[artrasa]

When I got my DSLR about 15 years ago I started shooting in raw format only, because that was what all the experienced people were recommending. But a couple of years ago I started setting it to capture both raw and JPEG images. This way I could use the JPEG-format photo, but still retain the option to process the PEF "negative" for whatever reason. Nowadays I use a compact that can only save JPEG photos.

[pschlute]

When I got my DSLR about 15 years ago I started shooting in raw format only, because that was what all the experienced people were recommending

As an "experienced" photographer (if only based on years behind the viewfinder), I would not advise anyone new to either photography or digital photography to shoot in raw format at the outset.

Especially for someone new to photography itself, there is far too much to learn about taking a simple picture, than to get bogged down dealing with colour-spaces, file types, noise reduction/sharpening, resizing etc. Sure if you shoot in raw and underxpose the capture you can recover more shadow detail in the conversion than you can with only a jpeg. But it is the act of making those mistakes (eg. underexposure) that will eventually lead to you becoming a better photographer. Leave raw conversion until later.

Now I myself only use raw when shooting. But it was quite the learning curve to find out what all the nuances of conversion were. I can batch process a number of raw files into jpegs very quickly if I so wish, but these days tend to single out one or two images that I feel have the best potential and then spend an hour or more on them in the "digital darkroom" before my finished product is ready.

[James O'Neill]

As one who captures mainly the highest quality, largest size JPEGs, I rarely save JPEG and raw. I don't wish to have to store over three times the amount of data when I find it is usually unnecessary.



Re. JPEGs: a similar case can be made for other software photo editors as you make for ACR. Software evolves to improve its editing capabilities and the tools can also be applied to JPEGs. E.g. Recent AI enhancements have been introduced in areas such as noise reduction and image up-scaling. As JPEGs can be used with current photo software, usually with some general or selective adjustments, to make images/prints of a quality that satisfies me and pleases my friends, which they can, then it seems likely that the future will also be good for those JPEGs.

As always, to each his own.

Philip

I shoot exclusively RAW, and convert some to JPEG for output. When one shoots JPEG it is because the straight from camera pictures do the job they need do, and the chance of using the RAW files is small. Either you want the RAW, and today we can see the full size preview in the RAW file without converting (there was a time when that needed extra tools) making the JPEG redundant OR you won't use the RAW so that's redundant only very rarely is having both a benefit.

I have gone back to some 2005 pictures from my *ist-D and some of the new things which adobe are doing able to do with raw files - extracting more detail and most recently new noise reduction - make a noticeable difference to SOME pictures. But these need the RAW data. A JPEG throws away a lot of the information - it's like a print really, we can scan / rephotograph old prints, but ideally we would go back and print from a negative if we had it. With a JPG file we can re-touch and scale, but if we want to change the brightness/contrast/response curve we have 256 levels of brightness and re-map them. If the JPG doesn't use the full range of brightness - e.g. it stops at 128, we use 128 more widely spaced values. But if the original has a full range and we want to lighten midtones or darken shadows then more than one value in the input file maps onto some of the values in the output. We would be better working with a 12 or 14 bit raw file to generate new values.

The adobe bits need the raw data - it's been suggested that they are adding a lot to the process of de-Bayering the data, though I don't know if that is true - they do throw a lot of compute resource at it - a camera's JPG conversion can't use a lot of watts, and needs to run quickly. Adobe uses multiple seconds on a powerful (and power hungry) 2020s GPU, the original JPG was less than a second a general purpose (low power consumption) chip from 20 years earlier.

A couple of magnified areas below demonstrate. One can apply these detail enhancements to today's raw files and get more from a K1 image than there is in an out-of-camera JPG but there is so much in the "normal" image already there is little need to. The nature of software is that further magic be available in future, but will recent cameras need it ? Probably not.

[mikesbike]

Which ever preference JPG or RAW I hope all the JPG users are capturing the RAW file at the same time. An out of camera JPG will never be able to do what the RAW file can. Over time as Adobe's ACR plugin has evolved you can go back to 10 year old RAW files and output much better images now than you could have done when the image was first taken. Around 2019 ACR introduced several new features Texture and Dehaze that greatly improve the output of older RAW files.

