jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

Yes, raw only with one exception. I take focus stacking pics in jpeg because Zerene won't take raw files.

Toment Loc: FL, IL

Raw and jpeg, still trying to decide.....

StevenG Loc: Long Island, NY

I only shoot raw. Keep in mind that raw photos need to be processed, unlike jpegs, which are processed in camera. As I enjoy processing photos to my liking (and I have the time), I do not find this a disadvantage.

BillFeffer Loc: Adolphus, KY

RAW only. Second slot (D750) for backup. Plenty of storage space on the PC (cheap these days). Cull the abject failures. Hours of enjoyment being creative in PP with LR 6.14 and PS.

Quixdraw Loc: x

That is probably the best reason for using RAW - that you enjoy the post processing. I do not, and can do what little I care to do on the odd JPEG in moments. Kudos to you, Sir.

gsmith051 Loc: Fairfield Glade, TN

Only raw; jpeg view available in camera.

Reuben

Your PS intrigues me. How do you set up for maximum sensor utilization? Thought Raw was Raw, period. Your ideas would be very helpful. Thanks

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Consider the <Quote Reply> button to respond to a specific post.

More advanced cameras have some options in bit-depth and / or compression and / or the 'image quality' of the RAW file, options depending on brand and model. Check your camera manual for the options available.

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

I shoot in RAW almost exclusively. Why "almost exclusively"? If I do a shoot for people who do not post process their photos (or have someone who does), I will shoot in JPEG (if the photos are only for them); I will shoot in RAW + JPEG if I shoot for them and myself.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Test our hardware. The sensors in our cameras have a data collection capacity -- makes sense to use that capacity.

However we don't want to try and capture important data and make the mistake of exceeding our sensor's capacity. That's especially bad and so just like trying to fill a glass with water right to the top but not over filling it and spilling water the task requires precision commensurate with just how full you're trying to fill that glass.

The camera engineers know this and depending on the camera make/model they've designed the metering systems and JPEG image processors in our cameras to render a good looking JPEG from a sensor exposure that typically doesn't fill the glass -- a safety hedge so there's no spilled water. Shooting raw + JPEG we accept the engineers safety hedge so that if our JPEGs look good odds are the raw file could have benefited from more exposure. Arguably a very good choice and I'd do the same if I were them and selling cameras.

So to more specifically answer your question I expose to try and fill the glass -- use the full capacity of the sensor. I increase exposure beyond what my camera's (Fuji XT-2) meter would otherwise set. As a result the JPEGs from my camera are too bright (overexposed) and with blown highlights -- strictly wastebasket fodder. To determine how much more exposure I can apply to fully utilize my sensor I've done a lot of testing -- but every so often I do have a little spill. I do use the meter in my camera to determine exposure. When I take a photo my camera meter is typically indicating + exposure.

Joe

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

I mostly shoot raw but will occasionally also add a small jpeg in situations where I’m curious what the camera processing will output. After PP, in those cases, I simply delete the jpegs.

mikegreenwald Loc: Illinois

I find no reason to shoot other than RAW. Any conversions I may later need are very quick and easy.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

I just responded to another similar question -- I suspect this is directed to me. Here's my previous response: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-622674-5.html#10753822

I'll go get an example and post it here.

Joe

Here's an example. Below is a JPEG from my Fuji XE-2. (I don't save JPEGs so I extracted the embedded JPEG from the raw file -- it's the same as the JPEG the camera would have saved separately only reduced in size.)

In the camera's defense I made no attempt to adjust the camera settings to improve the JPEG and that would be possible. But there's a bottom line: No matter what camera settings I applied, to get a usable JPEG without an nuked to h*ll sky in a backlit shot like this the exposure would have to be reduced.

The raw file has started to clip the green channel. However the red and blue channels are not clipped and any decent raw converter will deal with that and reconstruct the green channel. Below the JPEG is my processed version of the photo.

What did I get that's impossible shooting JPEG? I got a blue sky because I recorded that data and I was able to open up shadow detail in the foreground and right side of the photo because I recorded that data as well. Shooting JPEG would require a reduced exposure to capture the sky and that reduced exposure would swamp the shadow detail into noise.

(Download)


(Download)

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

You never showed the edited Jpeg

WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio