jpeg v/s raw

[gerry]

Because most of my photos are either for family or publication on newsprint, I have tended to shoot jpeg with d30 at the highest quality.

Also, the running it through the filter to convert step means more work if I shoot raw. And fewer photos fit on a card.

However, I am curious as to your opinions. Am I missing a big difference in quality. When do you shoot raw? When do you shoot jpeg?

Thanks.

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Gerry,

There's some discussion on this issue in this thread and probably others as well, if you do a search:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1283#4996


Personally, I prefer to shoot raw. Some people argue that they can't see the difference. Sometimes that may be right, but on other occasions, the fact that you shoot raw will enable you to process the image more effectively.

There IS a difference is the recorded image data between raw and JPG. It's there even if you can't always see it, so I say keep the detail just in case.

For me the only real downside with raw is the file size, but that can be got round.

IF the images will always be processed using Photoshop or some other prog, then shoot raw. Processing the TIFF files won't be any more hassle than processing the JPEG's.

IF you intend to print direct from the CF to the printer or send files to a newspaper, then shooting JPG with different parameters (e.g., high sharpening) is the sensible option.

Just my, not very humble, opinion. :-)

Regards,

Roger

[oops]

The decision to shoot raw for me is the future. This field is moving so fast that we can't imagine what we will be able to do with our raw data in the next five years or so. If I shoot raw, I always have a jpg by conversion. If I shoot jpg, the raw data is gone forever.

I am so new to digital photography that the more I learn, the more I realize I don't understand. I would rather err on the side of caution at this stage and raw gives me that option.