[NaClH2O]

The reason I shoot RAW+ is that it is easier to sort during PP. My computer can view raw shots, but it takes longer. I use raw because I want to make the choices involving contrast, brightness, white balance etc. But shooting only raw slows the initial sort process down because it takes just a bit longer to open all the raw files up to sort thru them. My work flow is basically: Shoot raw +; download photos to my computer with sort by type; go thru the jpegs and make my initial sort, marking all the shots I want to keep (usually about 25%). Switch sort to name and delete all the raw + pairs I don't want. Then go and do PP work on all the shots I want to post to my photo site, FB or here. Using RAW + saves me at least 10 minutes for every 100-150 RAW+ pairs I've shot.

NaCl(it's just easier for me this way...ymmv )H2O

[leekil]

The reason I shoot RAW+ is that it is easier to sort during PP. My computer can view raw shots, but it takes longer.

This is the reason I also shoot RAW+; depending on what I am doing, my (older) computer can deal with the JPEGs significantly more quickly than RAW. You also don't have to wait around for JPEGs to be generated if you want them. However, on the K-1 I have occasionally switched to only RAW to get the slight increase in buffering capacity that is afforded.

[NaClH2O]

This is the reason I also shoot RAW+; depending on what I am doing, my (older) computer can deal with the JPEGs significantly more quickly than RAW. You also don't have to wait around for JPEGs to be generated if you want them. However, on the K-1 I have occasionally switched to only RAW to get the slight increase in buffering capacity that is afforded.

I shoot mostly landscapes and floral portraits. It's VERY RARE that I need any increase in buffering capacity. It's rare that flowers move around that quickly!

NaCl(now if I was a birder trying to get BIF it might be different)H2O

[blende8]

I shoot RAW+, too, but for a different reason.
I normally am satisfied with the Pentax JPGs, and only work with them.
Only in cases where something got wrong and needs a more drastic editing, I use the RAW.
So, when I reviewed the images and everything looks fine, I usually delete the RAWs.

[zahnski]

StrasburgBarry wanzend to know of there are differences between the in-Camera-jpeg- development either when you choose RAW+ or when you develop the jpeg later out of the RAW in the camera. I don‘t know that but cannot imagine that there will be differences: that would need different algorithms that means it would be more complicated and expensive so why should Ricoh do that?

[DeadJohn]

Really questioning why I am shooting in RAW+. Should I just shoot in either RAW or JPEG?

I use RAW (DNG) most of the time.

RAW+ gets used for astrophotography. I stack dozens of photos for wide angle star trails and for telescopic deep sky targets. Depending on the scenario, stacking software can run for over an hour on a set of full resolution DNG files. RAW+ saves a lower resolution JPG for faster stacking tests, and when a test finds a keeper I then repeat stacking using the full resolution DNG.

[tax]

Based on the posted answers it seems that most of the people in here are shooting RAW+ to either overcome their old computer perceived speed limitations, including stacking tests in astrophotography, or just because they don't know how to work with and process RAW DNG or PEF files. To overcome your perceived Windows PC speed limitations you can easily install one of many Linux distributions. I would vouch for openSUSE distro because of its stability and ease of use. In Linux, you have a plethora of professional grade image processing and manipulation software and applications. For RAW image processing I would advise Darktable and / or Rawtherapee applications. Linux generally utilizes your existing hardware to a better extent than any MS Winblows bloatware. So you will gain a lot of speed and additional computer resources for your image processing. Both Darktable and Rawtherapee have very extensive documentation and help systems to bring any newbie up to the professional level image processing very quickly. And the best of all, these Linux goodies are completely free!!!

[Na Horuk]

Did not read the whole thread, but here are some things to clear things up:
a) Raw is mostly just the data that the sensor records, with very little interpretation happening. Raw (or rather, dng and pef) is not an image format, its just a container of raw data. This data has to be turned into an image file. Jpeg is the image type that is most easily used and allows compression. Compression makes file size smaller, but it makes image quality go down. Jpeg usually also has smaller bit depth, so there is less nuance than in the raw data. Things like WB can be shifted with a raw image without losing any quality, but jpeg will deteriorate with each edit.
b) Raw data does not look good. You need to develop it, post process it. If the camera makes jpegs for you, it does this on its own. You can change many settings to get the kind of in-camera PP you want. Jpeg mode, WB, lens correction, shadow correction, noise reduction, etc. If you shoot raw, you have to use software (RawTherapee, Lightroom, Faststone, etc.) to do that yourself. You can automate the software to do many of these things on its own. Computers are more powerful than the camera so you can use more advanced algorithms and do more specific edits and raw files contain more data, information, than jpegs
c) Raw is better only if you edit it better. Without any PP it looks grey, unsharp, not great. Once you PP it, it can look exactly the same as in-camera jpegs (if you use the SilkyPix software that came with camera), it can look better (if you know what you are doing or want to do something the in-camera processing cannot), or it can look worse. Skills, software, and artistic taste depend on you.
d) Some people set camera to record raw and also a processed jpeg. This takes a lot of space, but this way they have jpegs to show and send immediately, as well as the raw data to prove its their image and to edit it later if they so please.
e) Raw vs. jpeg has other consequences. For example, burst mode speed will be different depending what you choose. And choosing in-camera PP options like distortion correction will also take more time (even if you shoot raw, because all of the corrections still get applied to the preview thumbnail that gets embedded into the raw container, dng or pef)

