[Tony Belding]

Not only did I recently get my Q7, but I'm also deep into figuring out how to move away from Aperture since it's being abandoned by Apple. So, I'm giving some thought to workflow and whether I should be shooting JPEG or RAW or RAW+.

The temptation of JPEG is especially strong with the Q7 since it has so many shooting modes, filters and smart effects to play around with -- and put on the Quick Dial if you like! And if you get the effect you wanted in one shot, it can save a lot of time from post-processing. However, it also closes out a lot of PP options and corrections.

On the other hand... Shooting RAW and then being able to post-process them right in the camera is cool, although I think it could become tedious with a lot of photos.

Post-processing DNG files on my computer opens up a lot of options, but a lot of my programs don't do lens corrections, so that's a factor I'd have to work around.

And then of course there is "RAW+". Best of both worlds? Or waste of space?

[amoringello]

I capture raw in one card and jpeg in the other (Eye-Fi) card. I normally process using raw at home, but the jpg is always there so I can transfer to iPhone and email or post in a pinch while I'm still out and about. JPG is also useful in this case for event shooting for wireless transfer to the PC for quick customer viewing.

[acoufap]

Once I chose raw + jpg. After some time I realized that I nearly never used the jpg files.

While taking photographs I don't want to think too much about which color mode, filter etc. is best and I don't want to rely on too many camera automatics.

Making the wrong decisions while shooting can lead to irreversible mistakes. Thinking about lens, framing, time, aperture and iso is enough for me.

In post processing I invest time to get the best interpretation of the photographs worth. Often I use local adjustments (doge & burn) and digital graduated filter layers.

So only using jpg is not my way. I shoot raw. Additional jpg files are waste of memory card space for me.

In camera development is an interesting thing. But if I'd like to get some jpg files fast for publishing, I'd transfer the raw files via camera connection kit onto my iPad, develop them using snapseed and immediately transfer them anywhere I'd like. If important I can add some metadata via iPad app PhotosInfoPro.

[Giklab]

I used to shoot exclusively raw. I used to spend hours going through the files after school trips, culling and editing. After migrating to the K-5 II the file sizes and processing requirements of raw files slowed the workflow even more, and I finally got fed up.

I couldn't remember one single time in my usual shooting when having a raw file "saved" the shot (I still can't), so I spent some time tweaking the JPEG profiles, got what I wanted (or close enough to just need a quick edit). After that the review/cull time went down so much I actually liked looking at the images again.

I didn't need to wait 10 seconds for Windows to get into gear and show the image, I didn't have to wait (subjectively) ages for the files to transfer, and edits (news flash, you can still edit JPEGs) previewed almost instantly. Not to mention that JPEG is supported everywhere, can be shared instantly and there are a bunch of nice in-camera effects for them.

All that said, I do still pull the occasional raw file out of the buffer when photographing something "extreme", such as nightscapes.

[Volker76]

Raw+. The jpeg is useful when I am at work and can't process the raw or need something to show around quickly (I am the 'we need someone to make a picture of our apprentice's cake, now!'-guy). But usually, the photos I like are better after some postprocessing in darktable.

I also saved some shots where I misjudged the lighting conditions or just screwed up.

[6BQ5]

I used Raw+ for a short while a long time ago before transitioning to Raw only. Like others posted above, I never used the JPG. If I needed one for online posting then I can always create a better JPG on my computer than Pentax could in the body.

Capture One has some good lens distortion correction tools and they support the Q7.

[DeadJohn]

I've been raw (DNG) for a few years. I use that with my Pentax cameras and other brands, too. Why raw? For me, it's mostly about being able to lift the shadows when needed and noise reduction. I do other adjustments but it's generally light. I rarely change to jpg for in-camera HDR.

I do not process all of my photos. I load them all into LR, mark the potential keepers with 1 star, then I only have to adjust those.

---

Last edited by DeadJohn; 06-08-2015 at 06:26 AM.

[CarlJF]

I shoot RAW+. Depending on what I'm doing, I use either the jpg (family pictures) or raw (serious photography). I was used to set one or the other but after being caught a few times shooting in JPG when I was thinking the camera was set on raw, I decided to keep it on RAW+ and forget about it. I'm just importing the format I need of my PC and delete the other.

[hnikesch]

For me it's raw and process in LR5 then export a copy of the edited files for my wife and family to view on a network drive, no one has access to my raw files

Hans

[Rondec]

I shoot jpeg for snap shots or situations where I will take a lot of photos and don't want to spend a lot of time in post processing. They are pretty good for most cameras at this point.

I reserve RAW for situations where I will be shooting high iso, high dynamic range, or some type of shot where I just really want to maximize my potential with the shot (landscape photo).

I usually know which of these I am shooting and choose based on the situation.

[lytrytyr]

Raw + jpeg.

The jpegs are there for instant perusal and review,
while the raw files are a resource for handling trickier cases.

Often, with the right camera settings, the jpegs are good enough to use right away,
and in a couple of difficult situations (like during an eclipse),
my PP skills weren't good enough to beat the jpegs from my K-5.

[wildman]

RAW+PP.

It's not a final image until Photoshop says it's a final image.

[CWRailman]

In 1985 I took a trip with my lady to Colorado. We each worked two camera bodies and shot over 1200 B&W images on bulk loaded Plus X film and about half that amount of Kodachrome 64 slides. While we used mailers and sent the slides out for processing, I spent nearly two months of “free” time in the darkroom processing the film, making contact sheets and going through each image and making some prints. Now, unless it’s absolutely necessary for a job I always shoot Raw+ and mostly use the JPG image or just shoot JPG. I do have Lightroom 2 loaded on my XP machine and Lightroom 5 on my Windows 7 machine however, I am at a point in my life where I have better things to do with two months of time than try and produce better images than what the camera is producing. But then, I am not engaging in any photographic competitions either, I never print larger than 11x17 and most of my images are used for either my WEB site, product catalogs or emailing to those who are still talking to me.

[drougge]

I voted RAW only, because that's what I shoot. But I often use the JPEG the camera produced (not for printing though). I just don't feel the need to have the camera write it to the card twice, once embedded in the RAW and once as a separate file. (Some cameras embed crap JPEGs in the RAW, but the Q is fine.)

If I needed to work with random computers without sensible software on them, I expect I would use RAW+ to make it easy to get at the JPEG, but on my own computers there's no problem. (Sensible software in this case is a slightly modified geeqie for image viewing and my own home made image tagging system for finding images, which as a side effect also extracts the JPEG on the fly when I want it.)