I actually used to take them in jpeg mode, it saves you a lot of space on the memory card.

But these days, with the memory cards getting cheaper, I always shoot them raw+jpeg.

And when I do not like them in jpeg, I can sometimes still make them acceptable by modifying the raw file.

What do you do?

I played with RAW for a while, but as a notebook user disk space is a priority.

I did spend some time tweaking the camera settings for jpg until I found what I liked.

Out of the box was not much cop..............

Canon 40D

Canon 40D

With the Canon 40D, I think you should take the pictures raw.

And edit them as needed.

And buy a computer with a bigger hard disk

RAW + JPEG, as you say, memory is so cheap now...

RAW RAW RAW, after doing one shoot in Jpeg and hating myself for doing that afterwards.

1.5 Tb for 4k baht

I take probably 50% in RAW + Jpeg (10 Mpix) and 50% in Jpeg with max res 10 Mpix.

When I have downloaded to the computer I delete all the ones that I donot like.

I have noticed that after starting shooting in RAW my harddrive starts to get full.

I will look for one of these 1.5 TB drive nest time in BKK.

Actually starting today, I went 100% raw.

Not for saving memory on the card but just because I do not use the jpeg files anymore.

Getting used to using the software to modify then and convert them in jpeg.

With better photos at the end, I think

Depends onm the quality of the JPEGs from camera. Some are better than others but persoanlly as time is of a premium I prefer JPEG and just try to find the cameras that produce the best in that format.

I prefer JPEG and just try to find the cameras that produce the best in that format.

Nikon or Canon?

I prefer JPEG and just try to find the cameras that produce the best in that format.

Nikon or Canon?

Lets not go there. There are also some other brands particulalry in pocketable point and shoots that are maybe better But it is also a bit subjective

Indeed.

I actually like Nikon more than Canon, as far as the quality of cameras and lenses is concerned.

But I mainly use Canon.

The difference is too small for anybody to notice

It's very simple Raw captures more data than Jpg so you'll be able to adjust things better when postprocessing.

It's very simple Raw captures more data than Jpg so you'll be able to adjust things better when postprocessing.

Indeed, but doing postprocessing is work

What I find interesting is comparing this thread to one I've been reading on a more dedicated photography forum. There is a lot of support there that "real photographers" get the shot right in the camera without doing post-processing. I don't agree, BTW. But for me, I use JPEG, although in the old days I fooled around with TIFF images a bit...a disaster.

"There is a lot of support there that "real photographers" get the shot right in the camera without doing post-processing."

The amount of post processing that for example Ansel Adams (I guess I can safely assume everyone thinks he is a "real" photographer, whatever that means) did in the darkroom was immense. Visible in the difference he got in prints off the same negatives over the years. (read Ansel Adams' The Print)

The only difference is that we do it in a "digital darkroom" nowadays. Much more possibilities to get the final print right and I am very happy I no longer have to use an old fashioned darkroom.

I use only raw and process in Lightroom. If I want quick results, the standard import settings in Lightroom gives me already a useable quality in 95% of the cases,comparable to In-Camera JPG. I just choose the ones I want to print or export, and ready. Does not take any longer than using jpg and say AseeDsee. But if I want the best Quality, I play with the Lightroom settings and/or export to Photoshop, and I have the superior Quality that raw delivers.

I can't see any use for jpg at all, when you follow this Workflow.

Use JPEG when shooting in studio. When the light is well set up, you don`t need any nice tricks with RAW.

On other occasions - nothing except RAW.

It's very simple Raw captures more data than Jpg so you'll be able to adjust things better when postprocessing.

technically should be more correct to say that raw file does not capture but just contains the data captured from the sensor, raw is not an image file because it doesn't contain any image, it contains just the values in numbers that the sensor captured. It does not even has a gamma corrected color space, is just linear values. to generate an image from it, you need to use a software that creates an image (conceptually same as the negative contains densities and then through development and print you get the image). Jpg file is created by the camera built in software with the color settings you setup on your menus. It is generated from the original data of the sensor, but clamped to fit in a 8 bit file format and so all the extra data is lost forever (conceptually more similar to an instant polaroid)

"There is a lot of support there that "real photographers" get the shot right in the camera without doing post-processing."

