Anybody else switching from shooting RAW to JPEG only?

[jonikon]

I began shooting in RAW mode years ago when I was invested in Nikon DSLRs to get what I considered more accurate colors and exposure, and better noise reduction. I still feel it was a necessity back then before in-camera image processing improved to the level it is today. However since switching to more modern mirrorless cameras of a different brand, I am so pleased with the camera JPEGs that I began shooting JPEG+RAW and rarely felt processing RAW files was worth the effort. Instead I just do some cropping or minor editing of JPEGs . For the past six months I have not processed any RAW files and I am enjoying photography more without the tedium and spending the time to process RAW files. Instead I am organizing photos and quickly making them available to family and friends, which is more rewarding.

Anybody else give up the tedium and time spent trying to squeeze the most out of RAW image files and are happy just shooting JPEGs?

 

[g7_chord]

It is not tedium for me. Post processing is an important part of my methodology, and it is greatly facilitated by having a raw to start it with.

Raw vs jpeg discussions are very common and are a waste of time because different photographers have different objectives and different ways of going about them.

For you it seems that jpegs are the best choice.

 

[ishwanu]

I began shooting in RAW mode years ago when I was invested in Nikon DSLRs to get what I considered more accurate colors and exposure, and better noise reduction. I still feel it was a necessity back then before in-camera image processing improved to the level it is today. However since switching to more modern mirrorless cameras of a different brand, I am so pleased with the camera JPEGs that I began shooting JPEG+RAW and rarely felt processing RAW files was worth the effort. Instead I just do some cropping or minor editing of JPEGs . For the past six months I have not processed any RAW files and I am enjoying photography more without the tedium and spending the time to process RAW files. Instead I am organizing photos and quickly making them available to family and friends, which is more rewarding.

Anybody else give up the tedium and time spent trying to squeeze the most out of RAW image files and are happy just shooting JPEGs?

As you said, it depends on the camera. If the lens is great, the JPEG engine is great, and noise is not too bad, I can be okay with many in-camera JPEGs. If the lens is so-so, the JPEG engine either fails to sharpen well or simply adds halos, or noise becomes an issue, I can reduce or eliminate those problems by shooting RAW and processing with state-of-the art software.

It also depends on a person's volume of shooting. My volume these days is so low that the 'tedium' of RAW processing isn't really a factor.

 

[StrugglingforLight]

That is a high priority for my next camera.....one that I can rely on for solid sooc jpegs. There are still only a few brands that hit that mark in my opinion.

 

[FrancoD]

I disagree with the two extremes of "you must shoot RAW" and at the other end "RAW is a waste of time" (or similar of course).

I happen to only shoot JPEG for pretty much the same reason why I am one of the few birders that does not shoot on Continuos High, in fact I only take (almost always...) just one photo at a time and the reason is that I am too lazy to sort out from too many photos and then to have to fiddle on RAW to get them right.

BUT that is me and I do very much understand that others are not like me.....

 

[Gato Amarillo]

With my current cameras I am very pleased with the JPEGs and rarely go to the raws except for extreme lighting conditions. I shoot raw + JPEG, but often trash the raws as a group after I've had a quick look at the set.

I do process most files, but it's rarely more than a slight tweak to exposure and some dodge and burn. And of course retouch on portrait and people photos. Which I can easily do on the JPEGs.

Gato

 

[Boris22]

Yes and no but sometimes it's no and yes. It all depends on what I mean by this.

 

[Neverlost99]

Yes. I just shot 300 jpegs in Europe with my z5 and felt no need to ever open NX studio.

 

[yardcoyote]

Been shooting jpeg only all along over here.

 

[J A C S]

No, shooting jpeg fells like buying a car and hiring a chauffeur to drive it. The RAW development is part of the hobby to me.

 

[Paul Pasco]

I have always shot jpeg but that doesn’t mean you can’t still significantly edit, just not as much. I grew up shooting film, and for color mostly slide film which generally was not as forgiving as negative film, so you learned to expose properly. More than once I have posted photos in the forum and had people ask me what raw processor I used to which the answer was none.

