[Anvh]

Here is my take as a jpeg shooter.

If you take your time, and actually learn the jpeg settings, and adjust your settings for the situation, I.e. contrast, hue, WB, highlight and shadow detail protection.... RAW offers very little advantage because you are already so close that there is no need for further adjustments. People argue against this, but after all that is what you did in film, by changing emulsions, etc. the real benefits I see for raw is that if you miss the shot settings, with raw you can rescue this to some extent much better than jpeg. Large modifications in tonal range are safer in raw and eliminate tonal banding in the images, just because the tonal resolution is better.

You're right for some but certainly not all.
I came to photography through Photoshop and 3D animation/modelling, when i'm not shooting for fun i try to capture the most information with the camera. This takes quite some skill because you're really working on the limits and if you go over it you actually lose information. So i shoot in RAW because it gives me more information and more room to edit my photos to my liking, not to rescue them.
If the shot isn't in there then the bit of more room RAW gives you is of no use either.

[slackercruster]

Thanks for ALL the feedback!

I do lots of bracketing. Take tons of photos, have no shortage of images. So am not usually in need of rescuing a shot. Sounds like for me jpeg may do fine. But still studying up RAW before I go back to full jpegs.

[JohnBee]

If you take your time, and actually learn the jpeg settings, and adjust your settings for the situation, I.e. contrast, hue, WB, highlight and shadow detail protection.... RAW offers very little advantage because you are already so close that there is no need for further adjustments.

While I agree with the fact that the RAW advantage ends-up being a subjective one in the end. I'd posit the following simple experiment:

Take a picture inside a house with a window in broad daylight and adjust your JPG settings so as to properly expose both the room and the window.

The simple fact of the matter is that most current in-camera processing engines do not take full advantage of a sensors capabilities. Which is pretty strange to say the least considering the advancements that have been made over the past few years, Having said that, this phenomenon(of untapped performance) seems far more prevalent today than ever when we consider the recent developments in sensor performance and so in some ways, I think the advantages of RAW processing has gained considerable ground toward this issue.

With that in mind, there are other benefits to shooting RAW than just dynamic range:

• Demosaicing
• Lossless compression
• Noise and grain quality
• Sharpening performance
• Color depth

Granted, some of these may seem like they fall in the pixel peeping category for some people, however, as a long time RAW shooter, I can testify that the advantages of RAW reach far beyond that of rescuing photo's. For example; I've found that though the OOC images from a K-5 can be deemed adequate in many situations, that achieving that 3D could only be accomplished with RAW.

Having said all that, there is another seldom spoken aspect to shooting RAW that seems overlooked by many people. And that is where we find ourselves processing JPG images when all is said and done. Which is rather redundant if/when you think of it as we find ourselves doing the same amount of work without any of the benefits.

And so in many ways, I think there is much to consider in terms of feature and benefits between both approaches.

PS. here is a simple case study carried out with a K-5 I did about a year ago which touched on the issue of post processing a JPG vs a RAW file. granted, I could have used spot metering to expose for the highlights, but... that would have meant pulling-up shadows at the expense of IQ as a result. And so in this particular case, the RAW advantage became obvious:

K-5, 200mm f/4, OOC JPG W/adjustements


K-5, 200mm f/4, OOC RAW, ACR 6.2

[cbope]

I shoot RAW+JPEG, for those times when the JPEG OOC is "good enough". Simple snapshots for example. But by keeping the RAW file too, I can go back and post-process and end up with a much better photograph. It allows you to shoot and use JPEGs for now, while you learn how to handle RAW and develop your own workflow.

Before getting my K-5, I was also one of the "JPEG is good enough" photographers and I rarely shot RAW. Now that I have learned to use RAW, and learned how to get even better images than relying on the built-in JPEG processing in my K-5, I won't be going back.

Lightroom 4 is a steal at the new price (50% off previous version), and I'm really enjoying working in it.

---

Last edited by cbope; 04-01-2012 at 08:40 AM. Reason: spelling

[robgo2]

The decision about shooting raw turns on how much you want to get out of your pictures and how much you are willing to put into them. If you just want images that look reasonably good without requiring any effort on your part, then shoot JPEG. If you want to produce something that expresses your inner vision and perhaps even rises to the level of art, then shoot raw, and learn how to use one of the many raw convertors that are available. Raw editing is really not very difficult (once you have gained some familiarity with the software), and many of us find the process to be highly enjoyable. Raw Therapee, as recommended by John Bee, is an unfinished program that is very user unfriendly, and I would avoid it, even if it costs nothing. Most of the people around here use Lightroom, but I personally prefer Capture One. If you are interested in going this route, I would recommend that you download trial versions of several programs to see which one you like best.

Rob

[eddie1960]

plus 1 on try before you buy, there are lots of good programs

I settled on lightroom after using a few programs because i like the workflow. but PSPx4 works well and actually is a fuller editing program than lightroom for less money, not as user friendly IMO though. DXO which I also have has beneifits that the other 2 don't have but i only go to it for specifics because though it is very capable the workflow isn't as user friendly. For me It's about being able to acheive what i wanted with a minimum of fuss. I also frequently shoot in situations where i know there will be a fair bit of needed work on the exposure like poorly lit clubs (that may be different with a K5 somewhat but I imagine it would still need work)
I pretty much only shoot DNG plus JPEG. if its good SOOC then I have the jpeg already, if it needs a tweak I go to the DNG

[Lowell Goudge]

This is true, and few things give me the warm fuzzies more than going in to tweak my RAW file and realizing it needs no tweaking since the colors are already what I want, but when you're rushed and don't have time to go in and set this, that, and the the other thing in-camera for the situation, blasting away with RAW shots can save the day as you can go back and mimic those settings afterwards.

I managed some shots of an osprey last year that I wasn't set up for. I'd been shooting some landscape stuff when I realized the bird was doing a fly-by on me, so I swung the camera up and started shooting the bird. Most of the first few shots had screwed up exposure since I'd just transitioned from 'shooting stuff under trees' under Tv mode to 'shooting a bird against a blue sky'. Luckily he hung out for a while so I had time to adjust, but I would have lost those initial shots had I not been shooting in a mode where I could tweak my exposure back to where it worked for me.

love the capture. I like watching ospreys fish especially.

Not to sound boastful here on equipment but when I am out and about, I usually have 2 bodies and 2 lenses, one based upon what I am doing and one for the unexpected.

It is not uncommon for me to have something in the 400-500mm range on one body and a 28-75 on the other. each set up for the intended purpose. I got into doing that when I carried 2 different film bodies each loaded differently, based on the lens attached.

[eddie1960]

love the capture. I like watching ospreys fish especially.

Not to sound boastful here on equipment but when I am out and about, I usually have 2 bodies and 2 lenses, one based upon what I am doing and one for the unexpected.

It is not uncommon for me to have something in the 400-500mm range on one body and a 28-75 on the other. each set up for the intended purpose. I got into doing that when I carried 2 different film bodies each loaded differently, based on the lens attached.

I have to admit the 2 body habit sticks with me as well Lowell (like you I frequently carried 2-3 film bodies slide, B/W, high iso was my usual mix for 3 body, Colour, B/W for a 2 body)

Now I only do 2 body days when i'm shooting events (2 DSLR with lenses that make sense in context) or when traveling where 1 is film (SLR or RF) and one is digital - my kit for the trip this year will probably be all m42 a spottie and the k7 with 4-5 lenses 21/35/50or55/135 for sure)