Question - jpeg vs RAW... what's your opinion...

[ViralEye]

Raw for me!! I know I can take a photo which is maybe a little dark or light and edit in light room. Yes you can do that with jpeg but raw can capture so much more detail whereas jpeg it would be lost.

I'm just about to pop out but later I'll try and put up a couple of examples

 

[Oxygen Thief]

... but later I'll try and put up a couple of examples

Cheers, would appreciate that.

 

[Styru]

Film, the answer is film.

(if digital ever develops to the stage where it starts to get near film quality, then the answer will be raw )

 

[The Franconian]

Isn't jpeg not just a camera processed raw shot?
Mainly jpeg for me; tried raw several times, but mostly didn't get better results than after a bit of work on the jpgs.
Raw editing takes long time for me, using XnView, on jpgs (reduce gamma) only a few seconds.
The raw editing programme (Olympus) brings me a few special effects not more.
I think I should put more attention on my camera presettings, that could bring me more.
Talking about natural pics, I think they do not really exist; different light, presettings, film or digital: all change reality.
+natural in underground = darkness

 

[Lord Oort]

I've been trying to justify why I shoot Raw+Jpeg for the last five minutes and no explanation I come up with satisfies me. I spose its nice to have an option of being able to send/show someone a pic straight out of the camera without any processing but its something Idoe so rarely I might as well just shoot Raw.

 

[Els]

If you use Photoshop (or equiv) your best off with raw as you can do much more post processing than with jpg. I always use raw myself.

Edit sorry this has already been said.

 

[WhoDaresWins]

RAW for me as well. Seeing as I don't take hundreds of photos when I go places it's not much of a bother. A few adjustments and I'm usually done.

 

[The Franconian]

when I said I didn't get better results in raw than in jpeg, I didn't vote against raw generally
but I got a lot of tools in raw which I don't know how to deal with
and I am also too lazy to learn

 

[jST]

RAW, for similar reasons to what the good gent @Camera Shy has listed above.

They all get archived, along with stuff I do for photo work onto a network drive.

 

[Snake Oil]

.jpg for me, because I really don't understand how to use the raw software (I'm on Linux too so not many choices). With a jpg if its needed it goes into GIMP for a quick straighten, crop, sharpen, level adjust, job done.

.jpg out of the camera...

a quick dabble in GIMP...

 

[Budice]

Raw mostly then into CS6 and export as either JPG or PNG
If you do a lot of FB posts of your pictures this is quite interesting read
https://fstoppers.com/originals/how...r-photographers-guide-photo-formats-web-49658

 

[merryprankster]

i hope raw shoots jpeg, raw mainly because fuck loads more details and one day when i got my own place and more wall space i want to get some of my pics printed and get em on the wall, no good having them buried on a external hdd is it now!

 

[The Franconian]

..." I fought the Raw and the Raw won"...

 

[Maniac]

Oh god here we go, I've had this debate before so many times with people.

The technical argument for using RAW is that you are effectively taking a digital negative, capturing 100% of what your sensor is seeing without any on-camera processing or compression, that's why the file sizes are so big and why RAW images usually don't look that good before you've processed them. If you intend to do ANY editing to your photos after you have taken them then you really must use RAW as you can make more adjustments to the image without it starting to degrade.

JPEG is to photography what an MP3 is to audio, that is in a JPEG image the image is compressed and elements of the image that are indistinguishable by the human eye are stripped out. JPEG is fine if you don't intend to make any adjustments to the image after you have taken the photo, but even simple brightness and contrast changes to a JPEG image can start to degrade the image quality very fast.

My personal view, shoot RAW because why would you want to come away with anything less?

 

[Oxygen Thief]

a JPEG image the image is compressed

I wouldn't so much say 'compressed', more like 'completed'. After all, jpeg can't be all that shite as it's what we all generally export the edited RAW file to.