[notsure]

My wife's new camera can take both JPEG and RAW photos. Everything we've read so far seems to indicate that you want to keep the RAW ones so you can process them with external software, etc...

Anyway, so far the camera has been set to take RAW + JPEG 90% of the time. We've sent many of the photos that have been taken to friends / family and the software used to send it (either iPhoto or Nikon ViewNX) has always created a new JPEG of whatever size / resolution we've wanted.

So, is it even worth taking the JPEG photos? I'm thinking the RAW ones are all we really need but just want to make sure we aren't missing something before we flip the switch.

Thanks!

 

[Cyclism]

If you don't do any post-processing at all, it 's better to take your photos in JPEG only. It will save you the step of having to convert the RAW file to a JPEG (again, if you don't intend to do any post-processing) and it will allow you to save space on your memory card and hard-drive for more pictures.

Most cameras today have excellent JPEG engines, and if you are satisfied with the way your photos look right out of the camera without the need to go through a complicated workflow, just stick to JPEG.

 

[ExRobotGuy]

Raw, rah,rah!

If you're serious about your pics, RAW is the way to go. You lose nothing except space on your recording media. It gives you the ability to improve every aspect of your shots: exposure, colour balance etc.

If you just want 'snaps', use jpeg.

I use jpeg 'cause I'm lazy , but if I go ahuntin' for 'art', I switch to RAW.

John

 

[ava0775]

Unless things have changed since the beginning of the year, if you want to upload photos for printing you will need jpeg files.

RAW is always going to require some sort of post-production if you want to do anything with the photos except view them on the computer. That's not necessarily a bad thing but it does add an extra step.

I only shoot RAW during my nephew's indoor sporting events. The lighting is funky and the colours are weird. RAW gives me the best opportunity to clean the photos up.

 

[Proteosome]

It's true that RAW gives you more flexibility after the fact but for average users I believe JPEG is the way to go because the basic processing has already been done to get a good picture and the file size is a fraction of the RAW files.

I came across this article which is a decent comparison of the two files:

http://digital-photography-school.com/raw-vs-jpeg

 

[notsure]

It would appear that the RAW file is twice (2x) the size of the same JPEG produced by the camera. The memory card we have is 4GB and the camera will shoot 180 RAW + JPEG photos with that. Since my wife is only averaging 40-50 photos a day on our vacation and we upload to the mac every evening we don't have an immediate issue.

For the time being we don't mind needing to use a computer to process the RAW photo being getting it printed, etc... Longer term, my wife can decide what she wants to do.

Proteosome; thanks for the link. It was very helpful!!

 

[springle]

Why I Stopped Taking JPEGs With My Camera

Of course many point-and-shoot models don't give you any other options, but let's assume you have an option.

Firstly, recognize that JPEGs are lossy. They are a relic of an era when memory costs were exhorbitant. The degree of compression determines the file size. Low compression results in large JPEG files - about half the size of RAW files generated by my cameras. What you get for this saving in memory is less colour resolution than most cameras can deliver - 8 bits per channel. If you do some alteration in the file, like a crop, then when you resave the file, you permanently lose image quality. The higher the compression, the greater the loss.

Alternatives to JPEGs are JPEG2000 (non-lossy version), TIFF and PNG. Some of these formats allow for the retention of 16 bits per colour channel, if your camera can supply the data.

When I purchased a Canon 1D model a few years ago, I set it up to record RAW + JPEG. Shortly afterwards, when viewing shots taken indoors via the Canon software on my PC monitor, I observed a SIGNIFICANT difference in colour cast between the RAW and JPEG images on my PC (I have a good monitor and perhaps on a cheap LCD, one wouldn't see this difference). All the images were displayed side-by-side. The RAW looked more accurate to me. Then I became curious as to which version I was seeing on the camera's LCD screen. That is, if I used the LCD to set the colour balance, was I seeing a JPEG or RAW image on the camera's LCD screen? If I were seeing a JPEG, then I concluded that setting the colour balance by such viewing would be a complete waste of time.

So I sent off a few questions to Canon's Tech Support - and never received a reply.

So I ceased having my camera create JPEGs. (I do create JPEGs when sending an image to someone who is not technically savvy.)

 

[Cyclism]

Another opinion in the RAW vs jpeg debate:

JPG vs Raw: Get it Right the First Time, by Ken Rockwell

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

 

[drvette]

Storage is cheap!!! I have my D90 set to shoot a copy of both RAW and JPEG. That way if I am happy with the JPEG I will delete the RAW.

 

[OldScotch]

Even shooting raw alone, there is (or at least should be) a jpeg embedded in there for previewing and quick review purposes.

Shooting raw + jpeg gives you the best of both worlds, the detriment is that it can slow the frame rate down shooting continuously and/or place a lower limit on the number of continuous shots you can take. This varies from one model to the next and it might not even be an issue depending on what you're shooting.

The other thing is that it eats more space, but it looks like that's a non-issue as well and worst comes to worst, memory cards are getting cheaper and cheaper.