Raw or Jpeg

[Tinopener]

Hi all as I get into this great hobby I wonder if I should shoot in raw I have the basic Adobe photoshop which has been on my computer for a year and has never been used as I'm not very good on computers. I tend to put camera on raw and jpeg. I have no problems with jpeg and I do tweak with them on the photo app that came on the computer ... Gary

 

[Loke]

When im shooting nature and wildlife im always shooting Raw - Lossless comp Large. Sometimes i do raw+jpeg. And a few times i do just jpeg, example for some family photos etc when i just dont want to edit later.

Bird and animal photos is raw 100% of the time, because i almost always do adjustments to the keeper images. Mostly exposure, shades, blacks and whites and sharpness. Sometimes i do remove a branch or some dust spots and also do some masking to enhance lights etc.

Photoshop is pretty advanced, but if you want something thats good and also decently easy to understand i could recommend Adobe Lightroom, thats what i use.

 

[iamdlewis]

If you are not going to spend a lot of time editing or don't have much of an interest in editing and are happy with what you get from the JPEGs then just use them. If you don't mind spending a little time doing basic editing (global shadow/highlights/contrast/saturation) then it might not be bad to do RAW+JPEG.

I would agree that wildlife and Landscape should be done RAW+JPEG for those that are less interesting in the editing. The biggest reason for this is that the shadow and highlights recovers are just so much better with RAW.

If you are going to shoot JPEG I highly suggest testing the various "Style" options.

This is a hobby for you so do what brings you joy and avoid what makes it feel like work. If that means shooting JPEG do that because you will keep at this longer. Maybe in the future you get the feel for wanting to do more editing and use RAW then.

Example of what I mean by shadow recovery:

• ILCE-1
• Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS (SEL100400GM)
• 400.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/320 sec
• ISO 8000

• ILCE-1
• Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS (SEL100400GM)
• 400.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/320 sec
• ISO 8000

 

[alexpler]

I always shoot jpeg. Xtrafine quality of Sony cameras makes it a less lossy format and you can still make some adjustments in lightroom. But it's a speedier process, which I prefer.

And also, it forces you to learn and get it right on camera. Sometimes you lose a picture that you could have saved if it was in raw but you learn from that, too.

I guess it all depends on your preferences, your shooting subjects, how many photos you take and how much time do you want to spend editing.

 

[Alan Clark]

I shoot Raw + jpeg (A7iii cameras). The Raw images are stored on one card, the jpegs on the second card as insurance. The main advantage of Raw is that there is more dynamic range, so much more shadow detail is recorded.
The only time I use only jpeg is when shooting in burst mode. After a couple of seconds the buffer becomes full and slows down the camera if you shoot Raw, but this never happen with jpegs.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

Jpeg = fast turnaround if you like to post up on forums or social media, or share with friends and family. Hey, its good enough if you like the end result!

RAW = best possible chance to recover shadows, tame highlights, and so much more... but it takes some time with the editing and if you take a ton of photos it can be daunting to go back and cull and edit your raw files (or is that just me?)

 

[Clix Pix]

RAW all the way here -- haven't shot .jpg in a long time! I shoot in Uncompressed RAW on both the A1 and the A7R V, since I primarily use them for wildlife (A1) and closeups/macro/general (A7R V) ,

Yes, it takes a lot of time afterward to cull through a lot of images that I've shot, plus then edit the ones I decide are worthwhile! I do prefer the level of control I have over my images by doing things this way, though, and since I am retired I have plenty of time.

 

[Landshark99]

On all my Sony cameras I shoot only in Raw, with both my Fuji X100VI and Ricoh GR3, I shoot raw + jpeg because I like their film simulations in jpeg most of the time. Raw gives you that much more control of the final image but as others have said if you do not wish to spend the time, jpegs should be fine.

 

[Unframed Dave]

More support for jpeg than I imagined, so I'll chip in.

Jpegs for me, I don't enjoy time spent at the computer and am happy with the results I get.

 

[Slug]

A combination of RAW and JPEG. I do an initial cull of both, keep all the remaining JPEGs and decide which of the better ones are worth keeping the RAW copy as well. (Usually about 4 RAW from a session).
High definition cameras these days produce very good JPEGs if you have the camera settings somewhere near the mark. I find there is plenty of latitude left for further processing if required.

 

[Richard A]

So, I'll chime in - I shoot RAW + JPEG. The JPEGs are just a backup really. The only time I have used JPEGs in the last 5 years is for eBay ads. I actually enjoy post processing. Maybe that is unusual on this forum.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

RAW always, you lose a lot of available detail in JPEG, and you are relying on the camera processing the image suitably, which it doesn't always do, especially on shots in tricky light. If you're going to have quality equipment, at least make the most of it.. Yes processing can be tedious, but it can also be relaxing and pleasurable.

 

[spudhead]

Raw always, sometimes I wish jpeg was an option for me when I have so many shots to edit. I guess I now only edit 20% of the shots I take, fact is raw is the only way to get the most from shots, example as stated by Kev difficult lighting often I shoot with a lot of plus or minus ev knowing the end result will work in editing

 

[iain clyne]

Jpeg for me, used it when I was working so just kept using it.

 

[Tim Mayo]

My preference for wildlife is RAW + JPEG Extra Fine. I mostly use JPEG's as I'm lazy when it comes to editing and 90 percent of the time I'm happy with the images produced. But I like to have the RAW files as a backup just in case I need to tweak the exposure or recover highlights/shadows.

 

[TerryL]

Hi all as I get into this great hobby I wonder if I should shoot in raw I have the basic Adobe photoshop which has been on my computer for a year and has never been used as I'm not very good on computers. I tend to put camera on raw and jpeg. I have no problems with jpeg and I do tweak with them on the photo app that came on the computer ... Gary

Try Imagining Edge on the Sony website. It’s free and makes processing raw files easy.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

I shoot raw+jpeg. I have the jpegs for immediate sharing. Musicians will often find I've sent them to their phones even before the concert is over. Youngsters, especially, love to get something out in Instagram as soon as they can.

Time allowing, I then process the raws. It takes me as long to do that, longer often, than it does to watch the concert. But I do enjoy it. And I enjoy sessions of learning more, which is never ending. Actually, even if I am using the jpegs, I'll do a quick adjustment of levels, etc: mush less time than the raw work. But if I have to do masking for adjustments, I actually find it easier in darktable than GIMP (Linux man, FOSS software).

I love my camera's jpegs. It (a7iv) takes really good pictures sooc. I don't claim that my raw processing is any better, but it is my personal touch. I do all this work for others: pics that are just for me, ie holiday snaps, I'm happy with the jpegs.

It's a personal choice. Shoot and process raw if you want to go that way. Do not do it because of the guys in I shoot raw t-shirts! Sitting in front of a computer? I'm here most of the day anyway: might as well do something creative. But if you are not, and don't care to be, and you too like your camera's jpegs, be happy with them. Let the others obsess about but it isn't raw. By the time they get to look at the picture, it's jpeg anyway. Unless they are so obsessive they save and store everything as huge tiffs! (which is fine if they print).