RAW Vs. JPEG

[timarp000]

I know that they are many threads regarding to this topic but both formats have their own references and some of the people that i've asked just seem one-sided and dont want to accept that each format do have advantages and disadvantages. So hopefully people here wont do the same. When you do vote. tell me the advantages of the format you voted for.

 

[480sparky]

I can't vote because my choice isn't listed.

I typically shoot raw for total flexibility in post. I will shoot jpeg if I need to 'fire away' dozens of shots quickly, or am just taking a shot to post online or email.

 

[memento]

I shoot both. I try to get it right in the camera the first time. If I need to edit, then I have the raw file.

 

[KmH]

I too shot both, but mostly I shot Raw.

I shot JPEG when time constraints didn't allow post processing, like selling images on site at an event.

The bottom line regarding the difference between the 2 file types is - Bit Depth
Tutorials on Color Management & Printing

Raw is like a film negative and is an unfinished image that has to be 'developed' and then adjusted before a print is made.
JPEG was designed to be a finished ready-to-print format. As such JPEG has little, if any, editing headroom. JPEG is a lossy, compressed file type. About 80% of the color information the camera's image processor developed gets thrown away to make a JPEG (the lossy part). All those millions of pixels get converted into 8x8, 8x16, or 16x16 pixel blocks known as Minimum Coded Units (MCU) (compression).

 

[snowbear]

I'm also bilingual, but shoot raw more than JPEG.

 

[unpopular]

DAMN THIS TOPIC. DAMN IT ALL TO HELL.

 

[snowbear]

DAMN THIS TOPIC. DAMN IT ALL TO HELL.

'tis a religious topic, like Canon v. Nikon.

 

[unpopular]

The way I see it is you should always shoot RAW unless you have a reason to shoot JPEG.

OTOH, I wish that cameras would at least give you a lossless 8-bit and 16-bit PNG option. Something in the middle would be nice.

 

[Garbz]

JPEG are smaller. End of benefits. I can fully understand why people seem onesided. Unless you need to fire away a billion shots in a short time space and then turn over straight to a client or non-raw capable device there's no benefit, only downsides.

 

[TonysTouch]

You can always batch process your JPGs, but you can't get the trashed information back.

 

[IgsEMT]

Ahhh, the great debate

For me, it depends what I'm shooting.

RAW:
commercial shoot.
portrait sessions (outdoors) - IN CASE lighting changes faster then I'd like it to, I have the ability to rescue the shot I want/need.

JPG: In studio portrait session. White balance is preset, lighting is controlled to the 1/10th of it. All that's left is the camera angle and subject in front of the camera.

Events are really 50/50 and depends for who I'm shooting. Some studios want me to shoot ONLY RAW, others medium jpgs. On my jobs, its a 50/50 depending on the importance of the shot and what will it be in final batch of things.

Realistically, you need to start shooting, experiment with both formats and see which one works better for you.

 

[zombiemann]

The only time I shoot JPEG over raw is when I'm doing very low light photography like star trails. The in camera noise reduction is better than what I am capable of doing in post. I could very well be missing something though

 

[Steve5D]

I shoot both...

 

[fjrabon]

JPEG for sports. Raw for most everything else.

 

[SUNR15E]

DAMN THIS TOPIC. DAMN IT ALL TO HELL.

'tis a religious topic, like Canon v. Nikon.

Obviously Nikon......lol

SUNR15E