[hjoseph7]

I started shooting RAW exclusively a couple of months ago. Even bought myself a new 32MG card so that I could hold more pictures. Now I'm considering going back to JPEG, because I have to do too much work using RAW. When I download my pictures I'm often disappointed by how they look, dull and drab. Then I have to apply all kinds of edits to get the picture to look approximately how it was taken. I use the image on the back of the LCD as an example for my edits and that image is in JPEG format .

I find I have to do a lot less tweaking when I use JPEG plus I have more room on my card to save images. I'm using Photoshop Elements 12 as my editor maybe that has something to do with it. I get better results using the Pentax Utility program, but it's extremely slow when it comes to downloading pictures from my camera. Anybody else feel like this ?

[enoeske]

I started shooting RAW exclusively a couple of months ago. Even bought myself a new 32MG card so that I could hold more pictures. Now I'm considering going back to JPEG, because I have to do too much work using RAW. When I download my pictures I'm often disappointed by how they look, dull and drab. Then I have to apply all kinds of edits to get the picture to look approximately how it was taken. I use the image on the back of the LCD as an example for my edits and that image is in JPEG format .

I find I have to do a lot less tweaking when I use JPEG plus I have more room on my card to save images. I'm using Photoshop Elements 12 as my editor maybe that has something to do with it. I get better results using the Pentax Utility program, but it's extremely slow when it comes to downloading pictures from my camera. Anybody else feel like this ?

I usually shoot jpeg on my Q-S1 because that camera is about just shooting stuff for fun. I use the built in filters and don't usually do any editing on the pictures. However, when I use my K-3, I always shoot RAW because these pictures are usually for serious work. I need the maximum amount of detail and data for future editing. I can't have most of that data thrown away by the camera. I don't want the camera treating the editing of every picture the same (like bright mode) because every picture is not the same.

[SpecialK]

RAW files by nature are flat and drab :-)

I'm on v13. I rarely take more than 15 seconds on an image. I normally hit "auto", then adjust the exposure and/or brightness sliders (names have changed slightly in v13) to suit, open it, level the horizon, make minor crops perhaps, clone any spots, and save it. If the next image seems to be about the same, I will hit "use previous setting", which saves the first couple of steps.

Even with jpgs, you may want to level the horizon, crop, and clone, so what is the real speed difference vs RAW unless you ignore these operations?

Further, I think more time is spent chimping, renaming and organizing than actual processing.

You spend a lot of time, money and effort to get the shot, then don't want to take a minute to make the image the best (within reason) you can? I do :-)

You can even do much of it in a batch, unattended.

[NicoleC]

I find I have to do a lot less tweaking when I use JPEG plus I have more room on my card to save images. I'm using Photoshop Elements 12 as my editor maybe that has something to do with it. I get better results using the Pentax Utility program, but it's extremely slow when it comes to downloading pictures from my camera. Anybody else feel like this ?

An addition to the other comments -- when you edit a JPEG file you lose quality. RAW files do not.


RAW files do mean work. It means you work to make the picture look like you want it to, instead of relying on software in the camera. For snapshots and casual photos, JPEG is usually great. But if I hauled a tripod and a camera bag and spent 20 minutes setting up a shot, I am probably going to spend at least that much time in PP. If it warrants it -- sometimes the shot just isn't worth the time.


I'm no PP guru, but the more I do the better (and faster) I get at it. Sometimes I work on very mediocre shots for practice, or revisit old shots.

[GUB]

I started shooting RAW exclusively a couple of months ago. Even bought myself a new 32MG card so that I could hold more pictures. Now I'm considering going back to JPEG, because I have to do too much work using RAW. When I download my pictures I'm often disappointed by how they look, dull and drab. Then I have to apply all kinds of edits to get the picture to look approximately how it was taken. I use the image on the back of the LCD as an example for my edits and that image is in JPEG format .

I find I have to do a lot less tweaking when I use JPEG plus I have more room on my card to save images. I'm using Photoshop Elements 12 as my editor maybe that has something to do with it. I get better results using the Pentax Utility program, but it's extremely slow when it comes to downloading pictures from my camera. Anybody else feel like this ?

