[KX5]

Jpeg in built camera is incredibly good with K1. On top of that, i don't see any difference between fine and regular quality
Compared with my K5, i can get the same quality until 3200 iso -not more!
With K1, you can go until 6400 iso without any problems!
A step further is @12800 where you loose some details in shadow where RAW is still good!
An impressive camera!

[Paul the Sunman]

I just don't see the point of shooting jpeg with a good camera.

[eaglem]

Depends on your preference, I always shoot in jpeg and seem to turn out good shots.

[clackers]

I must admit, I don't understand either. What setting about a photo (sharpness, contrast, noise, saturation, whatever) is not better controlled in RAW than JPG?

---

Last edited by clackers; 02-07-2017 at 03:13 AM.

[Markovo]

Once you go RAW you will never come back to JPEG again!

[pathdoc]

Once you go RAW you will never come back to JPEG again!

I beg to differ. On my K-5 I shoot in RAW, except at work, where the computers can't read it and I simply don't have the timem for editing.

On my *istDS I invariably shoot in JPEG, mostly because most of the stuff I do for others is unpaid casual shooting, the JPEGS are good enough for Facebook or Flickr, and it has to be up fast.

But if I were shooting professionally or for keepers, or when I know conditions could skirt the edge of what my camera can do, yeah; RAW every time. That saved my behind at my kids' last dance recital.

I think what puts people off raw is the fear of Lightroom/Photoshop, both monetary and technical, but Raw Therapee is free and does a pretty good job of conversion, and bodies like the K-5 and K-1 can convert with minor corrections in-camera at a pinch, even batch-convert (just make sure you have adequate power or an external source).

[Kerrowdown]

I just don't see the point of shooting jpeg with a good camera

When working, most photojournalists shoot jpeg, for buffer and workflow reasons... both of which tends to be very time-centric.

I also believe that currently the likes of Reuters, still has a worldwide policy for freelance photographers that bans photos that were processed from RAW files. Photographers must now only send photos that were originally saved to their cameras as JPEGs.

[joergens.mi]

For normal journalistic daily event publication, I think jpg should be more than enough. And the ban of RAW-processing is mainly because of picture-manipulation (actual journalism of politics) - but I think one who wants to manipulate will also find easy ways to do so..
I think nature magazins like NG and fashion magazine will accept processed pictures.

[Rondec]

It depends on what you are shooting. If I am shooting snaps of my kids, then jpegs are more than adequate. If I am shooting in challenging conditions or landscapes and want to maximize dynamic range then jpegs are super limiting.

Journalists and sports photographers do tend to shoot jpeg because speed is the name of that game. Most wedding photographers I know shoot RAW, because you don't want to lose a crucial image because of the limitations jpegs have on you.

[bdery]

I just don't see the point of shooting jpeg with a good camera.

Faster bursts, more space in buffer, faster workflow, less storage requirements, easier to share.

a camera such as the K-1 can let you tweak your JPEGs just the way you want them. What's the real difference between that and using presets for post-processing?

I use RAW when I think I will need every ounce of resolution and dynamic range. For instance, yesterday evening shooting the moon. Otherwise, for kids, landscapes and most shooting scenarios I am perfectly happy with JPEGs. It's going to sound like heresy, but even though I have the K-1, I don't need 36 MP most of the time. I shoot at 22 more often than not.

It's a "good" camera like you say. It can handle many things very well.

Once you go RAW you will never come back to JPEG again!

I disagree, for the above reasons.

[photoptimist]

Personally, I simply do not enjoy post-processing even if I know it would help. Because I'm not a pro, no one is making me post-process my images and life is too short for hobbies that suck.

That said, I often do save the RAW version of "keeper" images with the intent that if I ever get too old to take more photographs (or decide to start selling images), I can go back and improve all the images I have taken.

[hyyz]

I found with RAW sometimes it is hard to get the results that Jpeg from camera has, even if I use latest PDCU with camera settings. I do find sometimes camera output Jpeg is better. There's some magic in in-camera processing.

[lakeshore]

I'm not a pro. I only shoot for personal enjoyment. If I had a need for post-processing, I'd shoot in RAW. I don't seem to have any real interest in post-processing at this time.

Coming from a background in film (ancient history), I enjoy seeing what I can get straight from the camera. Shooting with a digital camera gives me plenty of scope for tweaking the output. So, for now I shoot almost exclusively in JPEG format.

[KX5]

I found with RAW sometimes it is hard to get the results that Jpeg from camera has, even if I use latest PDCU with camera settings. I do find sometimes camera output Jpeg is better. There's some magic in in-camera processing.

Absolutely!

[W.j.christy]

I typically save both. My K-3 I has 2 SD cards so why not? Best of both worlds. I can immediately share the Jpegs on my tablet via sd card reader, and, if i so choose, go back and edit the pictures later on the computer!

Gotta love that flexibility!