Return to Answer

added 122 characters in body

Source Link

edited Sep 15, 2010 at 17:34

I shoot in raw+JPEG mode.

This gives the key benefits of JPEG - simple portable images - whilst not losing the extra flexibility that a raw format provides.

In response to the reasons some give for using JPEG only:

Shooting raw does not mean slow capture times, unless you fill up the buffer quicker than it can empty.

Most cameras have built-in video mode these daysFor the majority of photographers, which can be used ifthe buffer is big enough that you must capture actiondon't need to worry.
Odds are that anyone needingIf you need a long continuous burst of quality/nonmore than 20-video images will have a decent body and be using30 images*, use JPEG, movie mode, or a fast memory card which has no problem keeping updedicated video camera.
i.e. this is rarely going toIf you never take more than a handful* of images at once, you'll almost certainly be consideration for mostfine using raw. (*Exact limit depends on camera, settings, and card. I've not seen a modern DSLR that can't do at least 5 frames before slowing down.)
Similarly, using raw does not result in a slower workflow, (unless you want it to).

Any decent photo management software will let you select all images and hit auto, or apply a pre-defined set of adjustments, and all images are addressed in one go.
Storage space is not a big issue these days, since you can get decent cards with plenty of space.

I have a 12.3MP camera and shoot 14-bit NEF + JPEG images, and I can get 500-800 images on a single card. That's more than enough for one card. Hard
Hard-drives and backup storage is also cheap these days - just £80 ($125) for 1.5TB gives plenty of space.

So, for me, even when I don't need to do much post-processing, there is no reason *not* to record the raw data.

I shoot in raw+JPEG mode.

This gives the key benefits of JPEG - simple portable images - whilst not losing the extra flexibility that a raw format provides.

In response to the reasons some give for using JPEG only:

Shooting raw does not mean slow capture times, unless you fill up the buffer quicker than it can empty.

Most cameras have built-in video mode these days, which can be used if you must capture action.
Odds are that anyone needing a long continuous burst of quality/non-video images will have a decent body and be using a fast memory card which has no problem keeping up
i.e. this is rarely going to be consideration for most.
Similarly, using raw does not result in a slower workflow, (unless you want it to).

Any decent photo management software will let you select all images and hit auto, or apply a pre-defined set of adjustments, and all images are addressed in one go.
Storage space is not a big issue these days, since you can get decent cards with plenty of space.

I have a 12.3MP camera and shoot 14-bit NEF + JPEG images, and I can get 500-800 images on a single card. That's more than enough for one card. Hard-drives and backup storage is also cheap these days - just £80 ($125) for 1.5TB gives plenty of space.

So, for me, even when I don't need to do much post-processing, there is no reason *not* to record the raw data.

I shoot in raw+JPEG mode.

This gives the key benefits of JPEG - simple portable images - whilst not losing the extra flexibility that a raw format provides.

In response to the reasons some give for using JPEG only:

Shooting raw does not mean slow capture times, unless you fill up the buffer quicker than it can empty.

For the majority of photographers, the buffer is big enough that you don't need to worry.
If you need a continuous burst of more than 20-30 images*, use JPEG, movie mode, or a dedicated video camera.
If you never take more than a handful* of images at once, you'll almost certainly be fine using raw. (*Exact limit depends on camera, settings, and card. I've not seen a modern DSLR that can't do at least 5 frames before slowing down.)
Similarly, using raw does not result in a slower workflow, (unless you want it to).

Any decent photo management software will let you select all images and hit auto, or apply a pre-defined set of adjustments, and all images are addressed in one go.
Storage space is not a big issue these days, since you can get decent cards with plenty of space.

I have a 12.3MP camera and shoot 14-bit NEF + JPEG images, and I can get 500-800 images on a single card. That's more than enough for one card.
Hard-drives and backup storage is also cheap these days - just £80 ($125) for 1.5TB gives plenty of space.

So, for me, even when I don't need to do much post-processing, there is no reason *not* to record the raw data.

Source Link

created Sep 14, 2010 at 17:18

I shoot in raw+JPEG mode.

This gives the key benefits of JPEG - simple portable images - whilst not losing the extra flexibility that a raw format provides.

In response to the reasons some give for using JPEG only:

Shooting raw does not mean slow capture times, unless you fill up the buffer quicker than it can empty.

Most cameras have built-in video mode these days, which can be used if you must capture action.
Odds are that anyone needing a long continuous burst of quality/non-video images will have a decent body and be using a fast memory card which has no problem keeping up
i.e. this is rarely going to be consideration for most.
Similarly, using raw does not result in a slower workflow, (unless you want it to).

Any decent photo management software will let you select all images and hit auto, or apply a pre-defined set of adjustments, and all images are addressed in one go.
Storage space is not a big issue these days, since you can get decent cards with plenty of space.

I have a 12.3MP camera and shoot 14-bit NEF + JPEG images, and I can get 500-800 images on a single card. That's more than enough for one card. Hard-drives and backup storage is also cheap these days - just £80 ($125) for 1.5TB gives plenty of space.

So, for me, even when I don't need to do much post-processing, there is no reason *not* to record the raw data.