RAW or JPEG?

[PhotosByNeva]

What is better when taking pictures? Setting it on RAW or L JPEG images? I have been using L (the best) setting, but I see a lot of photographers like to take RAW images. I noticed that RAW uses more memory on my card too.

What is your preference and why? I am still learning....

Thanks!

[ScottyP · Accepted solution]

I started out using JPG, but once I got a little practice in using Litroom I started shooting RAW + JPG.  I did that for only a little while before I realized taking 2 images of everything was filling up my memory cards twice as fast, and it filled up the buffer in my camera and limiting the number of shots I could take in a burst.  I then went to just RAW.  

Some of the guys on here shot in the film days and probably developed a habit of thinking more carefully before they shoot than I sometimes do.  I find no matter how much I try, I cannot avoid little errors, including wrong white balance, and imperfect exposure.  Both of these things are much much easier to correct if you shot a RAW image.  White balance in particular highlights the benefit of RAW shooting, as you can fix it every time no matter how far off you shot it, whereas in JPG you really hit a limit in how far and how well you can tweak it.

You also have a better time working with RAW files in pretty much all post processing including noise reduction, contrast, vibrancy, sharpness, etc..

[jrhoffman75]

If you use, or a willing to start using, a photo editor like Lightroom, Photoshop, Apple Photos, etc. , then you should shoot RAW. It captures the most data and provides the greatest opportunity for recovering from a poor shot. 

RAW does produce larger files, but memory card and computer disk storage capacity is cheap. 

[cicopo]

I've shot RAW + Large fine jpg since 2005 & rarely use the RAW files BUT by having them I CAN when needed. RAW is more important when your shot wasn't textbook perfect re lighting or settings for the situation. When I'm asked for a large print I use the RAW file. Also because I dive & underwater photos get a strong color cast I use the RAW there too, but in that situation I use the RAW 100% of the time. In good light & with good camera settings jpg will fit the needs of most but if you want even better end results RAW helps get them, but so does a proper understanding of photography basics & your camera's controls. 

[ScottyP · Accepted solution]

I started out using JPG, but once I got a little practice in using Litroom I started shooting RAW + JPG.  I did that for only a little while before I realized taking 2 images of everything was filling up my memory cards twice as fast, and it filled up the buffer in my camera and limiting the number of shots I could take in a burst.  I then went to just RAW.  

Some of the guys on here shot in the film days and probably developed a habit of thinking more carefully before they shoot than I sometimes do.  I find no matter how much I try, I cannot avoid little errors, including wrong white balance, and imperfect exposure.  Both of these things are much much easier to correct if you shot a RAW image.  White balance in particular highlights the benefit of RAW shooting, as you can fix it every time no matter how far off you shot it, whereas in JPG you really hit a limit in how far and how well you can tweak it.

You also have a better time working with RAW files in pretty much all post processing including noise reduction, contrast, vibrancy, sharpness, etc..

[cicopo · Accepted solution]

One very important reason to consider RAW is the future. As time has marched forward so have RAW converters. We can now extract a lot more from an image shot in RAW than just a few years ago. I wanted to post some photos taken 5 years ago & I had far more control of the finished look with today's Camera Raw Plug In (an Adobe converter) than when they were shot. I was able to make nicer jpg's today than when shot thanks to still having the files & being able to find them. 

Unlike Scott I keep all my old files & although it costs money for big drives I do like having them. I did learn on film & shot film for many years & the cost was more careful use of your camera than today & you were very limited in resurecting bad photos. I rely heavily on quantity now & shoot 1000 to 1500 per day at an event & need roughly 200 good images from those for the event album, & I need to pick, process & get them om line within a few days so I've learned to be efficient & how to do it using jpg's. It doesn't always work however because some events have me shooting into the sun, and sometimes in crap light. That's when the RAW files save me, but they also slow me down. The more important the photo  is to you the more you'll want the option of having great soflware on hand for processing & extracting the detail & color.  

[jrhoffman75]

cicopo's post is exactly why the Canon 1D series was developed in the early digital days with dual card slots. RAW files to the CF card and JPEG to the SD card. Runners, or the shooter, could quickly get images to print/the web where quality was second to timeliness.

RAW plus is also useful when traveling and you want to share with family & friends.

[buffalobreath]

I shoot both.  The JPG files easily identify those shots I want to print.  Then I take the corresponding RAW files into Photoshop for editing and printing.  If possible, store your RAW files on an external hard drive just in case.