LittleRed

Jeeez, just got out of bed and already 5 pages. 😱😵😵‍💫😬😬

LittleRed (Ron)

LittleRed

Yes, am and do. 😘

LittleRed (Ron)

rlv567 Loc: Baguio City, Philippines

There is something which should be mentioned, but I don't recall having seen it here. The camera (system) captures everything of which it is capable at the time the shutter button is pushed. If RAW, all the information is saved as is, with no embellishment. If JPG, the predetermined corrections/enhancements have been applied in camera. Post processing then can be done to either the RAW or the JPG, (but with greater latitude with the RAW file). NOW - what happens with those saved original files, say 5 years downstream, when significant advances in handling the RAW data have been made? The additional information with which to work still will be available in the RAW file, but not so with the JPG - it never was. For the casual snapshooter, this will be of no consequence, but for someone interested in continually improving - or someone needing to save a "poor" shot - it would be most meaningful!

Loren - in Beautiful Baguio City

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The software gets better, but also the digital editing skills of the photographer get better too. Being read-only a RAW file is always 'new', as if you shot it this morning. As your skills and / or software change over time, how you edit that image is likely to change too. I have plenty of fine images, but their processing is now many times embarrassing to my 2022 tastes / style. Editing that RAW can start brand new if I find I want to use that file today, but need it too to look like it was edited today.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Data, it's all just data. A lot, a little, the <sensor> data is saved so one can do something with it. Adjusted (or not) and saved as another <presentable> data file. How much is done? Well, that depends on the data type and amount, the capabilities of the editor, and the person's desires.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

JPEG is usually fine, but some of us like more than fine, and we like to process. Raw files offer more leeway in processing. It bet at least 98% of the pictures taken are JPEG, and they're fine.

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

Paul hit upon a VERY VALID point here about editing skill expertise and the ability to reprocess older captures as your taste and skills change... THIS is prob. one of the best reasons for at least shooting both... Memory is cheap; how much does it cost to archive those RAW files ? Are you willing to lose that " once in a lifetime data " for the sake of a few pennies of archive gear ?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Perception...

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Don't confuse my comment as being an endorsement for shooting in both formats .... nor an endorsement of being a digital packrat.

I think shooting both JPEG and RAW is a mistake. Although, on most of my cameras, I do just that. But, I never (never) even off load the JPEGs, writing to the 2nd card on bodies where this applies. They're there because I can and maybe 10 years ago I thought using the JPEG for a quick post was easier / faster than editing the RAW. I don't think like that anymore and haven't used these JPEG files in a time now beyond memory.

I espouse aggressive culling, storing only the very best, and only the RAW. When I have 500+ files to cull through, I'd never want the maintenance headache of having two versions of the same image (RAW+JPEG) to assure I've purged both inferior versions. There's not 500 images worth storing, probably not even 100.

That 2nd card with the JPEGs? I have to reformat the card maybe twice a year. I'd rather swap my main card slot than reconfigure to have the camera change dynamically to the 2nd slot as primary. Others will likely see this decision / set-up differently.

Storage may be cheap(ish), but time isn't. Time to back-up. Time to assess again which is best 6 months later. Time to compress the LRCAT. I constantly tweak images, especially older ones, but I'm not tweaking marginal images. They were deleted long ago. If I want better images, I'll just shoot 1000 more tomorrow, all of them in RAW.

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

Sorry if I put words in your mouth... the thought of increased expertise just resonated with me and I choose to save both for the future... Just my choice, but you STILL had a valid point about changing tastes and processing expertise .

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Everyone has their reasons and justifications for what they do, or don't do.
I don't have to cull much because I don't even take 50 shots of a subject, let alone 500.
I keep RAW +JPEG because I like to peruse the JPEGS in File Explorer and decide what I want RAW file to edit.
The JPEGS can be <resized> and posted easily.
There is no "file clutter" for me as the RAW and JPEG are right next to each other in the folder.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

When I revisit older images, I hate having to also (re)make the culling decisions. Although, I do take note of any significant disk space recovered. I'm usually in an older folder looking from something specific. I want that fine grain, not an additional effort to sort the wheat from the chaff, work that should have been done years ago, not today.

No one is going to be a perfect digital editor on day 1, RAW more so. Being a good judge of what's 'good' is a skill too, to be practiced and developed. The more you <delete>, the better your images will get. It's hard to prove, but it's a well know fact ...

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

So do I and so does K. Rockwell .......but I do acknowledge that in a very, very few situations I would consider using raw but it would have to be very very demanding (and high paying) situation. Today's sensors and software mostly negate any GOOD reasons for shooting raw.
.

Julian Loc: Sarasota, FL

Not an attack, but did you mean distinction?

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

I need another cup of coffee..........................................