Nicholas J DeSciose

Is RAW worth it
Yes only the mentally deficient used JPEG

tgreenhaw

Shoot raw + jpg.

You may wish you had the raw to save the perfect shot not exposed well.

There are a number of programs that are inexpensive or even free that allow you to process raw and save as jpg. In fact it is likely your camera included such software.

Nickaroo

RAW vs. JPEG. This train has been discussed and beaten to death, The Wheel Rolls On, as Robert Plant sang The Wanton Song. In the past 3.5 months, I believe, we have come very close to Reaching 27 pages about a Dead-Horse.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

The reason it keeps coming up is that the "one way fanatics" just won't let it go.

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

I shoot 100% raw. After I import photos into Lightroom Classic, I delete anything that is out of focus, badly composed, or virtually a duplicate of another photo. I then start with the auto button in the toning section of the develop module. That quickly gets the photos basically presentable. After that, I only further edit shots I really like, using LR, PS and a number of plug-ins. The point of shooting in raw is to provide enough dynamic range to enable more room to make edits and corrections.

Tote1940 Loc: Dallas

The image we form in our eye-brain is totally subjective whether looking at subject at screen or a print
No one sees same thing
So saturation sharpness white balance may be different for different folks on same image
RAW allows broader adjustments if you are willing to learn and spend time adjusting image On most images most folks are happy with JPEG approximation on others we are never happy
In days of wet darkroom would emerge after hours with one or two prints which looked good until fully dry..,,
Cibachrome shifted quite a bit when dry now screen and print may also not match

roger2012 Loc: Chichester West Sussex UK

I always take in RAW for everything and after processing in Photoshop to JPG. The Raw file original is saved and the processed Raw is saved. So if I want to go back and change anything I can. I keep it all stored on an external hard drive so it cannot be lost on the main image site. RAW is a bigger file size.
To take in JPG it is a smaller file but you have not got the scope to improve your images as well.

Tote1940 Loc: Dallas

We are so lucky that storage is so cheap
My concern is that how long it will last?
Paper prints monochrome last well over a century , color not so much
Will our great grandchildren be able to read our HDs?
Will HDs last?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Neither do I.
DPP applies the style settings for the shot to the RAW image VIEW in the editor.

Bill_de Loc: US

I shoot raw and jpeg. I download both to a folder with the proper identification. I view them full screen in a (free) program called IrfanView. If I don't like a picture I hit delete, right arrow, delete which gets rid of the JPG and RAW files. If I like the picture I hit right arrow, right arrow, keeping both versions on the hard drive. I can go through 100's of images in a very short time.

When it comes to processing I do very little adjustment to the JPG images, which is what I usually post here. If I like a picture but feel it needs more processing, or I'm printing larger than 8x10, I use the raw file. When saving any file that has been edited I rename it starting with an underline _ They always show first when I open a folder.

A couple of times a year when I have nothing better to do I select some folders and delete a whole bunch more images that I guess I expected to look better over time.

Photography is a hobby of mine, no more, no less.

BTW - I shot nothing but raw for the first few years with Nikon DSLRs. JPG back then wasn't worth much to me. Times have changed IMHO

---

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Raw isn't just a file format, it's a way of life. A RAW file allows me to contribute to the world in ways far beyond the capabilities of my camera.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I think that's more than a little uncalled for.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

This post has gotten many, many responses!

I am a rebel, I only shoot high jpg. When I have tried RAW I was never able to get any better than the jpg shots. I suppose it means my post processing skills aren't good enough, but I did follow detailed guidance and got no better than the processed jpg.

And YES, I process jpgs and spend much time doing it.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

Some of the replies here are quite useful. There are members who, for one reason or another, have not taken the time or spent the money to learn post-processing from RAW. Maybe someone will try it for the first time after reading and discover how much more control they can have in making photographs. Whether or not any question is posted in earnest, many replies are and are meant to help someone.