Raw, totally. Jpg throws away loads of information that you can't recover in processing later and the smartarse camera guesses a load of processing for you.
I shoot in JPEG because RAW files are massive, although I'm aware of the benefits of RAW files, especially when shooting in low light. I should probably try it some day.
ive seen very decent shots come straight from jpeg with no need to edit or process..i now shoot raw cos of white balance issues..and to be honest its made me a lazy photographer knowing i can recover and tweak when i get home
if you spend cash on a camera that shoots raw then why would you use it at a 1/4 of its image producing capabilites and shoot jpeg?? makes no sense, the argument for smaller file sizes is bullshiit, you can get 64gb sds for £20 all day long these days, no brainer really
if you spend cash on a camera that shoots raw then why would you use it at a 1/4 of its image producing capabilites and shoot jpeg?? makes no sense, the argument for smaller file sizes is bullshiit, you can get 64gb sds for £20 all day long these days, no brainer really
your camera takes the picture in raw full stop then keeps that image in a buffer to then process and give you your jpeg .yes i agree with the whole raw thing and fully understand.but my point is you are then processing your raw to your tastes when people i know and myself up till last year where happy shooting jpeg and the results given from using the camera and its many settings..raws made me lazy
The only time I shoot JPEG is when I'm doing sports photography because you get a longer burst, but even that is only now and then because I can normally get what I want with Raw.
Technology has given the option to produce pictures with less work and for me that is a plus. jpeg still has its place, but to get the best out of your photos and be creative then Raw is the way to go.....