I only do this for rare subject matter and image outcomes, where I might possibly (but even then not likely) re-visit a photo with intention or incliniation to amend it in any way. For this, the handy RAW button is great to have. And, I have sometimes had the experience of the JPEG image being better than what I could do with the image in PP. or often maybe better- but close. So a waste of my time. Getting older aso makes tiem left more precious. And, I am no expert for sure, nor inclined towards puttng in the time to become one, then perhaps saying well I don't have time for this now- so on the back-burner it goes. There it will sit. I am also NOT inclined to subscribe and pay a monthly or yearly fee for ANY PP system whatever, in order to have access to the best current "darkroom" for my image processing! I still use the Adobe PE no. 1 that came with a printer or scanner accompanying my first Dell desk model from 2001, which I still use for printing photos, etc. I tried PE 2 or 3 and liked the older no.1 better. I also bought the advanced Adobe Photoshop, but found it way too awkward and encumbered with so many steps, etc to get a similar result, so there it still sits while I use my PE no. 1.

I tend to do as I have done with my film shooting- not inclined towards settng up and doing darkroom processing. I try to get my shot with the right exposure, use the right film type (or in-camera DSLR settings) as is best for the subject matter, find a good film-developing service, and move on to my next shoot.

---------- Post added 04-25-23 at 03:06 PM ----------

To me, PP is a pleasure, not a chore (as indeed was darkroom work in the dim and distant past

As has been said, to each their own. I have seen impressive results from those who are expert in obtaining these results from their PP work. I do understand their choice in doing their PP work as a matter of course, and the satisfaction they have from it. But not everyone finds this to be a pleasure.

[Lowell Goudge]

I only do this for rare subject matter and image outcomes, where I might possibly (but even then not likely) re-visit a photo with intention or incliniation to amend it in any way. For this, the handy RAW button is great to have. And, I have sometimes had the experience of the JPEG image being better than what I could do with the image in PP. or often maybe better- but close. So a waste of my time. Getting older aso makes tiem left more precious. And, I am no expert for sure, nor inclined towards puttng in the time to become one, then perhaps saying well I don't have time for this now- so on the back-burner it goes. There it will sit. I am also NOT inclined to subscribe and pay a monthly or yearly fee for ANY PP system whatever, in order to have access to the best current "darkroom" for my image processing! I still use the Adobe PE no. 1 that came with a printer or scanner accompanying my first Dell desk model from 2001, which I still use for printing photos, etc. I tried PE 2 or 3 and liked the older no.1 better. I also bought the advanced Adobe Photoshop, but found it way too awkward and encumbered with so many steps, etc to get a similar result, so there it still sits while I use my PE no. 1.

I tend to do as I have done with my film shooting- not inclined towards settng up and doing darkroom processing. I try to get my shot with the right exposure, use the right film type (or in-camera DSLR settings) as is best for the subject matter, find a good film-developing service, and move on to my next shoot.

---------- Post added 04-25-23 at 03:06 PM ----------



As has been said, to each their own. I have seen impressive results from those who are expert in obtaining these results from their PP work. I do understand their choice in doing their PP work as a matter of course, and the satisfaction they have from it. But not everyone finds this to be a pleasure.

Interesting view of things.

Me, I spent a 40 year career in engineering. With almost all of that time with a computer on my desk. Part of the pleasure of being retired is NOT being behind a computer

[Rico]

No, lots of us do not waste storage on something we do not use.

I could understand this mentality 15 years ago but today when it comes to storage space you can get an 8TB spindle drive for $150. People post a lot of excellent images on Pentaxforum's sad to think there are no RAW files to back them all up.

[Rondec]

Interesting view of things.

