JohnBoy5562 Loc: Alabama

I agree. You can learn a lot from people on this website. Some times you just need to listen to what being said. I didn’t think he was being harsh at all.

MJPerini

To answer your question, I always shoot RAW + JPEG, and always edit a picture before I show it to anyone.
Historically, 90% of the time I've edited and shown RAW files. Now it is probably 75% RAW.
This has been an evolving question --as Cameras, Firmware, Sensors and external software have improved, the quality of the JPEG files has improved substantially. If I am going to make a print it is always a EAW file edited in the ProPhoto RGB color space and output as a 16 Bit Tiff. If the destination is the Web or Email (which are 8 bit JPEG places) I often find that the JPEG is fine. But it is always a conscious decision based on the picture at hand--- so sometimes it will be a JPEG from an edited RAW file, but fairly often now I find that tweaking the camera's JPEG results in a very nice file for those purposes.
Don't take too much umbrage at the Questions. One of the very best ways to get better is to understand the why behind things looking different.
For any kind of client work, everything is always RAW file based.
I hope that helps.

MJPerini

To answer your question, I always shoot RAW + JPEG, and always edit a picture before I show it to anyone.
Historically, 90% of the time I've edited and shown RAW files. Now it is probably 75% RAW.
This has been an evolving question --as Cameras, Firmware, Sensors and external software have improved, the quality of the JPEG files has improved substantially. If I am going to make a print it is always a EAW file edited in the ProPhoto RGB color space and output as a 16 Bit Tiff. If the destination is the Web or Email (which are 8 bit JPEG places) I often find that the JPEG is fine. But it is always a conscious decision based on the picture at hand--- so sometimes it will be a JPEG from an edited RAW file, but fairly often now I find that tweaking the camera's JPEG results in a very nice file for those purposes.
Don't take too much umbrage at the Questions. One of the very best ways to get better is to understand the why behind things looking different.
For any kind of client work, everything is always RAW file based.
I hope that helps.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Arrogance seems to breed and flow in "art," especially among those who have the illusion that they gave picked up a little knowledge. The last two photographs I entered in contests were brutalized by judges. One was a desert landscape in which I was accused of using "a color palette not seen since the 1950s," and the other a panorama of the ruin of a frontier fort building after a rainstorm. There I was accused of using completely incorrect colors. I've sold several copies of both images since then, but wasted no more time preparing for or entering contests.

Opinion is also rampant here. Useful knowledge, not so much. By the way, I don't shrink away from helpful guidance. I have three friends who art teachers. One is a long-time friend who has just gotten a new job at a well-recognized museum as director of education outreach. They all coach me along in both technique and vision while being kind and respectful. So take a wild guess who I listen to and who is likely to change my approach and process.

photowed Loc: Waterbury CT via Brooklyn NY

Depends on the event. JPEG for pose and print and raw for portrait and scene

Lou Razzano Loc: Miami, Florida

He definitely wasn't jumping all over him--I agree. By the way, want to know how "old" of a photographer I am? I bought my first good digital camera back in 2000--a Nikon Coolpix 990 which i kept for five years (which I still have, along with the box it came in and instructions as well as a very wide add-on lens--they will be collector's items in the future). Years later I bought a Nikon Coolpix 8700 and shot with that for another 5 years (which I also still have) then I bought a Nikon D 5100 (my first DSLR) which I shot with for two years and then a Nikon D 7100 which I still shoot with (I keep the 5100 as a back up camera) and have had for the last 8 years and am very happy with. I use a Tamron 18-270 mm lens most of the time but also use a Nikon 35mm (DX) f/1.8 at times when shooting in low light without a flash or doing portraits of people with a lot of bokeh behind them. The 5100 has a 18-55 mm lens (DX) on it and I also--just for the hell of it--bought a Nikon N 75 film camera (the LAST and best film camera that Nikon ever made before going completely digital) online for only $60.00 that I sometimes shoot with using Kodak Portra 400 ISO film and that came with a 28-80 mm full frame lens. I've traveled to India, Japan, Thailand, Portugal, Italy (three times), France, Spain, England, the Basque Country, the Dominican Republic and Canada with my Nikon D 7100 and taken some great photos with it. I've thought of possibly buying the Nikon D 850 professional full frame (FX) camera for its greater dynamic range (can go down to ISO 64) , higher resolution (45.7 MP) and 4K UHD video capability but, as of late, I haven't been traveling (hopefully by late 2022 Covid will have reached herd immunity and I won't have to wear a mask on an airplane for the many hours of flight to far away places and I'll start traveling again). Also, I'm not prepared to lay out the $3000.00 for the 850 since I've been so happy with the images that I've captured (many in RAW) with my good old D 7100 with my Tamron 18-270 mm lens. (I have no desire nor need for the "mirrorless" cameras that are being pushed these days.) Now I've read that Nikon may stop completely making DSLR cameras so maybe next year I might be able to buy the 850 at a bargain price. Think that I should upgrade or just keep using my D 7100 camera?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Main reason I never enter contests...

As for "opinions" - Too many over-analyzed views, many times reading stuff that is not there into an image.

rsworden

I shoot both RAW and JPEG at the same time. If I want to quickly share an image by email or social media, JPEGs are ready to go and usually good. My image editing software displays JPEG faster than RAW, so it’s better for quickly scanning through my shots for rating or deleting them. If only simple adjustments are needed, I work from JPEG. If I want to do serious adjustment and cropping, I work from RAW. Adobe’s new Super Resolution works from RAW, so if I think I might want to upscale before heavily cropping, I need to develop from RAW.

LittleBit Loc: St. Louis, MO

Yakybird,
Since you are a beginner, maybe you should stop your Yakking and listen to the more experienced photographers on this website. (2) Photo Contest wins an expert does not make!
CHG_CANON (Paul) was merely trying to assist you better. He wasn't jumping your bones. I have my camera setup to shoot both RAW and JPEG on each shot. That way I have the best of two worlds without having to regret it later.

LittleBit Loc: St. Louis, MO

Stop being so thin skin. Help is being offered from more experienced photographers on the site. I'm nowhere near being a pro, so I welcome the education I'm receiving from those that are pros and more experienced. Lighten up and you maybe able to learn things that will get you closer to becoming a pro.

raymondh Loc: Walker, MI

Raw. With film, you have a negative with which you can reproduce a shot ad infinitum. I don't understand why someone wouldn't want to keep the digital negative. Storage is so cheap nowadays.

cbtsam Loc: Monkton, MD

No worries, especially as you seem to be a quick learner!

TheShoe Loc: Lacey, WA

You can view them in Windows if you go to the MS Store and download the codec for it. The price is right, it is $0.00.

RightOnPhotography Loc: Quebec,QC

Always RAW, for about 20 years now.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

Well...thank you...I think! Can you provide an example or two?