 

[gordonpritchard]

The data you captured is processed into jpegs according to the sensibilities of some unknown engineer in an unknown country.

I'd rather do that processing according to my sensibilities and intent instead.

--
———————————————————————------
"View their gallery before accepting their comments."
———————————————————————------
Some of my snaps can be viewed here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gordon_pritchard/albums/

 

[Ron Poelman]

Anybody else give up the tedium and time spent trying to squeeze the most out of RAW image files and are happy just shooting JPEGs?

Probably over 100k posts just here alone for RAW vs JPEG and nothing resolved.
Nor will it be.
So, let's let personal opinion rule, as it should.
If I want a happy snap JPEG, my phone is way smarter than the designers of my cam, so right tool for the job ?
PHONE.
If I want to take a real photograph and pursue my hobby ?
RAW on a good cam, every time.
We can do SO much better ourselves nowadays, rather than see how Mr Kodak went with our negatives.
People who need Instant Gratification from a camera, are probably in the wrong hobby, it's ALWAYS been a process.

 

[sillycornlotty]

I began shooting in RAW mode years ago when I was invested in Nikon DSLRs to get what I considered more accurate colors and exposure, and better noise reduction. I still feel it was a necessity back then before in-camera image processing improved to the level it is today. However since switching to more modern mirrorless cameras of a different brand, I am so pleased with the camera JPEGs that I began shooting JPEG+RAW and rarely felt processing RAW files was worth the effort. Instead I just do some cropping or minor editing of JPEGs . For the past six months I have not processed any RAW files and I am enjoying photography more without the tedium and spending the time to process RAW files. Instead I am organizing photos and quickly making them available to family and friends, which is more rewarding.

Anybody else give up the tedium and time spent trying to squeeze the most out of RAW image files and are happy just shooting JPEGs?

I consider myself quite young in the DPR community, back in 2010s, i was obsessed with DC cameras and took some "Expert advices" to only shoot RAW. Back then, social media wasn't all out popular and the general population has more focus-span toward a single photo that looks appealing.

As time went by, with the emerging of better smartphone cameras, social media and take it for granted instant gratifications, people nowadays can't wait an hour of their photos from a gathering, from a trip...they want their shots immediately, spend 3 seconds to appraise and then move on.

I feel unless you are a studio photographer, event photographer or wedding photographer, otherwise the absolute pursue of best image quality / style is only reserved to those who have plenty of time or obsessions with their hobbies.

I quitted shooting RAW since 5 years ago, with a day job and two side hustles to run...spending hours to edit photos (even processing them in batch) can be a hustle and taxing my ability to look after kids and perform houseworks. Most importantly, the average Joe and Jennies will not appreciate the effort you put to make their shots looks better, they see Instagram Filters or AI Graphics as more than sufficient.

As such, I only shoot photos with camera for sole artistic purposes, and i wanted to save time, so now JPG only for me. If a camera cannot shoot the JPG i want, i would not hesitate to sell off immediately.

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

No, my RAWs always look better, and in no more time than it takes to touch up the jpegs. Unless the light is really unusual, my RAWs typically look at least as good as the jpegs with like 5 seconds of adjustment.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

I began shooting in RAW mode years ago when I was invested in Nikon DSLRs to get what I considered more accurate colors and exposure, and better noise reduction. I still feel it was a necessity back then before in-camera image processing improved to the level it is today. However since switching to more modern mirrorless cameras of a different brand, I am so pleased with the camera JPEGs that I began shooting JPEG+RAW and rarely felt processing RAW files was worth the effort. Instead I just do some cropping or minor editing of JPEGs . For the past six months I have not processed any RAW files and I am enjoying photography more without the tedium and spending the time to process RAW files. Instead I am organizing photos and quickly making them available to family and friends, which is more rewarding.

Anybody else give up the tedium and time spent trying to squeeze the most out of RAW image files and are happy just shooting JPEGs?

Shooting raw isn't about editing only. If you shoot OOC jpegs, don't process them at all and deliver right away (to your family and friends), it may be fine.