Me, I spent a 40 year career in engineering. With almost all of that time with a computer on my desk. Part of the pleasure of being retired is NOT being behind a computer

I guess I feel that post processing is as easy or as hard as you make it. In Lightroom, you can make a standard template that will work for most of your snapshots. On the other hand, if there are images where you want more than what the standard template offers, you can spend more time with those images. I have found that shooting jpegs caps my ability to get maximum detail from my images and I don't like that.

Most of my time post processing images is simply culling the images that aren't worth keeping.

[MrB1]

People post a lot of excellent images on Pentaxforum's sad to think there are no RAW files to back them all up.

If they are already excellent images then back up the excellent images. Backing up the raw files is obviously unnecessary.

(But to each his own.)

Philip

[pschlute]

Most of my time post processing images is simply culling the images that aren't worth keeping

I am with you here sir. I delete about 90% of all my captures.

If they are already excellent images then back up the excellent images. Backing up the raw files is obviously unnecessary.

I disagree with this statement on two counts : technological advances in raw processing, and intended use of the image.

1. I have images from my old *istDS and K10D taken many years ago, that I have been able to improve upon by using the latest software advances in modern raw converters and processing applications. I expect the future will lead to even more advances. If you retain the raw file of your excellent image you may be able to make it even more so.

2. If your intended use of your image is only ever to display it on a monitor screen of the same resolution, then you are unlikely to benefit. But as we know the tech changes. Your 800 pixel wide image was fine 15 years ago, now that is woefully small for modern screens. Equally, if you choose to print an old image that you really like at a large size, you are going to do far better by starting with the original raw, performing upsizing/super resolution, if required. If you only have your original jpeg at a low resolution, that wont cut it.

[jersey]

I could understand this mentality 15 years ago but today when it comes to storage space you can get an 8TB spindle drive for $150. People post a lot of excellent images on Pentaxforum's sad to think there are no RAW files to back them all up.

They are backed up as jpegs. Not everyone is obsessed with resolution and size. It should be obvious that we are happy with jpeg, size is enough and we do not see value in RAW processing to recreate look of original jpeg. RAW just takes space without giving anything back for someone who wants to use jpegs.

[Lowell Goudge]

In retrospect, the logical approach would be to shoot max quality jpeg and raw at the same time, and junk the raw if you are satisfied with the jpeg. That way those prone to gross errors have the optimum recovery backup if they need it.

Anything they fix with the raw they can then save as jpeg

[Rico]

They are backed up as jpegs. Not everyone is obsessed with resolution and size. It should be obvious that we are happy with jpeg, size is enough and we do not see value in RAW processing to recreate look of original jpeg. RAW just takes space without giving anything back for someone who wants to use jpegs.

If there is no DNG file those backed up JPG out of camera files will never be as good as the JPG's the DNG file will deliver. DNG is not about resolution and size. There is tremendous value in RAW processing it is not about making it look like the out of camera JPG it is about how you can easily make them incredibly better in so many ways that photographers from the past could not have imagined they could ever have such control over their images.

Only shooting JPG's is sad. :^(

[bilybianca]

My take:
Shoot in RAW only, delete a lot in computer and convert the few worth keeping to jpeg (saving the RAW of course). Thus more effort is put into good conversions.

Kjell

[jersey]

If there is no DNG file those backed up JPG out of camera files will never be as good as the JPG's the DNG file will deliver. DNG is not about resolution and size. There is tremendous value in RAW processing it is not about making it look like the out of camera JPG it is about how you can easily make them incredibly better in so many ways that photographers from the past could not have imagined they could ever have such control over their images.

Only shooting JPG's is sad. :^(

But we are happy with JPEG. We do not want to postprocess. We can, we know how (most of us) we just don't want to. JPEG makes us happy.


Besides if I want something that will have archival value I use b&w film and develop myself. Or if decide to use digital, I order archival-level print in size that I find right. And not shot RAW.

[artrasa]

Capturing the raw image certainly has its benefits as it has more latitude for both editing and pixel peeping, as can already be observed in this thread. It's a great tool for professionals and power users. However, there are some of us who are generally satisfied with their camera's JPEG output. So I think JPEG + raw is the best compromise.