[Zooland]

The RAW file is more like an insurance policy, and your time to organise the files is the cost you pay.

[nosliwmit]

I shot RAW exclusively for 5 years or so but when I got my K-1 and nearly crippled Lightroom with the RAW files I started shooting RAW+ (jpg on one card and RAW on the other). Now I import all of the jpgs into LR and for any photos that I really want to work on or preserve I'll selectively grab the RAW. I drop all of my RAW files into a non-imported folder and eventually I'll start deleting older ones since I will have decided that I don't need them...

Generally speaking I am really happy with the jpgs from the K-1. It's mostly white balance issues that cause me to pull the RAW files back in, though I usually do so for any photo that I'm particularly happy with (future-proofing). AWB seems to be better on the K-1 than my previous cameras too.

I don't think I have access to lens profile corrections in LR when I use jpg, so that's a draw-back...

[arnold]

I think a sense of perspective is needed here. Modern DSLRs put out remarkably good jpegs, that for most purposes are more than adequate unless one is doing a professional shoot or working in difficult conditions. I use JPEG set to the highest quality and find that when zooming to 200% it is still of fine enough quality for me. However, I do also shoot raw when I think there are deep shadows or is that particular picture is so important to me that I want the assurance of the best possible rendition.
To me shooting everything in raw seems obsessive. Not every picture deserves the work of processing from raw. Certainly when trying to fix an important picture, it is better to have the raw data, however a properly exposed jpeg OOC is usually better than I myself can manage from raw.
My procedure is shoot top quality jpeg, and add the raw of those I really want the very best of.

[MrB1]

Usually JPEG* image capture, however, it depends on both shooting style and presentation of final image - for me saving all files in raw is an unnecessary waste of time and space. The scenes I usually capture are the sort in which little is changing, hence a fairly relaxed approach - set up the camera controls and if the image looks OK on the review screen, and in the histogram, then save and use the JPEG; otherwise adjust controls and shoot again. If the image looks problematic then, before the next shot or switching off, press Fx3 (the +/- button) to save the raw data for the last capture. For viewing via a monitor or projector, and printing up to A3 (the usual photo club maximum), the KP's JPEGs are usually quite amenable for global or local adjustments, if necessary, without impacting visible image quality when viewing the final photograph rather than the pixels.

As always - to each his own.
Philip

( * Edit: to clarify, the highest quality JPEGs - Large and 3 Stars.)

---

Last edited by MrB1; 10-22-2019 at 11:54 PM.

[ThorSanchez]

One other thing, I use RawTherapee for almost all of my post processing. Some of the advanced features like Retinex (which is very good at bringing out details and dehazing) only work on RAW files. I took dozens of mountain landscapes on my recent trip to Austria that would have given me obviously worse results had I been shooting jpeg and not been able to use Retinex.

[Bertrand3000]

I tried to post process shots with darktable. But most of the time, the colors, contrast and apparent sharpness of the stock KS-2 jpeg is much better. So I shoot in raw+ but most of the time I use the JPEG (M sized, 3 stars).

[Doundounba]

...
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...

I'd say this is a pretty fair summary, and I also agree that correcting WB problems on a JPEG is a real PITA.

However, I'd rephrase one part of your statement to read "... if greater creative flexibility is required in post-processing and photographer has plenty of time and energy to both to learn good post-processing techniques and to apply them, shooting raw is usually preferable".

And let's not forget that although JPEGs are, for lack of a better term, "brittle", they do have some room for corrections. I don't know why people insist on comparing only OOC JPEGS with extensively tweaked RAWs. For myself, I find that if I can get a good exposure in camera (and yes, good WB is super important), I can get a better image by slightly tweaking the OOC JPEG file than I can by post-processing from the RAW file, and it takes me very little time and effort to do that. Of course, I recognize that if I invested the time to learn better post-processing skills, that would probably change. And eventually I could even automate some of the process. But for now I'd rather be spending more time out there, looking for bugs or perfecting my technique in approaching skittish ones (I shoot mostly arthropod field macros), or even trying out different lighting techniques. Perfecting my post-processing chops is pretty far down my list of priorities. But maybe I'll get there eventually.


Some people see photographs as the timeless and priceless capturing of a moment for all of eternity. These people should probably shoot RAW. For me, a photograph is the result of the work of artisanship that I am capable of producing at a given moment. I am not too interested in re-processing any but maybe the very best shots I produce in a year, and even then, I don't think I would do that more than once. If my technique (in the field or in post) improves, I would rather apply that to produce new and better work than to go back and improve a shot from several years back...

