[K1N8]

Curious. Why will they be terrible to look at now (as compared to back then)?

4k screen. The RAW from the k110d is still usable at 4k, but the JPEG is just pixel mess.

[termy]

ahhh. thanks for explaining.

I am a tech-zero.

Always shooting jpegs.

Only time shot RAW was cuz needed to capture some images due to work, and there was a company to post-process the RAW images and so shot in RAW.

i don't do post processing of RAW format images and so, shoot only jpegs.

[reduno]

That a good question and I find myself having little time to post process. I will do that on my next trip to see if I can live with JPEG alone.

Rather than having a potentially wasted trip if you don't like the JPEG results, why not use RAW+. You can then delete the raw files later if you don't actually need them.

[The Squirrel Mafia]

Simple question: After years of shooting almost everything in RAW (DNG, actually, on Pentax) and processing in Lightroom and, more recently Darktable, I find, to my surprise, that the KP JPG engine is so good that I've been doing a lot of all-JPG shooting. The KP is especially good at handling high-ISO shots, like 20000 and up.

The advantage is, it all feels just a little quicker and lighter. You can sort 1,000 JPGS on your computer quite a bit faster than 1,000 DNG files. I also sometimes like to shoot BW JPG. Feels almost like film.

Anyone else moving in that direction? I have been shooting long enough to be able to spot most situations in advance (usually high DR scenes) where I might want a RAW file to work with.

After playing with so many KP RAW samples & comparing them to the OOC jpegs, I have come to the conclusion that the KP can spit out some really good jpegs. The processed RAW file can be a hair better than the OOC jpeg. Is it worth it? Maybe for some it is & for others not.

If I had a KP, I'd probably shoot RAW+ to get an OOC jpeg & then store the RAW files & process only the ones I wanted to make large prints of. This is probably what I'll end up doing with the upcoming flagship if it has similar IQ. Maybe even only shoot jpeg when I'm just shooting whatever.

[SSGGeezer]

This is the conundrum you end up with when using the KP. This is the major reason for two card slots if you set one for RAW and the other for Jpeg. I usually just pull my RAW card from my K-1 to copy to ,y computer, but with the KP I shoot the RAW+ and have a lot of duplicates to delete when I do a keep/delete sort.

[Archimedes the Dog]

I used to shoot RAW+ but it was too many photos to store and wade through, now I just stick to RAW. I tested the JPEGs from the KP and they are nice but I prefer the control RAW grants.

Actually, before I shot RAW+ I used to autobracket exposure and that was wayyyy too many photos to wade through, and with Lightroom and RAW I just underexpose one stop and adjust from there.

[rogerstg]

I used to shoot RAW+ but it was too many photos to store and wade through, now I just stick to RAW.

Same with me, and since most of the time the KP jpg output would be fine, I use DCU5 as a first step to cull and process RAW photos as if they were processed in the KP. It's convenient to be able to select a bunch of photos and process them all at once, as if they were processed "in camera." I can also select different KP settings to apply to RAW files, after the fact, using DCU5.

[Wingincamera]

I enjoy the processing of raw files, but there are times when time is a problem. Then I shoot jpegs. If shooting interior scenes with different light sources then it is always raw.

[BigMackCam]

One thing that hasn't yet been mentioned as a (potentially serious) limitation of JPEGs is that of white balance correction. If the camera or photographer should set the incorrect white balance for a shot, there's limited and somewhat fiddly adjustment available in post-processing. As with exposure, then - and within that, shadows and highlights - it's imperative to get the shot close to perfect in camera when shooting JPEG. Furthermore, areas of gradient hue, saturation and luminance - for instance, in an early morning or evening sky - can show effects of banding in JPEG, and any further post-processing of the files can exacerbate this effect.

The conclusion I'd draw is this... If you're confident in your own ability - or that of the camera - to achieve correct white balance and exposure, and you're happy to accept the camera's JPEG output with (potentially) limited room for corrections and other processing after the fact (depending on the type of shot), JPEG can be perfectly adequate. But when things don't work quite as expected in camera, or if greater creative flexibility is required in post-processing, shooting raw is far preferable. Raw plus JPEG offers maximum versatility, but relinquishes the camera's performance advantages in shooting JPEG only...

[MarkJerling]

Rather than having a potentially wasted trip if you don't like the JPEG results, why not use RAW+. You can then delete the raw files later if you don't actually need them.

That's what I do most of the time. DNG to the one card and JPG to the other card. Having said that, I use the raw files - the jpg's are only there as reference shots.

[reh321]

I must differ with the majority here. I use a little less sharpness than the KP has as its default, but I would prefer to use my computer time for other things, such as posting here, rather than for "developing" that automation can do at least as well as I can. Of course, in the Age of Film, I shot mostly Kodachrome, so this is no real change for me. The difference with slide film is that I can make minor corrections- such as WB - after automation has finished.

[ThorSanchez]

All RAW all the time. Okay, very occasionally I'll shoot RAW+ and mostly discard the OOC jpegs. And once in a blue moon I'll play around with in-camera HDR. So many times I'll be in lighting conditions where I immediately think this would be borderline unusable without the latitude of RAW.

[DeKay]

I used to shoot RAW+ but it was too many photos to store and wade through, now I just stick to RAW. I tested the JPEGs from the KP and they are nice but I prefer the control RAW grants.

Actually, before I shot RAW+ I used to autobracket exposure and that was wayyyy too many photos to wade through, and with Lightroom and RAW I just underexpose one stop and adjust from there.

I’m still stuck in the past using Apple’s Aperture. The advantage is that once all the photos are imported, it pairs up the JPEG & DNG so you only see 1 image. I have it default to showing me the JPEG. So If I’m not happy with a particular photo, I tell it to switch to the RAW version and process away.
Aperture is possibly one of the best DAM applications ever made and its such a shame Apple stopped supporting it.

[bobmaxja]

Raw is perfect but like the OP said it's time consuming and the KP is doing a good job.

[bkpix]

One thing that hasn't yet been mentioned as a (potentially serious) limitation of JPEGs is that of white balance correction. If the camera or photographer should set the incorrect white balance for a shot, there's limited and somewhat fiddly adjustment available in post-processing. As with exposure, then - and within that, shadows and highlights - it's imperative to get the shot close to perfect in camera when shooting JPEG. Furthermore, areas of gradient hue, saturation and luminance - for instance, in an early morning or evening sky - can show effects of banding in JPEG, and any further post-processing of the files can exacerbate this effect.

The conclusion I'd draw is this... If you're confident in your own ability - or that of the camera - to achieve correct white balance and exposure, and you're happy to accept the camera's JPEG output with (potentially) limited room for corrections and other processing after the fact (depending on the type of shot), JPEG can be perfectly adequate. But when things don't work quite as expected in camera, or if greater creative flexibility is required in post-processing, shooting raw is far preferable. Raw plus JPEG offers maximum versatility, but relinquishes the camera's performance advantages in shooting JPEG only...

Yes, white balance is the ultimate JPG challenge. There really are some complicated lighting situations (mixed sunlight and tungsten, for example) where the JPG comes out wrong -- and is unfixable no matter what you do in post-processing without the RAW file. So that means you need to be able to recognize those situations and switch back to RAW to stay out of trouble. Another more serious problem is where, for some reason known only to the devil, you have bumped the white balance control into some utterly crazy setting for the photo. That one is hard to anticipate....