amehta Loc: Boston

I think it's one of the "UHH Top-3 Dogmatic Discussion Topics (TM)". :lol:

wilsondl Loc: Lincoln, NE

Do you want to make money shooting kids and fillies? What is your price target range? Our you going to be one of the select few that $1000 a shoot is the bottom? Of course there are a select few families that can afford that kind of photography. If this is what you want shoot RAW and do the PP. If you like to work with families of more moderate means shoot JPEG. That is what I have chosen to do. If you do RAW right it takes time and time is money. This is what you have to do to shoot JPEG - Learn to use all the tools your camera gives you this includes white balance, sharpening, contrast saturation, hue , brightness etc. This way you can get the white balance and skin tones as they should be. Standardize your shooting so that the light location etc will be what you know and what the results will be. If you use a studio setup once you have the lighting and camera settings down you will be fine in not using RAW. Once you have the camera thing down you need to work and then work some more on posing be it groups or individuals. In these days when fewer and fewer "formal" pictures are being taken I find it a very rewarding pursuit. - Dave

Nikonman2014

Ten years ago I went on safari in Tanzania. I took my first digital camera, a Nikon D100, with me. I only shot in jpg format then, and I wish I had RAW format versions of all of those shots.

Converting RAW to jpeg is easy. Going back the other way, not so much.

Shoot only in RAW format.

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

Learn the skill, it will come in handy.

RJM Loc: Cardiff, S Wales, UK

It's surprising what processing you can do on a jpeg.

Yes, RAW is better but has downsides in bigger files and can cause buffering, etc.

My take on it is that if you get the exposure correct then jpeg is all you need.

I only shoot RAW if I'm unsure Auto WB or even manual will get it correct or some other exposure issue, OR I want to try the art filters on my computer instead of doing multiple types in camera.

The only other time is if it's a paid job and I don't want to make an error (don't trust my judgement more like!)

JPEGs are improving all the time as is the editing software for it.

The RAW has to be processed at the end of the day and end up as JPEGs or other file format.

I have edited thousands of JPEGs and no one has ever said that an awful jpeg you should have shot RAW!! No one knows.

lone ranger Loc: Port Saint Lucie, Florida

agreed...........JPEG truly puts out. excellent photos, and you can still process your photos, to your hearts content!

RJM Loc: Cardiff, S Wales, UK

I've even rescued JPEGs that have been colour cast from a wrong white balance chosen by the camera.

One excellent processing program I use is NIK Efex suite. Awesome and so easy. I even make my own presets for different types of images.

psychusa Loc: Brooklyn

RAW is a very powerful mode. You can do all sorts of things that you cannot do with a jpg. Basic adjustments to tonal levels and exposure, noise levels, and sharpness can all be done to actual camera data that will no longer be available if you just use jpg. Pros generally will shoot in RAW and do their adjustments to the extent the software they have for it allows. They might also export from RAW to TIF or PSD formats to do additional work rather than jpg.

I have saved many photos because they were originally shot in RAW, and I was able to correct for sweeping changes that I could not hope to make with a jpg.

That said, if you are just shooting for pleasure, you can get perfectly acceptable photos in jpg. It should be up to you as to how much editing techniques you wish to master.

lone ranger Loc: Port Saint Lucie, Florida

well said........

psychusa Loc: Brooklyn

Yes, I can tell you horror stories about shots I messed up, but were saved because I shot in RAW and was able to save them. Especially things like poor white balance and under exposures.

wteffey Loc: Ocala, FL USA

Under most lighting conditions, RAW will not give you a significantly better final result than JPEG. Under more unfavorable conditions, RAW might give you the opportunity to improve your final result, or save the photo if you really screw up manual adjustments. I use RAW when the photo is going to have significant value, and is irreplaceable. When photographing insects, flowers, wildlife etc. I find JPEG works just fine.

jeryh Loc: Oxfordshire UK

For most people, JPEG is more than adequate- all RAW does is give you more options if you want to be really picky, plus a lot of extra work !

psychusa Loc: Brooklyn

RAW is mostly for pros that need to produce a near perfect copy, such as for fashion work. If you are selling photos, RAW gives you a quality edge, maybe not a huge difference, but it matters when you are selling.

johnst1001a Loc: West Chester, Ohio

In this day and age of almost unlimited storage, shooting raw+jpeg makes the most sense. My camera does a good enough job with jpeg for most photos, but occasionally I use the raw shot and adjust the photo some.

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

Right on !