Another plus for raw is that there is less decisions to make at shooting time. (Whitebalance etc). With raw you are down to the basic balance of shutter, aperture and sensitivity and let the force be with you.

[Hogdriver]

Consider setting up and shooting both...RAW+JPEG. You can always work with those select files that suit your objective and that fortunate photo that really stands out you'll have a RAW file to work. Yes, larger files and potential fewer photos per card, but you can edit/remove those RAW+ files during your shots.

[Volker76]

raw+jpeg for me. Sometimes the jpeg is as close to what I want as it can be, most of the time, I enjoy the fact that I can 'repair' all the minor things I did wrong easily. That said, most of the time it is a matter of a minute or two.

[Kerrowdown]

RAW vs. JPEG

It's the old chestnut again.

The short answer is work with which ever file format gives you what you want, knowing full well the limitations of some formats.

[Miguel]

I use the image on the back of the LCD as an example for my edits and that image is in JPEG format .

If that result satisfies your vision of what the image should look like, then stay with it and be happy. No need for dealing with a raw workflow.

To me it is a matter of judgement, specifically if I prefer how the camera interprets the scene vs. how I want the scene to be rendered. The preference is purely subjective and in personal contexts (that is, when I don't have to quickly turnaround images for an event or a production company) I prefer using my own judgement in shaping the image to my vision. This means shooting raw.

The great thing about photography is that there is room for countless ways of making shots.

M

[DSims]

Two software solutions: The Pentax RAW editing software that came with your camera, or software with high quality camera profiles (like Capture One).

Your complaint is so fundamental - and so obvious a problem - that I can't believe Adobe's never put more effort into their profiles. I know they improved their camera profiles a couple of years ago (or so), but apparently not enough. This was one of the main reasons I stopped using Lightroom. And Capture One generally produces better results for me anyway, so I have little motivation to go back.

Capture One's profiles are very good, so the photos look good even before you adjust them. And the Pentax software allows you to replicate your out-of-camera JPEG's appearance. It does so by providing software settings which mirror the JPEG settings (e.g. Vivid, Portrait, etc., plus the fine adjustments) when you load in your RAW files. It also has surprisingly good adjustments after that.


Also, take care as to which RAW format you choose: PEF or DNG. For example, most of Capture One's profiles are designed for PEF files, although a few Pentax camera models' DNGs may work too (or possibly instead of a PEF). So try both with any editing software you're using, and see which looks better when you first load the file.


Finally, there's nothing wrong with shooting JPEGs in many situations. Events and sports (even for pro photographers) are two common examples. You can still do a surprising amount of adjustment on a JPEG if you have to. As Hogdiver and others suggested, at least shoot RAW+JPEG if you can, so you always have a JPEG that's ready to go. You may even want to pick one or two-star quality on the JPEGs, to keep them small for quick uploading and so forth. One-star quality JPEGs still look very good, just as long as you never lower the resolution from the native 16MP (or whatever the max resolution on your particular Pentax DSLR is).

[CristiC]

I started shooting RAW exclusively a couple of months ago. Even bought myself a new 32MG card so that I could hold more pictures. Now I'm considering going back to JPEG, because I have to do too much work using RAW.

Well, I never gave up shooting both JPEG and RAW. As a compromise for size, I don't need high resolution JPEGs, 8M is enough when I have the big DNG file too.
My K-30 stores them with the RAW+ setting. I always want a DNG file to edit if the JPG image doesn't look good enough and that happens more often than not.
That's one of the reasons why I moved from point-and-shoot camera to DSLR. Greater control over the output.

There are situations like in-camera HDR and high framerate continuous shooting when I can't get both JPEGs and RAWs from my camera, it only stores JPG for those.

IMO, there's never "too much work to do" if a good picture is taken (in terms of composition, art, storytelling, you know) but many pictures are not good enough to deserve any post-processing at all. I'd rather have too many useless RAW images than to have one great image shot only in JPG.

