Timeline for What are the pros and cons when shooting in RAW vs JPEG?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 16, 2010 at 8:12 | comment | added | Rodger | Yeah, this is the way I've ended up going. 90% of the time I'm either happy with the shot, or the things that are wrong with it can't be fixed by fiddling with the RAW file; not having the extra workflow 90% of the time is great. The other 10% of the time, well, it's great to have the original. | |
| Jul 16, 2010 at 0:20 | comment | added | Mark | Agreed re: file management. Thankfully my photo manager (F-Spot) has a plugin that goes through and combines raw/jpg versions of a photo into one logical group. I'm not sure about others, but I would hope this is a pretty common feature. | |
| Jul 15, 2010 at 23:32 | comment | added | Reid | Another disadvantage is this makes file management more difficult, since now you have two files for each photo to keep track of. | |
| Jul 15, 2010 at 23:28 | comment | added | RAOF | This. I've found that almost all the time the jpeg output is perfectly fine, but every now and then I'll take photos where I want the extra options of RAW. Shooting RAW+jpeg means I don't spend unnecessary time in the common case, but I can still post-facto select images I want to process more. | |
| Jul 15, 2010 at 20:13 | history | answered | Mark | CC BY-SA 2.5 |