Originally posted by Gimbal JPEG is good enough for most of my pictures, since frankly they are not all wall hangers. The quality of the JPEGs are pretty good at the highest setting, one really have to do some serious pixel diving to spot any compression artefacts at all. So unless the scene calls for that extra dynamic range, or one hopes there is a wall hanger within grasp, one don’t need to shoot RAW. At least that is my current belief.
I used to think this way, too. I was wrong. Let's revisit this old subject - as it's obviously a fresh one for many users. Let me say right up front: I'm not a Raw evangelist. I don't give a darn whether anybody shoots in Raw or JPEG or TIFF.
That said, let me start by pointing out that you are shooting Raw always and everywhere, whether you want to or not. Raw data is simply what the camera sensor "sees", and the only control you have over what the camera sees is exercised when you change where the camera is pointing, and to a lesser extent, when you control the focal length and focus. What the settings in the camera's menu allow you to do is control whether this Raw data is converted to JPEG right there in the camera - using the limited range of options built into the camera - or whether this conversion will be postponed until you have moved the image files off the camera and on to your computer. And whenever you do the conversion - whether you convert to JPEG in-camera or on the computer - you're throwing away a huge amount of information about the original picture. But if you convert on the computer and then decide you don't like the resulting JPEG, you still have the Raw original to return to. If you convert to JPEG in the camera and don't save the Raw file, too, well, you're stuck with what you can do with a JPEG.
There are only three reasons NOT to shoot Raw.
1. Because Raw files are bigger than JPEG files, if you save Raw files in your camera, you'll get far fewer photo files on your storage card.
2. Because saving the Raw data means writing everything the camera's sensor "sees" while converting to JPEG involves throwing a lot of info away, saving Raw images is slower than converting and saving JPEGs. If you are guessing that the Raw to JPEG conversion process occurs VERY quickly, you are right, it does. Converting the data uses the camera's processor, which is extremely fast. Writing files to disk, on the other hand, is always a relatively slow process. Bottom line here is, if you want to shoot in continuous mode, in many cameras, you'll be able to shoot more photos in a row if you are saving them as JPEGs than if you're saving them as Raw files. (The limiting factor here is the camera's buffer.)
3. If you save Raw files in the camera, you will in most cases want to convert them to JPEGs (or TIFFs) later, on your computer. Now, once upon a time, this process of converting Raw files involved a special step and was undeniably an extra hassle. That is simply no longer the case, however. Most good image-editing/image-management programs now import Raw files without prior conversion and allow you to edit the images non-destructively, also without conversion. The Raw-to-JPEG conversion step occurs only when you export images, which is something you probably used to do anyway. What I do with my Raw files in Lightroom is nearly identical to what I used to do with my JPEGs in Picasa - except that in Lightroom I have more options, more control, and more data to work with in the first place. NOTE: Not all Raw formats are supported by all image-management programs, and if your preferred software doesn't support your camera's format, well, then you either need to get a new camera, get new software, or use an old-fashioned conversion step.
In short, reason #3 isn't much of a reason any more, unless your software doesn't support your camera's Raw format. The complaint that Raw is harder than JPEG remains true, but the difference is trivial. Folks who are convinced by this reason not to use Raw, either don't know anything about what's involved in processing Raw images (and therefore don't know how easy it's become) or they're looking for an excuse to keep doing what they're familiar with.
Reason #2 isn't much of a reason, either - unless burst or continuous-mode shooting is really important to you. If it is, well, I can understand that.
Reason #1 is really the only reason with comprehensive validity. Raw files ARE bigger. Generally they're a LOT bigger. This matters mainly when you go to store your files - at least if you shoot a lot of pictures. If you shoot relatively few pictures per week or per month, then this reason loses its force, and I dare say that most amateur photographers don't shoot enough pictures for storage to become a huge issue. If storage were really all that big a deal to amateurs, they wouldn't be buying 10 MP cameras - to shoot JPEG files! A top-quality JPEG isn't as big a file as the unconverted original RAw file, but it's still a big file. Anyway, if you do shoot a lot of photos, you're going to need an intelligent way to store the files. If you shoot Raw, you'll need more storage than if you shoot/save JPEG.
Note that none of these problems with Raw has anything to do with image quality. The arguments based on image quality all favor Raw.
Will