg while out in the field, there is very little point in shooting them. It's just more files to deal with on your computer. If you don't want to deal with your files, but only want to share them, then jpgs are OK. No one sees a picture of mine until I give it some love and attention, so I don't bother shooting jpgs.
...Cam

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Shoot RAW all the time and get comfortable with post processing. It opens and entire new world.
The only reason to shoot hybrid is if you cannot wait to post to FB, insta or twitter when you are shooting.
Other than that, go RAW.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Even if I could consistently get great jpgs out of my camera I would shoot raw only.

Shooting raw means I have to convert the raw file to an image. I import them to Lightroom for the conversion. That way they are in the LR catalog and LR makes it possible for me to keep track of them. If I shot in jpg only I could just use the jpg and then I wouldn't have the image in the catalog because I would be tempted to use it without importing it to LR. Shooting raw ensures that all my images are in the catalog.

I started doing this when my photopile exceeded 10,000 images. My memory isn't large enough for that, but the LR memory is.

MW

No. It’s just a convenience feature. For example:If your camera permits you might download the jpg to you mobile device and post it to Facebook then later use an editor like Lightroom to polish it up for larger scale presentation.
Or: You might be happy with a jpeg as it 95% of the time but occasionally find you need to correct something and the raw file is the best place to start.
Or: some other reason I can’t think of