Deleting may be quick but somehow I follow the wisdom of never deleting images once they are downloaded to a PC. Storage is cheap and memories may be triggered even by bad pictures. The DNG format is much better for long-term archival than JPG - that's another reason to keep all the RAW files too.

When I download my pictures I'm often disappointed by how they look, dull and drab.

The Adobe DNG codec for unprocessed files is the one that displays them. The pictures may look dull and drab but remember, it's only because you are looking at unprocessed files of the kind that is meant to be processed later anyhow. RAW is RAW, meaning just that. Unprocessed.

I find I have to do a lot less tweaking when I use JPEG plus I have more room on my card to save images.

Well, if those are your priorities, then it's OK and well suited to shoot JPG only. My preferences and habits are different, according to my needs. I use several SD-cards of 8GB and 16GB size and empty them regularly. Like bags from the supermarket. The SD cards are not meant for long term storage, just for a few days until download.

I get better results using the Pentax Utility program, but it's extremely slow when it comes to downloading pictures from my camera. Anybody else feel like this ?

Download speed is another matter and depends on the type of card reader and other factors. I don't use the USB cable that came with the camera but I take the SD-card out and put it into a dedicated card reader that is attached to the PC. SD-cards are of several kinds and speed caregories. Even if I use a high-speed 94MB/s SONY SDHC card, the limitation may derive from the card reader or from the hard-drive write speed (a slower one). Nowadays, USB3 card readers are available and there are ways to improve download times from large SD-cards by using appropriate hardware for the whole chain, from source to destination, the speed limit comes from the weakest (slowest) link in the chain.

[PKMike]

Raw+jpeg. View photos (side by side makes it easy). If you like the jpeg version, delete the raw version. If not, you have the option to set your own jpeg parameters. A word of caution though, if you don't keep up with deleting unwanted images this process can load up the hard drive pretty quickly (especially with a high res camera like K-3).
I once posed my family, joined them, handed my camera (in jpeg mode) to a friend. He took several images which we really liked, but the white balance was so far out of whack that the images were pretty much useless. They could have been easily fixed had there been a raw file to work with. Lesson learned for me.

[alamo5000]

I started shooting RAW exclusively a couple of months ago. Even bought myself a new 32MG card so that I could hold more pictures. Now I'm considering going back to JPEG, because I have to do too much work using RAW. When I download my pictures I'm often disappointed by how they look, dull and drab. Then I have to apply all kinds of edits to get the picture to look approximately how it was taken. I use the image on the back of the LCD as an example for my edits and that image is in JPEG format .

I find I have to do a lot less tweaking when I use JPEG plus I have more room on my card to save images. I'm using Photoshop Elements 12 as my editor maybe that has something to do with it. I get better results using the Pentax Utility program, but it's extremely slow when it comes to downloading pictures from my camera. Anybody else feel like this ?

I use Lightroom and at first I was blown away by all the 'complexity' of it... I still don't know how to do a bunch of stuff but I think RAW is still the way to go.

You could also shoot RAW+ and get both JPEG and RAW...and if you ever decide to, you can fully develop select files.

RAW images can save your butt if you have under or over exposed or any other number of situations... a throw away picture can turn into a keeper...

If you are worried about size on the card... then you're barking up the wrong tree. Just get another card or two...

[BrianR]

It's not too difficult to set up a basic preset that approximates the jpeg from the camera- shoot 5 or 6 different subjects in raw+jpeg and spend 30 minutes trying to come up with a common set of settings for your converter that make the converted raws 'close' to the jpegs. Have these settings applied on import. Spend extra time on any images that are worth the extra time. Make more presets for different lighting conditions and subjects as time goes on. Shooting raw shouldn't be a burden, and you can take time to ease yourself into a comfortable workflow.

That said, if you're happy with the jpeg's out of camera, that's fine too.

[6BQ5]

I have a preset in Aperture that gives me 80-90% of the image processing I need from a RAW file. It has some basic sharpening and definition settings. I apply that to all my photos upon import. From there it's about 30 to 60 seconds for a properly exposed photo. Of course, there are some photos where I want to dodge, burn, and tweak to taste. Those are the fun ones that take some time.