[Macario]

And taking a slower pace is not a bad thing, rather do one good picture in an hour, than 60 mediocore ones

[kh1234567890]

I'm wondering if the slowdown issue I'm having is also because I am importing both formats automatically.
It appears LR3 does some sort of blending as it shows what looks like the camera processed JPG version for an instant, then reverts to the bland looking RAW file almost immediately thereafter.
Hmmm...

The RAW file contains a quite compressed JPEG, generated by the camera - this is what most programs use for the initial display. This is then replaced by the demosaiced RAW data as the computer 'catches up'.

Of course, any decent software should understand whatever settings were used by the camera - all that data is in the RAW file - and apply these as a starting point so that the eventually displayed demosaiced RAW (before you tweak it) would look pretty much as the embedded JPEG, but free from any compression artifacts.

[crewl1]

Thanks everyone for the good info. Looks like I will have to spend some more time really learning how to use the raw format. Sorry to derail the thread if that occurred.

[Marc Sabatella]

Shoot JPEG+DNG at the same time.

Then do your adjustments on the RAW picture...

While this is a useful way of thinking, it also makes it easy to miss the point. For *msot8 images, it is not reasonable to expect you'll do "better" than the JPEG if you like the JPEG. It's also not reasonable to expect it will take any effort at all to get results just as good as the JPEG. In other words, shooting RAW is neither better nor worse than shooting JPEG for most images.

The point of RAW is for images where you might have planned to do editing either way. For those images, you should find it takes *less* effort to get results you like with RAW, and you'll never do quite as well with JPEG. If you find it takes more work with RAW, you've got the wrong software.

In other words, RAW is about taking *less* time doing processing. If you expect to do zero processing, then RAW cannot ever provide any advantage. Only if you think you might do processing even on the JPEG would shooting RAW ever have an advantage.

[Bill_R]

You are right, but there is another reason to shoot RAW. When opening an JPEG and doing some adjustments you can screw it up. No problem, just start again, except if you accidentally saved it without renaiming. You do not have that problem with RAW, it will always ask to be saved as TIFF or JPEG. So it is saver

What's the chance of that if you use a non-destructive editor though? Something like Cyberlink Photodirector 2011 (free beta and do a survey and RTM is yours free) doesn't effect the original jpeg and doesn't prompt for a save. It just "remembers" the changes and you export a finished product or post it to an online service. The chance of exporting to overwrite the original file is minimal. Need to reset the changes and start again and it's just ctrl+R.
You don't getthe same latitude as when working with RAW because some data has been lost in the jpeg transformation but there is still a lot that can be changed with the jpeg if you want to.

[psychdoc]

While this is a useful way of thinking, it also makes it easy to miss the point. For *msot8 images, it is not reasonable to expect you'll do "better" than the JPEG if you like the JPEG. It's also not reasonable to expect it will take any effort at all to get results just as good as the JPEG. In other words, shooting RAW is neither better nor worse than shooting JPEG for most images.

The point of RAW is for images where you might have planned to do editing either way. For those images, you should find it takes *less* effort to get results you like with RAW, and you'll never do quite as well with JPEG. If you find it takes more work with RAW, you've got the wrong software.

In other words, RAW is about taking *less* time doing processing. If you expect to do zero processing, then RAW cannot ever provide any advantage. Only if you think you might do processing even on the JPEG would shooting RAW ever have an advantage.

I shoot JPEG and always tell myself that I will use the setting on the camera whereby you can save your last image as RAW if it is a great shot but have not really used it...

One of these days, I will get around to learning how to work on RAW images.
I rarely print my images and this maybe why I am not so picky. Secondly photography is only a hobby at this point. My kids are still pretty young and they tolerate me going off for periods of time taking pics. But they [and my wife] most definitely dont like me sitting in front of the computer fiddling with images for too long. PP for me then is fairly limited to sharpening/contrast and such in Lightroom or Picasa for the most part. I take that back, PP for me is deleting 90% of my shots.

[Rondec]

I guess I am really partial to RAW files. Back when I was shooting with the K100, the jpeg files weren't very good. I feel like they have gotten a lot better over time, but still able to bring up exposures, do tweaks a lot better with RAW files than with jpegs. That's probably the biggest thing is fixing underexposure. Jpegs just don't seem to tolerate adjustment nearly as well as RAW does.

[wildman]

In an ideal world don't choose one way or the other.

1. For well exposed well lit shots use JPG.

2. For challenging shots with difficult lighting use RAW.

Some times I find myself chasing birds into very deep woods with poor lighting or with over contrasted shots in very bright sunlight. Under these conditions (the extremes) having 16 bits to work with can be a real and obvious (visual) advantage in the final print.

[UnknownVT]

having 16 bits to work with can be a real and obvious (visual) advantage in the final print.

I believe all Pentax dSLRs (up to the K-5) have 12-bit RAW files
- the K-5 has 14-bits.

[wildman]

I believe all Pentax dSLRs (up to the K-5) have 12-bit RAW files

oK...
...having 12 bits to work with can be a real and obvious (visual) advantage in the final print.

[UnknownVT]

oK...
...having 12 bits to work with can be a real and obvious (visual) advantage in the final print.

OK...
...can you tell the difference between 12-bit and 16-bits?

Just kidding - no disrespect meant.

[JohnBee]

OK...
...can you tell the difference between 12-bit and 16-bits?

Just kidding - no disrespect meant.

Yes!
One has 4 bits more than the other.

[UnknownVT]

Yes!
One has 4 bits more than the other.

So...
the difference is less than a Nickel?

[slip]

I haven't read all the answers but I do know that one of my photos that was taken at ISO 100 was underexposed almost 4 stops and it came up great without any noise... jpg wouldn't have even come close

randy