RAW and JPEG

[Boddie]

With the option of shooting RAW and JPEG simultaneously is there any benefits in shooting JPEG with high quality or do those of you that religiously shoot RAW only bother with JPEG a low quality?

What are the benefits of either, save media card space (or is that it?)

[Meta menardi]

With a good filing and reference system and 1 terrabyte of data storage costing well under £100, why worry which you do. I shoot in RAW most of the time, but if I want to pass on pics to someone quickly, I use JPG and RAW, then they can cart a copy of the JPG away with them.

[Boddie]

Good point. Thats exactly the type of logical response I needed.

Thank you

[Geoff F]

Well to save on camera card space when shooting 200 or more photos, I always use a small fine Jpeg, just as an identification thumbnail. And I never allow unedited photos to be seen by anyone else; they have to be converted and tweaked first.

[glsammy]

I can never make my mind up which I prefer. I go through regular episode where I change back and forth but I mostly these days shoot JPEG, mainly because I'm too lazy to go through the bother of all the conversion work you have to do with RAW, plus I often run out of buffer space when shooting fast continuous, that's one area where JPEG has a definite advantage.
If I'm doing a special subject where I know I don't need to shoot hundreds of shots to hopefully get one decent one, then I will use RAW, especially if I'm playing around with odd light levels and or indoor lights. Having said that, I'm very rarely let down by JPEG, if I've got a shot where the exposure is wrong it's 99.9% of the time because of the idiot controlling the camera.

[Ollie]

I never shoot raw. For a start I haven't the time or the inclination to do all the converting and editing the raw files need. As pointed out as well raw does use up the buffer space on the camera more quickly. it's not unusual for me to shoot 20/30 large jpeg's in succession when doing in flight stuff.

I also much prefer to get it right in camera by shooting in high quality jpeg and doing as little editing as possible. Gives me a sense of satisfaction somehow.

I'm perfectly satisfied with the results I get using jpeg and until the time comes when I aren't happy with the results I get shooting jpeg then I will make the switch to raw.

I can see the benefits of raw preserving more detail etc but if you are happy and confident shooting jpeg which I am, why switch to raw, bit like the saying if it aint broke don't try to fix it as far as I'm concerned anyway.

[Boddie]

I now have the option of the JPEGs going onto one card and the RAW onto the other so it makes sense just incase I get a real perla to have it in RAW, or just in case I make a real booboo, so I can salvage, but then I thought, well if I have high quality RAW do I really need high quality JPEG too, or should I just set JPEG to low, then if I see a perla I can work with the RAW file. Means I can use say a 2 Gig card for the JPEGS and an 8 for the RAW files.

Also if the JPEGS are lower res I can sift through them quicker

[Gaina]

Personally I only ever shoot in RAW now. There's a setting on Canons where you can get a JPEG and RAW at the same time so you can send JPEGS to someone as soon as you get home of you want to. The number of photographs I've thought were 'duffers' that were actually salvageable thanks to shooting in RAW is quite amazing.

Incidentally Adobe RAW software allows me to tweak JPEGs from my little compact too .

[pressld2]

I shoot raw only and am still not really sure what the point of having an additional jpeg file is. Now that I'm used to it (and after upgrading my PC) I find the post-processing in Lightroom to be very quick and easy.

Originally Posted by Ollie

I also much prefer to get it right in camera by shooting in high quality jpeg and doing as little editing as possible. Gives me a sense of satisfaction somehow.

That's exactly my philosophy too Roger. Shooting raw gives me a little bit more leeway to rescue a shot if (or when ) I do fluff it up but I still try very hard to get it right in camera and only do very minimal tweaking afterwards. To me, raw isn't primarily about rescuing poorly taken shots. It's much more about taking control of the way the raw data is processed rather than relying on a "one-size fits all" algorithm built into the camera.

Dave P.

[Gaina]

I should have mentioned that I also use the RAW software as a creative tool as much as anything else. Of course Ollie and Pressld2 are right about trying to get the best shot you can in the first place .