But you won't be able to reconvert jpegs into richer formats such as HEIF, JPEG XL, JPEG with gain maps etc.

In terms of editing, editing is 50% of enjoyment from photography for me.

Shooting raw allows me to

• edit
• revise old images and reedit
• use special techniques in the field that increase the room for creativity. In other words, if your target is raw, not jpeg, you're much less constrained in the field.
• reconvert/export images to formats other than standard jpeg

The loss of information in jpeg is irreversible.

--
https://www.instagram.com/quarkcharmed/
https://500px.com/quarkcharmed

 

[Quarkcharmed]

As such, I only shoot photos with camera for sole artistic purposes, and i wanted to save time, so now JPG only for me. If a camera cannot shoot the JPG i want, i would not hesitate to sell off immediately.

You may see it's fun to shoot like that and it's fine, but to me it would be an unnecessary constraint.

Shooting raw actually expands the room for creativity, because you can use different techniques in the field targeting future raw processing. If a scene on a location doesn't fit jpeg, it would be a loss to me if I couldn't shoot raw.

 

[ZorSy]

Anybody else give up the tedium and time spent trying to squeeze the most out of RAW image files and are happy just shooting JPEGs?

Probably over 100k posts just here alone for RAW vs JPEG and nothing resolved.
Nor will it be.
So, let's let personal opinion rule, as it should.
If I want a happy snap JPEG, my phone is way smarter than the designers of my cam, so right tool for the job ?
PHONE.
If I want to take a real photograph and pursue my hobby ?
RAW on a good cam, every time.
We can do SO much better ourselves nowadays, rather than see how Mr Kodak went with our negatives.
People who need Instant Gratification from a camera, are probably in the wrong hobby, it's ALWAYS been a process.

Cannot skip giggling at that one - we are all in Instant gratification mode since switched to digital - chimping is a part of the ritual.

Another thing - the (pre)view is from the embedded JPEG, even if shooting the raw only. While I tend to still shoot raw+jpeg, for me the raw is the 'backup' or, rather rarely when I think the photo deserves a better treatment, beyond what jpeg editing offers. In over 20 years of digital, I managed to have 1 folder (named 'developed') with some 400 files, out of over 40K raw shots. The rest are 'just fine' jpegs. Since moving to mostly phone photography, while raw is available, I exclusively take jpegs.. not worth the trouble IMO.

I never saw raw (as a format) to be used for salvaging shots ruined by poor technique or judgement at the time of shot taken, nor would any tweaking fix the poor composition, not to mention the subject. So rather than having the mindset of 'I'll fix it in post', I adjust things at time I take the shot (rather easy these days, right?) and concentrate on what I'm taking the picture of.

My biggest and uncorrectable problem after all those years and all technology that exists today, is the tilted horizon, which I have given up the hope to ever fix. EVEN FROM THE TRIPOD! I often wonder how do I do that....Luckily, I'm not in sewer construction business

I have been taking photographs for over 45 years and still have the 'printing' mentality - I don't and will not edit for the screen only, I take photograph for prints, kind of old fashioned I know. And they look good on the screen, too....I print mostly 12 x18" and 8x12" and prints looks good both from camera and the phones I have. For hobbyist good enough.

 

[Myles Baker]

I shoot Raw + jpeg.

I normally share the jpegs with family & friends quickly (import to my phone direct from my camera & share immediatly).

I'll look through the raws later & only edit ones I really like.

 

[Saint 112]

It is not tedium for me. Post processing is an important part of my methodology, and it is greatly facilitated by having a raw to start it with.

Ditto.

Raw vs jpeg discussions are very common and are a waste of time because different photographers have different objectives and different ways of going about them.

If one is happy with out-of-the-box JPGs, good for him.

I often take shots in not so ideal light conditions so I need to make some adjustments. Shooting RAW is the way to go.

I review my new photos with DxO PhotoLab: I select the keepers, do some edits as needed and trash the others. It's usually very fast. It's not tedious at all, on the contrary, it's part of the pleasure of photography.

Nick