From my point of view, and it is only my opinion, I can see no reason for shooting in Jpg.

Memory is so cheap so it can't be anything to do with file size and if one is going to change the Jpeg into a PSD file why not shoot in raw and change it into PSD. At least you will be starting with the absolute maximum amount of information your camera is able to capture as the first step.

I can not see the reasoning behind using Jpeg. In film terms it seems to me a bit like buying a top of the range camera and then loading it with freebie film from Boots or Truprint.

I see lots of threads commenting on how good this lens is and how "L" (and Nikon equivalents) lenses are the bees knees yet then after spending lots of money on top of the range, high performance equipment throw away much of the improvement by shooting in Jpeg.

Also, I know that the difference in Raw & Jpeg is small and in a lot of instances not visible to the naked eye at A4 sizes but the same can be said of CD V MP3 sound quality. On a ghetto blaster or micro system the sound is much the same but play both through a high end audio system and it is blatantly obvious which is which.

Give a professional Photoshop magician an image taken in both Raw and Jpeg and ask him to get the best image from each of the files and the raw version will win.

Sorry Rant over

Steve

Really jpeg is good for is low quality prints and VERY good for the net. For everything else RAW, and then convert as required. The original RAW files will remain the same Snapper - you simple save them as jpeg for the net, and TIFF lossless for printing.

I really think there is a misconception about jpeg versus raw. Jpeg is actually a very very good compression format.

There are lots of professional photographers who shoot in jpeg, such as Ken Rockwell - so it's not about pro versus amateurs, if anything some might argue the opposite is true. Let me explain.

With RAW you get more control with the image after it has been taken, versus with jpeg, you are better off getting a good pic straight out of the camera (because you don't get access to as many direct settings with jpeg).

Well you might think RAW gives you both (take a great shot AND be able to edit it) but it doesn't. The disadvantage (or advantage depending on how you look at it) with RAW is when you open up the file it is the basic image you get from the camera. So you lose things like your cameras colour, sharpness, or other in-camera settings like dynamic lighting. I proved this here*. For me personally, I don't want to be faffing around PP'ing after a shoot - I want to try and get my photos right in camera. and then simply re size and save for web to post on the web.

So in summary:

RAW - is great when you want to be able to mess around or tweak the picture after it has been taken, starting with the basic shot.
Jpeg - is great when you know you'll be happy with a shot straight out of the camera, thanks to the in-camera settings.

Additionally, some cameras offer better in-camera options/settings than others, so the jpeg versus raw debate might be swayed by what equipment people use. I know Nikon offer some extremely good in-camera settings, their vivid colour setting for example.

So it really does depend on what you want to do and how you take (or make) photographs.

*not sure if that's still the case, maybe newer software has the ability to read in-camera settings now too.

Dare I say - I shoot Jpeg !

I know the benefits of RAW but if I'm honest I've yet to actually benefit from doing so.

Once I took a whole day of pics with the wrong White Balance (in RAW) and was able to correct them. Other than that - providing my settings are OK I'm happy shooting Jpeg.

I just find it takes an absolute age to work with RAW files once I'm back home.

Is RAW actually better quality ? (genuine question) or is it just a case of greater flexibility ?

Raw is better. Jpeg compression does throw information away and once discarded, it can never be regained. That is a fact.

So what we are doing is buying a camera with a super duper image sensor and then discarding some of the information that has been captured by that sensor.

In camera Jpeg compression also alters the information that it keeps. Colour balance is set, tint is fixed, sharpening is arbitrarily set, curves are set and levels are set. You have no or very little input into this process.

Now if one is happy to let the camera take all the decisions for you fair enough. I have not come across a camera that gets this right all the time.

For example, sharpening. The amount of sharpening for one image is not necessarily the same needed for another image. A camera shooting Jpeg will apply the same amount of sharpening to all images unless you enter your set up menu and change the amount of sharpening to suit each separate image you take. How many of us would do that? The same applies to all the other settings also.

I can hear you say "but I can change this in photoshop afterwards". In which case why not shoot Raw?

Steve

As I am going through a period where I am getting a good deal of pleasure from my copy of PS to the extent that if I look at a shot and can't workout what would improve it I am disappointed.

People say you should take the shot you want at the time of releasing the shutter, I can understand that but often what you want when you take the shot can change when you look again at the image and then the best place to go is into PS.

Being stuck into the house because of the weather I have been going through and chucking dismal shots from my PC but a few I have rushed into PS to play with and that has given me a whole new surge of creative pleasure. Given that should I only shoot in RAW, I do both so I have a ready jpeg copy for the web but I could always put a RAW copy into one of the Adobe programmes and click auto which I guess would give me the same or better than the camera and would be quick if quick is what I want.

Should I only shoot RAW?

Steve, I find your statement strange that its a waste of money to have a top end lens and to shoot jpeg. How is it so?

If you want to get technical I do shoot raw. In that I mean that the way the data is captured is exactly the same for both end files. I choose to use a raw processor designed specifically for the raw data that it processes, this is done in hardware not software and if I was concerned about the data that is not required for the jpeg file I would shoot for an end file of tiff.

Everyone shoots raw, its how the data is processed that is different, then you have to consider that unless you use the camera manufacturers raw processor you are wasting file information when you process it. You are using 3rd party software, that was not designed for the file it processes. Someone who only had general access to the properties of the file in question and is not designing an add on concerned in getting everything from the file, only doing enough processing and programming so as to produce an add on to software to allow that file to be read by the program.


Snapper, the decision on whether to shoot raw only is one for only you based on the information and what is best for you.

raw is a manufacturer specific load of data, not a file format in its own right. The fact that if you buy a camera new to the market you may have to wait for Adobe et al to program an add on to allow that file to be read says it all to me. If you want the best use something made by the people who make the camera, like the best lens on a nikon is a nikon lens not a 3rd party one like sigma. My take is that I shoot raw and use hardware designed specifically for the file it processes and save the file as a jpeg, I could save it as a tiff and have processing done by the hardware designed for it and have no loss of data.

Use the raw file from the camera and you then process it via a third party software application, not designed specifically for the file its processing and possibly lose some of the extra benefits given by manufacturer designed applications for example noise reduction.

My camera will take both PEF (Pentax) & DNG (Adobe) I have chosen DNG although Adobe software will accept both. Now I am wondering if I should use PEF rather than the DNG, visually I can see no difference.

Azz, I beg to differ. That link is not conclusive 'proof' to show that you loose in-camera settings. All that shows is a comparison between PS Raw convertor/viewer and the bespoke Nikon one.

As you know I am shooting 'your' 300 in RAW with in-camera settings set to choice - and do not loose any of that personalised data. delighting, vivid, landscape and the other modes all record and display as set.

Well I personally shoot RAW + JPEG, the biggest factor being that I do not have the time to process the RAW files. I tend to look through my images, keep all the JPEGS but only keep the RAW files for images I really like and *might* want to do something with in the future. I have a canvas on my wall, 27" x 18" that was produced from a JPEG image so in most circumstances the JPEG format is perfectly adequate for what most people require.

Snapper, it seems that you have the time to play with the RAW files so in this case there isn't any reason for you not to shoot RAW (as long as you don't mind converting every image you take).