What should you do? Shoot jpeg. If you don't like those results or want different results, fiddle with the jpeg settings (you can select film reversal jpeg mode, different sharpening, NR, etc). If you want more control still, you should shoot raw and use software and develop your skills. With raw, you can easily tweak things like brightness, contrast, sharpness, remove dust spots, etc. and you can always reset back to original data. This is why its so attractive. Most people start with jpeg, then learn, and eventually graduate to raw.
Many raw software come with nice cataloging options. Oh, and if you shoot raw, you will have to use the software to export the raw into a jpeg, so you can send the jpeg, use it online, etc. You can resize and choose compression when you do that. When you are finished with the jpeg, you can just delete it and keep the raw data. The software will remember the editing you did on the raw and will always allow you to "reset" back to original.
Most if not all pros shot raw because they want full control. Some pros chose jpeg when they need maximum burst mode speed. Or raw+ when they need to send the jpeg to a client immediately but want to keep raw as well. This is why when it comes to top level cameras, most people just keep it in raw only; but you don't need to.
The choice is yours

[ozlizard]

If you don't post process your images you are only performing half of the photography process and it's pretty hard to justify using a K1 just to shoot Jpegs. Photography is a creative process (or should be). IMHO.

[tax]

If you don't post process your images you are only performing half of the photography process and it's pretty hard to justify using a K1 just to shoot Jpegs. Photography is a creative process (or should be). IMHO.

I agree with you that shooting JPEGs with K-1 is just like, in analog photography terms, using a Polaroid instead of proper film camera.

[dms]

If you don't post process your images you are only performing half of the photography process and it's pretty hard to justify using a K1 just to shoot Jpegs. Photography is a creative process (or should be). IMHO.

The OP had a technical question for which these kind of value judgements are not appropriate, rude, and for many photographers incorrect.

I would argue most adjustments in pp are to fix an incorrect WB, to adjust an incorrect exposure, or to fix a tilted horizon line/perspective adjustment/whatever.

Many photographers (that use camera raw) given slide film and a selection of color correction filters would be at a loss, and that is similar to using the digital camera for jpg's only--no big safety net!

---------- Post added 01-14-18 at 12:07 AM ----------

I agree with you that shooting JPEGs with K-1 is just like, in analog photography terms, using a Polaroid instead of proper film camera.

And a Polaroid is not a proper film camera? Some excellent photography at the highest level used Polaroid. E.g., look up Marie Cosindas.

[DeadJohn]

Based on the posted answers it seems that most of the people in here are shooting RAW+ to either overcome their old computer perceived speed limitations, including stacking tests in astrophotography, or just because they don't know how to work with and process RAW DNG or PEF files. To overcome your perceived Windows PC speed limitations you can easily install one of many Linux distributions...

What astrophotography stacking software do you use for Linux, and how quickly does it register and stack 100 full-resolution DNGs from the K-1?

[amoringello]

Another aspect, again for speed...
I often shoot RAW on one card and JPEG on the other, when shooting at events or in studio so the images can be transferred quickly to the laptop for preview (or RAW+ if software only handles one card)
Sadly, Pentax's tethering is terribly shotty. It is slow and it locks up the camera a LOT -- The latter resulting in lost images.

I use software to import the JPEG images directly via WiFi into Lightroom to allow immediate previewing by the customer.
The K1's WiFi is horribly slow, but I don't lose images due to camera crashes. JPEG allow much faster upload than RAW but still give a reasonable idea of the final result.

I'll use the RAW images for actual post processing and sale to the customer.

[tax]

What astrophotography stacking software do you use for Linux, and how quickly does it register and stack 100 full-resolution DNGs from the K-1?

I have not tried astrophotography yet, neither I have a proper gear for this. When I get to astrophotography, I will find an appropriate Open Source solution in Linux and let you know. May the Source be with you.

[dave2k]

If you don't post process your images you are only performing half of the photography process and it's pretty hard to justify using a K1 just to shoot Jpegs. Photography is a creative process (or should be). IMHO.

For many of us the joy is in capturing the best shot possible. Getting out of our homes and taking photos. I can't thing of a photo location that is not better than sitting in front of a computer, which I do for a living by the way. The K-1 has many advantages even for a JPEG shooter. And all of the gained resolution is not wasted just because you shoot a JPEG. I sometimes shoot RAW+ because of what I plan to do with my photos and I do PP whenever I'm not happy with the original shot. I could say "if you want to be creative, you should paint and not take pictures" but that would be equally wrong. Just because someone does not like to spend hours uploading huge files and backing them up, to be followed by hours working at a computer, does not make one less creative. Some of us just prefer to put forth more effort getting the best result in the field and not sitting in a chair at a desk.