The amount of post processing that for example Ansel Adams (I guess I can safely assume everyone thinks he is a "real" photographer, whatever that means) did in the darkroom was immense. Visible in the difference he got in prints off the same negatives over the years. (read Ansel Adams' The Print)

The only difference is that we do it in a "digital darkroom" nowadays. Much more possibilities to get the final print right and I am very happy I no longer have to use an old fashioned darkroom.

Agree in full, with the advantage that raw file will be always the same and you can make copies of it, and the original data is all contained and not clamped as it happen on chemically processing negative. That is why you get higher dynamic range on digital than film.

Use JPEG when shooting in studio. When the light is well set up, you don`t need any nice tricks with RAW.

On other occasions - nothing except RAW.

Shooting in studio in jpeg?

There's a good argument for shooting Raw+Jpeg

Depending on the "accuracy" of your cameras Jpeg rendition it can avail you of a "guideline" to processing your RAW files.

I'm happy with shooting both in my GF1 and MKII (both of which which are incredibly accurate) and often shoot B+W RAW+Jpeg

Following the Jpeg rendition is sometimes beneficial.

To dismiss the benefit of Jpeg as a guideline is foolish

There's a good argument for shooting Raw+Jpeg

Depending on the "accuracy" of your cameras Jpeg rendition it can avail you of a "guideline" to processing your RAW files.

I'm happy with shooting both in my GF1 and MKII (both of which which are incredibly accurate) and often shoot B+W RAW+Jpeg

Following the Jpeg rendition is sometimes beneficial.

To dismiss the benefit of Jpeg as a guideline is foolish

even shooting only raw, what you see in the display of your camera is a rendition of that raw with the adjustments made by your settings. Is basically a jpg.

If you need the jpg guideline on a computer then I understand, but why use as guideline an image that has been generated with so poor customizable or standard settings?

My eye is always better than camera software, the last one can't judge and can't make artistic choices.

I prefer shooting only raw, and then use the tools I prefer to create the image, "for me" trusting camera software is a bit like giving artistic choice to a machine.

There's a good argument for shooting Raw+Jpeg

Depending on the "accuracy" of your cameras Jpeg rendition it can avail you of a "guideline" to processing your RAW files.

I'm happy with shooting both in my GF1 and MKII (both of which which are incredibly accurate) and often shoot B+W RAW+Jpeg

Following the Jpeg rendition is sometimes beneficial.

To dismiss the benefit of Jpeg as a guideline is foolish

If you have a Camera that is supported by Adobe's Camera profiles, the default rendering in Lightroom is so close to the result of the InCamera conversion, that I wouldn't bother any more. Or, you can create your own profile in LR (kep WB as "as shot", and fiddle a little bit with the other settings, until you get pleasnt results. Then stoe the settings, and use them as default on Import.

Nikon D3 plus P5000+P6000. I always use RAW so that I capture as much quality/information as possible. RAW+Jpeg in my mind is pointless as Nikon View software will convert the RAW into Jpeg as and when you need it(and still keep the RAW image). I often do this conversion if I intend to E-mail many pics. Using Nikon software and RAW images as Nikon tell us you can always revert to the original file. Regarding HD space, I use an external USB HD. When downloading images from the camera I select to have a compressed copy file(RAW) placed on my external drive, that is in addition to the working copy on the laptop HD. I also select to delete the images from the camera so that I am ready for the next session.

One problem with using RAW images can be the time it takes to load/scroll thro the pics on older machines. The effective solution is to use Nikon View.

To edit pics I use Nikon Capture, which I quite like. I never got very familiar with the industrial standard PhotoShop, layers and all that stuff that the Nikon solution does not use. For someone with a lot of skills in Photo Shop I would never recommend changing to Nikon Capture but for myself with just some skill with Elements it was a good move.

Originally I thought have 3 separate bits of software was not a good idea, but now I realise each software is optimized for the purpose it is used for.

Note: Nikon Transfer and View are free and can be downloaded from a Nikon Support website.