[Mikesul]

I always shoot RAW+ but find myself using the jpgs most of the time. Only real mess ups or special circumstances warrant raw processing for me but I want the raws just in case.

[ghosteclipse]

I also shoot Raw+ but never got to use the Raw images unless I used a wrong AWB and wanted to change it. Even for removing noise or lifting shadows, the Jpg files were more than enough for me.

I always do raw+JPEG, and the JPEG's set to minimal compression/ largest file size. I use the JPEG's to sort through the pictures, figure out which I want to "develop", and which I want to destroy, as well as to do the web-posting thing. I keep both after deleting the raw files that go with the JPEG's I've deleted. I like redundancy in case of corrupted files and such. I wish the KP had two card slots, though, the one thing I don't get protection from by this method is card failure. But I move the pictures off the card right quick and reformat frequently.

[ghosteclipse]

I wish the KP had two card slots, though, the one thing I don't get protection from by this method is card failure..

Tbh that is the only nick in the armor of the KP serving as a professional body. The assurance that the pics will be still ok due to a card failure. One of my workarounds is to use a 2nd body and keep using different cards even if it has not been all filled up.

[ThorSanchez]

So I don't want to confuse shooting jpeg, with not doing post-processing. But I think that's often the case. In challenging conditions I don't see how you get around doing some work in post to get good results. Either that, or you've done a really good job of setting up the defaults in-camera.

Here's an example. I shoot a lot of my kids' soccer teams. Some of the other parents do, too. We all post photos online. I'm pretty sure the other parents shoot jpegs and do minimal post-processing, just posting SOOC jpegs.

The first picture is with a Canon, might be a 7D Mark II. And a 100-400mm lens. This was about 9am, sun just coming up over the trees. I assume this is a SOO camera jpeg. To me the color saturation and contrast are dramatically higher than I'd like, especially the red saturation. The trees in the background are almost indistinguishable in the shadows. Details are lost in places like the black shorts.

The second picture is of the same game, same time within maybe a half hour, so similar lighting. Taken with a K-3ii and a 55-300PLM. I did a bunch of work in RawTherapee, compressing the dynamic range a bit, pulling shadows up, leveling, adding a bit of local contrast, toning down the saturation. I don't know, but I seriously doubt I could have achieved anything like the same results using SOOC jpegs, or even doing post-processing on the jpegs.

I could be wrong, but I think in a lot of cases shooting in RAW and post-processing is the difference between an okay picture and a really good one. I don't blame the other parents at all for not wanting to spend hours editing photos, and theirs are still very usable, especially for phone viewing. But I can't do that with my own, I have to try to pull everything I can out of them before showing them to anybody.

[Mikesul]

Well put! That is part of the joy of photography. Most people probably just want to create a record of an event or scene that they like or of which they are proud. Others of us are equally interested in the craft which allows us to creatively enhance the image so that it is even more striking as an image. Both approaches work find for their practitioners.

[MrB1]

The first picture is with a Canon, might be a 7D Mark II. And a 100-400mm lens. This was about 9am, sun just coming up over the trees. I assume this is a SOO camera jpeg. To me the color saturation and contrast are dramatically higher than I'd like, especially the red saturation. The trees in the background are almost indistinguishable in the shadows. Details are lost in places like the black shorts.

It is clear that raw files have more latitude for adjustment than JPEGs, But raw capture is often not essential, as it is also true that JPEGs from the camera can be edited, and can nearly always be enhanced by doing so. I agree that the first image in post #42 has too much saturation and contrast - just for interest have you tried editing the Canon JPEG? Below is the image after a few tweaks in PaintShop Pro. It is possible (or probable) that the JPEG image would be less problematic if it had been captured by a Pentax DSLR with Custom Image set to Natural and with the D-Range settings switched on - there would be lower saturation and contrast, and more shadow details would have been recorded in the JPEG, so more could have been revealed with simple shadow adjustments.

Philip

[Rondec]

So I shoot RAW+ with jpegs going to one card (mainly to be used if I want something quick to post here or to social media) and RAWs on the other.

For whatever reason, my experience is that what takes time is not post processing, but rather the process of deleting all of the crappy photos I take. Because I come back from a vacation and 80 percent of the photos just need to be pitched. There are five photos of the same view that wasn't really that great to begin with and three of my kids doing some activity. Figuring out for sure which ones to keep and which ones to pitch is what takes time and shooting jpeg doesn't help much with that. Once I know which photos I have kept, it is actually pretty quick to go through and do some editing. To me, if I am doing any editing (bumping shadows, cropping a bit, adjusting the crooked horizon) I might just as well have shot RAW. Jpeg is for situations where everything is completely perfect out of camera and unfortunately that doesn't happen very often for me.