[noelpolar]

I transitioned to RAW a few years ago and rarely shoot jpegs now. There was a bit of a hump getting better jpegs out of the RAWs than the camera defaults (whatever settings I was using at the time)..... a bit like the learning curve in how to process a RAW in less than say 2 minutes on average in Lightroom.

I would have lost lot's of memorable images if shooting jpegs..... that I know.... but that's just me. I also wouldn't have bothered so much with higher end lenses if I was happy enough shooting jpegs.... once again that is just me.

Generally, unless in a rather consistent shooting situation, I'd rather make photographic decisions with more deliberate consideration then I can do on the spot with a high degree of confidence.... RAW gives me this advantage/flexability.

I don't use photoshop..... so I guess there is almost another hump to some better shots for me that I haven't bothered with to date.

---

Last edited by noelpolar; 07-26-2016 at 06:02 AM.

[WPRESTO]

The downsides of RAW, as I'm sure everyone knows:
1) slower maximum frame rate;
2) buffer can hold fewer image files;
3) longer write time;
4) fewer image files stored per card;
5) maybe more time in PP to get precisely what you want, BUT, more likely to get precisely what you want, which is the major advantage of RAW.

Write time is exacerbated by the K1 with its relatively huge files for each image.

[Nicolas06]

The downsides of RAW, as I'm sure everyone knows:
1) slower maximum frame rate;
2) buffer can hold fewer image files;
3) longer write time;
4) fewer image files stored per card;
5) maybe more time in PP to get precisely what you want, BUT, more likely to get precisely what you want, which is the major advantage of RAW.

Write time is exacerbated by the K1 with its relatively huge files for each image.

For K3 at least I found none of this to be an issue. i think bust rate is the same for RAW and JPEG, only the buffer fill faster. But 24 images is large enough at least for me. And as long as buffer not full, I don't care of the write time...

2X 128GB SD card of decent brand/speed is less than 100€ and give you an autonomy of about 8000 Raws. Not that bad. I shoot that in 6 months.

The only issue I have is I need to convert the RAW before I can send them to friend or flickr... but even for viewer there very fast free viewers available that also support raws.

[WPRESTO]

For K3 at least I found none of this to be an issue. i think bust rate is the same for RAW and JPEG, only the buffer fill faster. But 24 images is large enough at least for me. And as long as buffer not full, I don't care of the write time...

2X 128GB SD card of decent brand/speed is less than 100€ and give you an autonomy of about 8000 Raws. Not that bad. I shoot that in 6 months.

The only issue I have is I need to convert the RAW before I can send them to friend or flickr... but even for viewer there very fast free viewers available that also support raws.

All granted, and I've never had a problem with burst rate using RAW, nor thought a card filled too quickly when using my K3. But the problems with a K1 operating on FF are a bit different.

[bdery]

he downsides of RAW, as I'm sure everyone knows:
1) slower maximum frame rate;
2) buffer can hold fewer image files;
3) longer write time;
4) fewer image files stored per card;
5) maybe more time in PP to get precisely what you want, BUT, more likely to get precisely what you want, which is the major advantage of RAW.

6) More long-term storage needed

[Nicolas06]

6) More long-term storage needed

This greatly depend of how much you shoot and more important what you keep.

I don't see point as an amateur to keep 20-50K pictures a year. To me by taking time to keep only the best and process them decently (at least good framing, perspective/horizon correction) you are much more likely to want to look at the picture you took a few years back. And your friend/familly are far less likely to want to commit murder if you ask them for a viewing session.

If you keep only 5000 pictures a year, and that already a lot if they are all great, With a K3 you need 12 years to fill a 2TB drive... And if you know you'll not reprocess the raw anyway, you can simply keep only the JPEG for the long run meaning that 2TB would last you a lifetime.

2TB HDD one for storage, the other for backup is maybe 250$? Maybe less. That doesn't look that bad.

Myself I am well under 5000 great pictures a year. If there 5 great photo of the same thing, I'll keep 1 or 2. Not 5. And if there 10 more soso pictures I'll delete all of them so I have only the 1-2 great picture for that moment/scene/subject.

If you are a pro you may shoot much more, but again for your own archives I don't think need more than 5000 a year. Your best. Once you have given your work to your clients there no reason to keep all the picture for a long time if it is not part of service you sell. Certainly if you keep then for a lifetime or only 10 years, that should be paid somewhere.

[Volker76]

Raw+. Sometimes the jpegs are good enough, most of the time they are just quick previews... oh, and I hate jpeg. The file format. That lossy, blocky disease.

if the cameras would store PNG instead of jpeg...

[macman24054]

Raw+. Sometimes the jpegs are good enough, most of the time they are just quick previews... oh, and I hate jpeg. The file format. That lossy, blocky disease. if the cameras would store PNG instead of jpeg...

I use the same method. 90% of the time the jpeg is simply used to preview and select the images I will develop as prints.

[Nicolas06]

Raw+. Sometimes the jpegs are good enough, most of the time they are just quick previews... oh, and I hate jpeg. The file format. That lossy, blocky disease.

if the cameras would store PNG instead of jpeg...

PNG better for digitally generated pictures where it compress the best (lossless I think). Jpeg is best for photos/complex images and it lossy format is very efficiant. The problem is that it doesn't come with the dynamic range with need mostly.

[Jonathan Mac]

I stopped using the jpegs from my old K200D when I saw the difference (mostly in sharpness) between the jpegs and a RAW processed later on a computer. The K200D must have had a jpeg algorithm developed to prioritise speed over quality (even using the highest quality settings) and I didn't like it at all and got used to PPing everything later.

On the K3 that problem doesn't exist. The K3's level also helps make sure that my horizons are level, another reason I had to PP a lot of pictures (though getting level horizons it's something I've learned to do better even without that function. It's a shame that the in-camera RAW development doesn't include the capacity to turn images to correct horizons.

In short, the K3 is perfectly capable of giving me shots I'm happy with straight out of camera. The biggest problems are white balance, horizons and exact exposure, which sometimes need a computer to get just right.

The jpegs from my little Fujifilm mirrorless are another thing altogether. If I get them level then they come out wonderful just about every time.

[nicolpa47]

I learnt my photography using slide film, and I still hold largely true to the aim of trying to capture the image I want in the camera. Initially, I used a type of RAW image but found it a pain to process. I switched to jpeg, which I was mostly satisfied with after making a few changes to the in camera processing - K30/K50. More recently I have started to tweek jpegs using Gimp and, at the same time started to generate RAW images as well.

I have found that on odd occasions editing the RAW images has given a much improved result. So, I suppose I'm saying I use the RAW+ option and selectively edit both types of file depending upon the image and the extent of correction required. Horses for courses.