RAW or JPEG? Which one when?

Started Nov 21, 2012 | Discussions thread
Lights Veteran Member • Posts: 3,569
Re: final response here

Kim Letkeman wrote:

Lights wrote:

The reason I shoot both at the same time: If to improve my skill as a photographer I choose to get as close to the final output as possible and perhaps even use it. Which is always best, even in Raw (to get as close as possible to the final output).

I have no idea what that means. "The final output" is defined when you get there and not before. Some choose to accept the JPEG engine's definition.


Sometimes I don't get close enough. Sometimes the tonality, or the tone roll off is not good enough with jpg. Yes jpg tends to posterize more easily. I am fully aware of the benefits of the added data with Raw (as I'm sure are others) and the benefits of using such data. Then it is there.

The person with whom I am debating is not only unaware, but militant with the opposite opinion. I was obviously not debating with you.

I shoot with a 4gb card. If I fill it, I put another in, and another. Space is not a problem.

If you say so.

The final word for yourself may be adequate...but it's not the final word for everyone? Thanks.

The final word in the sub thread portion of the ongoing debate with one individual. I thought that was obvious from the context.

I thought a forum was for open debate? Sorry if I interfered by stating my opinion. I find the Raw/jpg debate tedious in the extreme. There is often some dogmatism involved, yes (as well as cold hard facts). I will not debate that Raw gives much more latitude, since it certainly does...but then again jpg has it's use. Why not shoot both? If the jpg turns out well, close to the intention why not? If not, then the Raw is there...especially if a person has not the time, shoots a lot of frames, or hasn't the experience at Raw? Jpg is good also for triage, to see which out of a large batch of shots may be worth developing. Years back, on the Canon forum I posed the question "why shoot jpg?" since at that time I only shot Raw. A professional sports photographer answered my question. He gave an explanation in a very understanding way, saying that with the amount of shooting he did, the numbers...he would send jpgs to his editor (who had numerous photographs from other photographers to go though) and the editor would get back to him with which ones he wanted. Then he'd send in those in Raw files. Made sense to me in that regard...so I started to shoot both. Most of what I do is from Raw, but sometimes a jpg works...especially for the net. If I got into the debate, it was only because I saw some middle ground. I will still stand by my statement of honing a skill, since to me the intent of a photo is usually (usually but not always) there from the beginning..and the closer a person can get to what the final vision is, even in Raw, the better. Even Raw has it's limitations. Some may feel differently and that's OK by me.

-- hide signature --

My Gallery is here -
Why so serious? :The Joker

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow