RAW vs JPG - 4 Reasons to Shoot JPG Over RAW (Nikon D7000, D90, Canon T2i 550D, 60D, 7D)

@026SH I couldn't agree more. I HATE when I hear "I get it right in the camera!" It just always seems so cocky and ignorant to me...especially when their results are garbage. I even know a couple of JPEG photographers who don't process at all, and to be quite honest, that's what their work is, garbage. RAW or JPEG, you have to process, even if just minor tweaks. If you're going to shoot strictly JPEG, why not put your DSLR on full-auto, drop kick it, and buy a point and shoot!

I refer you to my previous answer.

Question: what if i shoot in RAW and then I edit them in aperture, can i export to JPEG?

Hello, I would like to ask you what would be the best program with which I can look at my pictures ? the reason why I'm asking is because the one which comes with Windows is really bad and it doesn't shows all the colors and the pixels......thanks....

Not much of an argument, but nicely put and presented. In many people's opinion 4 very weak points when compared to the many benefits of shooting raw. If you don't care about having options or about the end results of your photos then shoot jpeg and let the camera do all the processing. You might as well use your camera on full auto setting while you're at it! Maybe just sell your DSLR to someone who will use it to its fullest potential and buy yourself a nice Point & shoot. LOL!

@evolon8 Totaly agree on this and even Ken Rockwell mr. "i get it right in the camera" startet to use RAW a few days ago and was amazed "by the power of the RAW-file"

What aboud the software delivered together whit the camera.? Is that not good enough? Is Adobe photoshop so much better? If you dont now how too take a photo in the right way ,you realy need RAW.

OMG, I need to get me one of them fancy cameras. I shoot one of em' things that take rolls inside the camera. Silver helium crystal based I think.

@allisonxm102 wrong

@MrBlofeld007 My thoughts exactly... some people may just want to be professional editors

@evolon8 You are probably not aware, that a DSLR in full-auto does produce sharper and better images than point-and-shoots? I mean, *I* am a RAW fan, but if someone wants to only do photos without any processing or ANYTHING, it is THEIR decision. Not yours, not mine. And they can use whatever camera they want to. It's ignorant of you to decide that those are not worthy of a DSLRs. And... I actually did do a few (not many however) very VERY good ooc-JPGs with a DSLR. It *IS* possible!

If you know your stuff,like a friend of mine Harry How (Getty Images),shoot j-peg and shoot it right.I f you cant get your images right, use RAW,(im just applying this to sports photography).But if your client wants a raw file,shoot both.Simple. Peace people!

I am a prof. photographer, I am well aware that a DSLR in any mode produces "better" images than a P&S; so don't be condescending. I believe I said that I "know" photographers, specific individuals, who boast about "getting it right" when they clearly don't. You can't ALWAYS predict and adjust instantly for EVERY lighting condition, so, you "should" attempt to post process even if to make "minor tweaks" if only to correct WB. Should have added "...and NOT post process" to the end of my last post

Point being, if you are a "photographer" and you are going to brag about your photos and brag that you "get it right in the camera" and don't post process then you better back it up, regardless of what camera you use. Haven't seen it yet. I think I was pretty specific about that previously, so don't generalize my comments with your response and don't put words in my mouth; I never said it was impossible to take good JPG's with DSLR. I have some old, awesome JPG's myself...PP'ed of course!

...just food for thought, since you brought it up... "It's not my decisions, it's not your decision"...so tell me, if a "Photographer" (that's what this whole conversation is referring to, not average consumers) a PAID photographer showed up to do a photo shoot for your wedding with a point and shoot and said "I don't post process, I get it right in camera" you would have no problem with that? For your personal pics, I could care less...if I'm buying, you better get it right!!!

but you can change a JPEG!

Great...now go edit that JPEG file.

JPEG is like a smelly vagina !

Hardly! You can change only a couple of things in a program like lightroom, you lose so much detail when editing it and can get artifacts that can restrict you from making large prints. RAW allows you to bring colour and detail in areas that may be overexposed when shot, for example the sky loses it beautiful blue colour that we see with our eyes when trying to expose our subject properly on a very sunny day. In raw you can bring this back as the detail has not been lost.

RAW doesn't stand for a good photographer. It's more comparable with shooting film of Polaroid.

In any normal scenario I can get equally great pictures with JPEG then the most avid edit freak can get with RAW. The view points where you can bend a RAW file into a virtual photographic "lie" better then a JPEG is a moot point. With HDR you can lie even better using JPEG and still keep all the detail you need in the final product. RAW is a client rip-off most of the time.

just set your camera to RAW plus Jpeg you the best of both worlds

I think that RAW is a great feature for those who either don't have time, or don't know the exact settings they need for their cameras. I myself shoot in jpeg because I don't have time to fiddle with photoshop because I am into video production. However I know many photographers who take stunning photos and don't need to edit, because THEY know their camera's and have the experience to the shot right the first time. Great topic on this video though. (p.s. cell phones have ruined photography xD)

simply said: there's no right or false - depends on situation. so my opinion about people sayin "I always shoot raw " are stupid. people who always shoot jpeg are lazy or don't need the perfect shoot or can take advantage of jpeg in case of burst shooting.

You hear "I get it right in the camera!" all the time because thats what a photographer should do, so that only a little editing might be necessary. Why not get it right in camera? Are you one of those photographers that relies heavily on editing? Because that only makes you a pro editor. Not photographer. Photography isn't all about processing. Its about capturing a perspective. I use both RAW and JPEG for different situations. What 026SH says is right. Not you.

Don't be condescending! You apparently don't understand anything you read...if you did you would realize that 026SH and I have the same argument FOR shooting RAW. Plus, my first statement was "I couldn't agree more." Secondly, I am ALL about getting it as close as possible in camera, my argument was against PEOPLE who boast or brag about shooting in JPEG and "getting it right" WHEN the evidence is clearly against the quality of their work, and they clearly DON'T get it right!!!

When it comes to being a professional, and by that I mean that people PAY for my photos, it is "all about processing," theoretically speaking. At the very least JUST AS important as perspective! I am delivering my artistic touch and style to my customers; and that's exactly what they're paying me for! ...(cont)

(cont)...That doesn't mean that I'm spending hours sitting in front of a computer, it means that I have a signature workflow that delivers consistent results to produce images to my own set of standards of "getting it right." Anyone can capture the same image sitting right next to me, from my "perspective," but no one will deliver the same processed image as me in the end.

So...before you reply, try not to put words, or opinions, in my mouth. And while you're at it, try to keep your foot out of yours.

Apologies, I now understand where your frustration is from. However you didn't make your point as clear as 026SH did, although his approach was more open minded. He said that "nobody has a 100% score" in terms of getting it right in camera and so you have the OPTION to tweak or edit with RAW. You simply stated that you SHOULD use RAW and you MUST EDIT or else you should get a point and shoot. Not a very open minded opinion. You also don't seem very friendly for a Pro photographer...

Thank you for the apology, I respect that. The whole "drop kick your DSLR" was my attempt at humor…I guess it wasn't received, haha. To be more clear, let me try to elaborate: I believe that "Professional" photographers should have standards, just as a community of Doctors or other types of professionals all have standards. If someone is marketing themselves as a professional then I believe that they should not be shooting in full auto, shooting JPEG, and not processing their work (cont)...

(cont)...I think that it's lazy, and , in my opinion an injustice to the customer and and injustice to their own work. As far as hobbyists are concerned, I could care less what they shoot or how they shoot it. And, I'm not stating these opinions without direct personal experience with these problems within my own community of photographers. (cont)...

(cont)... I am a part of a huge network of photographers in my area and we believe that we are all better together by collaborating on techniques, sharing resources, teaching beginners, sharing steps to being successful, helping with technical issues, sharing workflow processes, monthly meetings, get togethers, roundtable discussions, etc. And, I can tell you that not one member of our group (over 100 strong) shoots JPEG…shoots auto…or skips processing. That has to say something.

But, let me also apologize for being so harsh with my previous rant. Truth be known, I'm probably one of the nicest people you would ever meet. I just have a really big problem with people who feel that they can use the anonymity of social media to be as rude as they want without consequence. Not that your comments were terribly rude, you just happened to catch me at the wrong time. So, my apologies as well!

There is no reason NOT to shoot raw. Fps goes down, okay. raw is bigger than jpeg, okay, but on a 16 GBcard there is space for 1000+ raw photos. raw needs to be transformed to jpeg, okay, but that is what makes raw such a great format. Most people just don't know about raw. Once you use it you will love it.

I guess somewhere in here is a discussion about photography. Instead of a discussion about technology.

What it boils down to is personal preference!! Why argue??? Back in the pre digital days there wasn't any post editing in the digital sense! A good photographer/photograph shouldn't need any effects, I consider myself semi pro and have no need to add effects to my photos, I take them as I see them, and that's how I want others to see them....

hahahahah perfect!

Well yeah, there are plenty of Ferrari owners that are shitty drivers, doesn't mean a Ferrari is less quality than a bicycle.

size is not an issue, get a real memory card. My main one is 32gb 690 for RAW + JPEG (to cover all situations, then I have a 16gb and 8gb

JPEG vs RAW...the argument never ends....I personally believe in this: use whatever format you're comfortable with.... I've personally seen some beautiful JPEG images that look better than RAW and vice versa...

comparing the d7000 vs the 7d, which of the two great for taking jpeg images?

I think thee is case for both. I'm getting into editing a bit more more now but to be honest what i ve seen of a lot of editing on the net looks very fake. I'm hapy to leeave my d200 on prog and jpg if just shooting casually.....also I can see that bit of adjustment is maybe beneficial. As I say, with sometimes I wonder if YOU have the right camera. Drop kick yours if you dislike the results so much.

If you have to shoot JPEG, shoot RAW+JPEG. Don't spray and pray and you won't have to post thousands of photos. The file size argument is silly. I have a 3 terabyte external and it will take me years to fill it up with RAW. The main issue with RAW is the post processing. I've been doing it for a year and have a while to go before I master it, but I can always re-edit the RAWs 10 years down the road. I can't understand paying $2000 for a DSLR and shooting JPEG only.

I shoot raw !

These are reasons JPGs exist, but other than the last reason, not a reason to not shoot RAW....if you can't afford enough space to store your images, you have other problems.  lack of storage should not be a reason to not shoot RAW.  Your comments are certainly valid for consumer/amateur photographers.  Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

JPEG vs RAW, stupid debate. You use JPEG if you are in a hurry or usually could care less about post-production.

What really bothers me is that camera makers does not let you choose to switch JPEG out with PNG or TIFF files instead.
They are just like JPEG, supported bloody everywhere but store information way better and size wise its not that much different, TIFF however might be larger but still smaller than RAW.

I'm a bit new to photography (2.5 yrs) I've joined a camera group with some pretty experienced people. Some of these folks are after me to only shoot RAW & post process everything. Now though I feel more compelled to work on: lighting. composition, catching ones eye & learning / getting 2nd nature with my cameras settings so that I am quicker ' on the draw '. Thanks for the good video.

It's all about the skills in your editing software now , I thought it was about skill with your camera ? Shoot raw edit the fuck out of it to fix your phone errors hmm , again I guess skill with your camera is gone now

I call it Facebook Mode vs Printing Mode but you gave it a different spin thank you. Also it is a sport to outdo the camera processor by doing the Raw processing yourself.