[LDB]

Yes, I know this is a highly discussed subject and I've read some threads on it. I'm not asking to start over from scratch, rather to see if I have any inkling on the decision or not. Hopefully nobody will get upset with another inquiry.

My picture taking will be pleasure not professional, i.e. not for pay, but just for myself or family. Probably 99%+ will only be viewed in emails or in forum threads and message groups. If one were to be printed it would likely be 5x7 or smaller. Given that type shooting I'm wondering which way to record the shots. My thought is jpeg is sufficient but both would give me the raw file if/when I ever wanted it and since memory cards are fairly inexpensive shoot both.

I should add I have zero familiarity with any image software of any sort and initially would be looking for something as simple as see it, shoot it, view it. Thanks for any and all feedback based on those criteria.

[Lowell Goudge]

My own experience is that JPEG is all you need IF

- you spend the time to understand white balance
- you adjust your contrast as a function of the lighting situation and are aware of the changes
- you make every attempt to get the exposure correct and understand expsoure
- you don't go overboard with your selection of saturation and sharpening.
- you don't print 1/4 frame or smaller crops at 11x 17 from the K10D or 8.5 x 11 from any 6 MP camera

and you will only need or want RAW when
- you are really pushing the intent to crop out of the middle of the photo,
- you are completely unsure of the lighting or the lighting is in some way extreme
- you are going to publish the print (and publishers spend forever pixel peeping, only to grossly over sharpen and noise reduce in the end and ruin the image anyway)

This is based upon shooting the *istD for 4 1/2 years and the K10D for 18 months after 25 years with film.

[deejjjaaaa]

use both and then out of curiosity try to see what you can do w/ dozen or so of bad .jpg's using raw converters... then decide... you are not going to make 1000s of shots at once ? then why bother about the memory ? you can always erase all the raws that you do not need.

[Lowell Goudge]

use both and then out of curiosity try to see what you can do w/ dozen or so of bad .jpg's using raw converters... then decide... you are not going to make 1000s of shots at once ? then why bother about the memory ? you can always erase all the raws that you do not need.

I always thought the object was to aim for the best possible in the sensor,

If you do that you learn the technical side properly. If your approach is to always recover marginal shots oput of the trash bin, you are wasting your time and money with a DSLR.

it's your money however, so you can do what you want, but raw is NOT the answer for making a good image from bad

[jshurak]

take into consideration the camera is using its own settings when it creates a jpeg image.

This link is to dpreview's K10D comparison w/ the D80, A100, and 30D. The first three pages compare the K10D's jpeg image sharpness in jpegs against the other three. the next three pages compare sharpness from RAW using Adobe to convert.

[Lowell Goudge]

take into consideration the camera is using its own settings when it creates a jpeg image.

This link is to dpreview's K10D comparison w/ the D80, A100, and 30D. The first three pages compare the K10D's jpeg image sharpness in jpegs against the other three. the next three pages compare sharpness from RAW using Adobe to convert.

I do, I take into account how I set WB, Contrast, Sharpness, and Color saturation, when I set the JPEG settings. They all become perminant in the file.

BUT that is no different to taking the program you load raw files into and using the defaults.

It is all a question about knowing what to set, and how you want it set.

Also, although lab tests and 24 x 36 inch prings show perhaps pentax's JPEGs are not a good as they could be, and I don't argue this, look at the OP's second paragraph, he only wants 5 x 7.

[deejjjaaaa]

I always thought the object was to aim for the best possible in the sensor,

If you do that you learn the technical side properly. If your approach is to always recover marginal shots oput of the trash bin, you are wasting your time and money with a DSLR.

it's your money however, so you can do what you want, but raw is NOT the answer for making a good image from bad

my friend, in some cases you can only make one shot... and it can be bad... and you might need it as memory... so please, let me have my bad approach on my time and money.

[christinelandon]

LDB, given your stated usage intentions and unfamiliarity with image processing, JPEG recording may be best suited to your needs.

You don't mention what camera you use; the K10D's JPEGs on default settings aren't the best in its class, but there are several threads that discuss changes you can make in the menus to improve them considerably. Other Pentax DSLRs reportedly do a better job of producing JPEGs that require less post processing in software.

You also didn't mention your computer/image software combination. It's worth learning how to get the most out of your post processing tools, just in case your needs evolve. Having adequate hard drive storage comes easier if you shoot JPEG files (compression is applied in-camera), but remember to back up those files onto a second (external?) hard drive or to optical media (DVD-R or CD-R) just in case your primary storage fails. It happens, sooner or later! Good luck and happy shooting!

[PDL]

I suggest that you use RAW - even if all you are doing is shooting for fun. The reason?

