Canon G9: JPG or RAW? Why?

Globemstr3 wrote:

Skippy Belmont wrote:

v steffel wrote:

Skippy,

Thanks for stating why you prefer JPGs with the GP

Thanks for providing your suggested settings in JPG. I will experiment with them.

I look forward to learning much more about photography with the G9.

Here's a shot from today. I used RAW+JPEG mode in the Canon G15. I suppose if I shot RAW and then JPEG, I would have a better JPEG because than I would have had some in-camera controls which the Canon G15 doesn't offer in RAW+JPEG (not that I know of, anyway).

Both were tweaked in Lightroom verison 5.7 64-bit. Can you tell which one was from the RAW file?

To be fair, I also have another set where I saw much more detail in some snow that was almost totally blown out in the JPEG file and I couldn't recover it. In this case, it's clear which one came from a RAW file.

In some lighting situations, it is wise to shoot in RAW, for sure. In my examples it seems that just shooting in RAW all the time is needless for optimal image quality and just shooting in JPEG all the time results in lost opportunities to improve an image otherwise ruined by in-camera processing. My conclusion would be that the RAW mode should be viewed as just another setting, like ISO or iContrast. It should be up to the photographer to determine what is the best exposure control based on the lighting and subject at hand. This is what differentiates the novices form the experienced shooters.

So then if theres a chance of lost opportunities why shoot JPG at all? When Im out shooting I dont have the time to Switch from JPG to Raw depending on subject. With the SX50 Raw doesnt allow Digital Zoom. Thats a problem. Its a shame actually. Many folks in here always say turn Digital off. Well for my applications (Birding) I find JPG usefull on for that reason. Lilian Stokes a famous birder who uses the 50 as well suggests full digital zoom and never shoots RAW. Im torn. Raw allows me the flexibility to recover and manipulate a lot of data. The workflow for me is not much different that JPG's. My converted RAW to JPG's are always better than just shooting in JPEG. Again other than losing my Digital Zoom I think ya shoot RAW all the time. Make any sense?

To me, it doesn't make sense to cripple yourself by never using a useful camera function, like in-camera JPEG customization. It's another tool for control over your art. To me, it's fun to play with all the buttons.

I agree with that. But you have to have a workflow and plan. You cant be thinking should I shoot RAW today or JPG cause I dont know what I'm gonna run into.

Maybe I haven't made my point clear, my apologies. You shouldn't go out for a day of shooting with your camera set to either JPEG or RAW. You could make that decision based on the scene, as I do.

Shooting RAW all the time is tedious. It slows most cameras down. Fills up memory cards and takes up disk space. Sure, memory is cheaper now but, it isn't free and storing, moving and backing up thousands of huge files is very time consuming.

It is a personal choice based on your needs and desires. There is the RAW camp and then there is the JPEG camp, about a 50/50 split. Usually, when there isn't an overwhelming consensus either way, it's probably because either way is OK.

Personally, I have compared hundreds of shots in RAW vs. JPEG. Some are better in RAW, some where better in JPEG, depending on the scene and the camera. Some cameras like my X100s shoot so good in JPEG, it's silly to try the better them, same with my RX10. I have made the personal decision to shoot primarily in JPEG and make adjustments as I see fit, in the field. It's all about knowing your skills and your camera. Sometimes I'll go out and shoot in RAW just to have fum playing with the files. Sometimes I just want to shoot and not mess around in post processing. It's a personal choice, there is no better than this or that and even if there was, it's a minor difference. No use losing any sleep over it, I say.