MT Shooter Loc: Montana

I USED to shoot only RAW for years, occasionally RAW + jpg when I needed uploadable ready files. Then after getting a Nikon D850 and pre-adjusting the in camera jpg parameters, I completely quit shooting RAW as the in camera jpg's proved I needed no RAW anymore. Today's cameras are amazing as is the internal processing capabilities.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Almost never shoot RAW - slow & boring, and I get results I am pleased with using JPEG. That said, each of my cameras is set up to switch to RAW with the push of a button in case I come across some remarkable situation where I want extra "insurance" and feel using RAW might be worth the trouble.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

"Today's cameras are amazing as is the internal processing capabilities."

I was doing all the standard manual things trying to shoot a moon eclipse with a long lens. I started putting gear away and took the camera off the tripod. For the fun of it I put it one the highest level of automatic JPEG shooting. Hand held, the camera "decided" to do some burst shooting and combine the exposures.

It was the best image I got.

Computational photography gets little respect on UHH. Film to digital was a revolution. Computational may be the next one. If you shoot with an iPhone, it may already be history.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

MT Shooter,

You are known for Yellowstone trips. Last summer I was shooting (maybe trying to shoot) a grizzly eating a bison. A guy parked next to us had several cameras he had handed to his kids. His choice was an iPhone with a specialized bracket on a spotting scope. He was getting details none of us were seeing, even with binoculars.

His iPhone JPEGs seemed to be "better" than the Nikon and Canon RAWS!

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

Shooting only raw since 2006.

Perceived Downsides

it takes an extra step to get quick jpegs - which I might have to do once or twice a year.
The raw files are larger than a corresponding jpeg - not an issue - memory is cheap.

I don't recommend shooting raw+jpeg

The reason to shoot raw in the first place is to get better quality images as a result of being able to work with all the data recorded by the camera. The other really big reason is to be able to leverage the expanded dynamic range. In high contrast situations if you shoot for good raw exposures, you can end up with worthlessly dark jpegs anyway. And if you shoot in low contrast settings - you can push the exposure, if necessary, all the way to the right, resulting in similarly useless jpegs that are too light. The best results shooting raw will combine some post processing skills and an understanding of the zone system. Raw+jpeg is a waste of time, and just adds file clutter.

I use Lightroom to catalog all the images. I put my images in folders with Pics at the top level, then by year, and within each year I attach a 4 digit prefix that identifies the month the images were taken, and the number of times I used the camera that month, followed by a short verbal description and the actual date. So a typical folder for December of 2019 would look like - like 12.06 - Holiday light displays in Berlin MD - 12-10-19 - which means that the 6th time I took out the camera in December I photographed lights in the town of Berlin MD, and the actual dat of December 10, 2019.

I had been using this filing method for years before digital.

For more organization and more specific searches I use virtual collections and keywords. The virtual collections do not add any more files or move anything around, and keywords just let you search for specific labels that you have attached to images. BTW, in LR, the year, month, date, and text strings that identify the contents of the folders are all searchable.

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

I've been shooting RAW only for years.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Yes, for several years.

Mike

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

I only shoot raw, ever have, actually never took a jpeg!

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I have been shooting 100% raw for the last six years. There are no disadvantages for me

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

I shoot in Raw+Jpeg. 9/10ths of what I shoot gets binned so Jpeg is easier to read to see if I captured an image that is worth keeping or post processing. It is not 'spray and pray' it is just that what I saw and the idea that I had, hasn't translated into a good enough image. Having walked around and thought more: there is often a better image to capture.

Looking at Raw files - you see 'the base file' and depending upon your software it can appear to have colour caste or exposure problems. You then end up playing with each image to try and get it right.

I could delete the files 'in camera' as I go, but prefer to judge my images on the monitor. Who knows, there can often be a gem tucked into the extremes of the frame. You would not see it on the camera led.

Shooting both only costs more when you save 'everything' !

Your camera - your workload....if it works for you, why overthink it.

Jerry G Loc: Waterford, Michigan and Florida

I've been shooting Raw+jpg since I got my first Dslr three years ago. I just went to Raw only because all my processing is done from the raw files. Figure it will increase my fps and free up some hhd space.

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

When I first got a DSLR I shot jpg because that was what I knew. Once I discovered that raw files had more latitude for adjustment I shot raw+jpg.

Eventually my photopile got larger than about 10K images and I had trouble finding things. I had settled on LR for editing, but I now decided to use it for organizing. Adding keywords and putting images in collections made it easy to find images I knew I had taken, and even some I didn't remember I took. The problem was that my unorganized photos didn't have those keywords etc, so I had to spend a lot of free time adding those things to what I already had. If you're going to put keywords on all your old files, do it before you have too many old files to go through.

Since I didn't have a real need for instant jpgs I dropped them from my shooting. Raw only now. Since you have to convert raw to jpg to see them, everything now goes into LR. That means everything is organized. Makes all the difference.

There are only a couple situations where I will shoot jpg:
(1) when taking a blank wall shot to look for dust on my sensor
(2) my Nikon has a live view silent mode which will not generate a raw file, only a jpg at 24 frames/second. I don't use that much.

cahale Loc: San Angelo, TX

If you have a one card slot camera, no technical advantage at all. If you lose it, you lose everything that session. Lazy man (that's me) advantage with both; I can review and evaluate jpeg much faster than ARW. I usually dump the jpeg (original) after processing. If you have a 2 slot camera, you can lose one card and not completely lose the session (preferably you lose the jpeg).

Quixdraw Loc: x

All hail the theology / religion of RAW. "I'm from Missouri" as the old song goes. Show me the difference in outcomes.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

It has nothing to do with religion. I'm also from Missouri and I'm smelling a big shoulder chip. It's about getting the best possible IQ in a photograph and nothing more.

You show us the outcome difference. The SOOC JPEG directly below was shot with the goal of retaining the diffuse highlight of the paper showing at the top inside surface of the lampshade. It fails to do that but there's no point in pushing further -- we'll cheat for you (it won't matter).

NOTE: The camera has tone settings for the in-camera JPEG processor that allow you to soften both shadows and highlights in the event of a high contrast scene such as this. They were set to benefit this JPEG in this extreme high contrast scene. In other words I made the adjustments to the camera settings that would soften the highlights and lighten the shadows.

JPEG shooters always stress that you can post process JPEGs too and adjust the images for adverse lighting situations. Go right ahead then and show us. I posted the full-res JPEG so you can download it and load it into your favorite editor. If there's no real benefit to shooting raw then you'll edit that JPEG so the bottom right corner is comparable to the bottom right corner of the image processed from raw below.

Joe

SOOC JPEG

(Download)

processed from the raw file

(Download)