Digital imaging is about data - RAW gives you all the data - in camera JPEG processing means you lose data. It is the nature of JPEG to lose data.
RAW is the nearest thing we have to a negative. Nearly all software (Lightroom 1.4.0 not included) does not write back to the RAW file. All of the data are preserved. As for my experience, when I started out with digital I shot JPEG - including a week long photo workshop - now I really wish I had used RAW. There is just not enough head room in some of the files to do the subtle things I would like to do. It is sort of like this ---- you have to make an adjustment on a scale of 1 - 10. With JPEG you have 10 steps - with RAW you have a 10.00. Now which one is going to be easier to make fine adjustments with? (actually it is closer to 255 vs 4096 but 10 vs 10.00 is easier for me to imagine)

As others have said - you have not told us what computer system/software you have but that is not all that important. What you need to have is a realatively new box (1-3 years old) with lots of RAM and big drives. RAM and hard drives are cheap - go get more if you need them. Do real backups of your unprocessed images - Like chritinelandon suggested - burn DVD's of your DATA (not the applications, you should be able to reaload things if smoke appears). Storage and data management are complex subjects, get a copy of the DAM book (Digital Asset Management) and see where you can go. With most RAW processing software (Lightroom, CS3 and other products) the workflow for JPEG and RAW is the same. Open the file - process it/or not - save/print it. (Yes - I can print RAW images out of Lightroom -- or PPL for that matter -- no JPEG required.)

At some point you are sure to become more better at this addiction so don't do what I did and sell yourself short by not getting all the data. Disk is cheap, memory is cheap, pp software is not all that expensive (some of it is free) - your images could end up being priceless. Do not short sheet your data.

The Elitist - formerly known as PDL

[PentaxPoke]

The examples I have seen could have easily been "tweaked" or converted if necessary in Photoshop using the jpeg file itself. Sure theoretically RAW is better, but that is like saying .wav files are better than mp3 files. Sure they are, but the extra information in the .wav is inaudible to humans.

I still have yet to see someone meet this challenge: take a picture with jpeg and RAW and show me that the jpeg tweaked image cannot be made to look like the RAW tweaked image. Choose jpeg at max resolution and highest quality. BTW, I'd like to see this done on a REAL picture, not a 400% crop of a brick wall.

[PDL]

The examples I have seen could have easily been "tweaked" or converted if necessary in Photoshop using the jpeg file itself. Sure theoretically RAW is better, but that is like saying .wav files are better than mp3 files. Sure they are, but the extra information in the .wav is inaudible to humans.

I still have yet to see someone meet this challenge: take a picture with jpeg and RAW and show me that the jpeg tweaked image cannot be made to look like the RAW tweaked image. Choose jpeg at max resolution and highest quality. BTW, I'd like to see this done on a REAL picture, not a 400% crop of a brick wall.

Again you miss the point. It is up to the individual to decide on what to use - if JPEG works for you and your workflow is consistent then do what you are comfortable with. I have stated before that modern digital cameras can correctly focus and expose 95% of the images when in Green or program mode. If you want a high priced P&S then go for it. I, for one, try to shoot well into that 5% area - and for me JPEG does not cut it.

My workflow for JPEG (yes I do have JPEG's see my previous post) and RAW is IDENTICAL. There is no difference.

I propose a test for you to do. Take a JPEG (copy of course since this will distroy the image) - open your favorite PP software - rotate the image and save it at you software's highest value. Do that 10 times. Now open the original and the 10th generation can compare - everytime you save a JPEG you distroy data - the camera does the same thing when it generate the JPEG in camera and the Camera CPU is not as powerful as your computer's CPU.

Why throw away any data? Every professional photographer I have spoken too uses RAW, but if JPEG meets your needs - the stop asking someone to prove something you do not/will not accept and go take pictures.

The Elitist - formerly known as PDL

[PentaxPoke]

I didn't start this thread. I ask a simple thing: Show me. Simply show me an example so that I may be a believer like you. Why do people post endless threads on why RAW is better without proof in real pictures? I would love to see one of your cutting-edge photos in the 5th percentile world where jpeg doesn't cut it. Educate me. Isn't that what message boards are about? I can't imagine when I might sequentially rotate a picture 10 times and save after each rotation. I want to see where I can really benefit from RAW. I will accept it if I can see it! I have no reason to stay with jpeg if someone can show me RAW is better. Why post arguments in favor of RAW when you are not willing to show an example!?! Is RAW vs. jpeg is nothing but a religious war?

[serendipity]

I just shoot Jpegs, if I do any pp I save them as tiffs From a personal perspective RAW takes up too much space on a card, and is a slow medium to work with! (dons hard hat;o)
As previously posted, I have yet to see the REAL advantage of RAW shooting, unless you like/want to do a LOT of pp? I don't


Serendipity (Mick)

[Jester_rm]

Nowdays I shoot raw, but only because my K100D doesn't have the option to shoot both. Our "office camera" (A Nikon D40x) I've got set to take raw+jpg.

Now that I've learned a little, I shoot raw because I know I'm not a great photographer, and shooting in raw has saved a number of shots for me, or at least made them useable. It gives me a wider number of options to save a photo than a jpg alone does.

But, that being said, having the raw+jpg option is fine too, as long as the jpgs are high quality. The photos I use for print in our publications end up converted to CMYK Jpgs anyway, if the original is OK then the raw file isn't needed. But it's great as a backup if the shot doesn't turn out.

I think it boils down to not fully trusting my abilities (or those of whoever is using the office camera on a given day) to get the shot the way it's supposed to be the first (and maybe only) time. Raw might give you a second chance. Might not, but it's worth a try and it's only space on a memory card.

[Ahab]

Thank you PDL. You have stated the answer most succinctly. Although I use both formats I have no problem with the quality of my Jpegs from the K10D.