BIF raw+jpg vs jpg on Social Media and Flickr ??

I have been shooting raw+jpg for all my images not just BIF but I find that the buffer tends to be small, getting about 3 seconds before it fills and have missed some nice shots in quick changing situations. Yes you can get better results in situations where you don't get a good initial exposure but I was down the lake and the ocean the other day where the light was fairly consistent and you could dial in a good exposure (vs where I often shoot where I will be shooting against a tree line or sky interchangeably with no chance to change settings.)

I am shooting for social media, POTN, and FLICKR and emailing to friends.

I was thinking in a situation like there and where there are LOTS of birds (my normal ponds I may get 1 bird every 15-20 minutes and the last 3 days I sat for 2 hours each day and not a single shot) that JPG may work well especially with my 7DII and 5DIV with unlimited JPGs.

I decided to try it out, setting C1 to jpg and C2 and C3 to what it has always been raw+ large fine JPG.

here are two shots one from the raw and one from the jpg. if I look at them side by side on my dual monitors I can see a slight difference

What do people think about using jpg in situations where the lighting is fairly consistent?

Which is which

Any differences you will see will be the result of the processing applied to the raw image. Whether you allow the camera to do the raw processing delivering a jpeg, or you process later out of camera, the result will be the same. The only advantage a raw file has over a jpeg is if you need to do some heavy duty processing, like shadow recovery, changing WB, you have more information to work with starting with a raw. In the examples you posted, there is no wat to tell which was processed in the camera and which was processed by you afterwards as both are jpegs and both look similarly processed.

Lightroom allows one to publish raw images directly to Flickr, and from there those image links can be posted to other sites, like POTN, for example. Once I leanred this, I stopped making jpgs.

I do shoot RAW+JPG because I can work the JPG's faster to cull them. Maybe I should just shoot raw but while I can delete most shots by just opening them on my screen when I want to zoom in on an area with a JPG I just roll my mouse wheel and it expands where ever the mouse is and then I can see the sharpness and delete right from the expanded view.

With the RAW image I have to move the mouse to the magnifier move the slider to expand and then move the image to go to the area I wanted to check then you cannot go to the next image you have to go to the slider again to shrink it before you can move to the next image.

This is probably all just habit but one thing is when I am shooting BIF in a "controlled" environment such as the ocean where I can nail the exposure and there is tons of action I will shoot straight JPG to get the unlimited buffer rather than just 20 shots before filling it.

with R+J I get about 20 shots vs 21 with RAW only.

Maybe I should just shoot RAW but I have the storage at this point..

For now I will continue to shoot R+J but should I? or should I just do RAW? and then when I need the unlimited buffer JPG only

I started as a jpeg only shooter. Then I changed to jpeg+raw then quickly migrated and became a raw only snob. (I'm not saying everyone who shoots raw only is a snob, just that I was.) I've now come full circle and for any shoot that I believe I will need to do some adjusting, I'm back to jpeg+raw. This is maybe 90% of my shooting, many times just because I'm too lazy to change the camera settings. I have found that the conversion the camera does covers most of what I need requiring requiring very little adjustments. But if ever it does need something more, I have the raw to work with. In some cases, like a family party or something easy like that, I might switch to jpeg alone.

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19128411
I do shoot RAW+JPG because I can work the JPG's faster to cull them. Maybe I should just shoot raw but while I can delete most shots by just opening them on my screen when I want to zoom in on an area with a JPG I just roll my mouse wheel and it expands where ever the mouse is and then I can see the sharpness and delete right from the expanded view.

With the RAW image I have to move the mouse to the magnifier move the slider to expand and then move the image to go to the area I wanted to check then you cannot go to the next image you have to go to the slider again to shrink it before you can move to the next image.

This is probably all just habit but one thing is when I am shooting BIF in a "controlled" environment such as the ocean where I can nail the exposure and there is tons of action I will shoot straight JPG to get the unlimited buffer rather than just 20 shots before filling it.

with R+J I get about 20 shots vs 21 with RAW only.

Maybe I should just shoot RAW but I have the storage at this point..

For now I will continue to shoot R+J but should I? or should I just do RAW? and then when I need the unlimited buffer JPG only

There's really no, one answer when you're shooting for yourself; whatever works the best and most comfortably for your workflow. How much time do you spend with most of your images in post processing? If, on a good shoot, you're happy with the outcomes without doing much, if any, PP, then I'd say make things easier on yourself and stick to straight JPEG. If you find you're wanting to tweak for specific things afterward, a lot, I would work with RAW.

My bigger question is how are you doing your file management; like, what software are you using to review the images and cull them? If you're in Windows, you *should* be able to get a codec that allows you to open the RAWs directly, just like you do the JPEGs and remove that obstacle to your review process. Alternatively, using software like Lightroom, that is a DAM (digital asset manager) as well as an editor is another way to do it. Either of those ideas should allow you to not be too concerned about which one you're using and pick/choose depending on your given situation on any shoot.

Just my opinion but if you think you're good enough to nail the exposure/white balance every time and don't need to fine-tune to much in post processing: shoot jpeg(I'm not, I shoot RAW only because I need the larger room for errors). Same for photo's just for recording or if never going to print/display big. If I should ever need jpegs quick I can just batch-process after downloading.

For selecting/culling I use DPP, very easy using the quick select function, click once on the place you want to enlarge et voila, you can even set the amount of enlargement.

Given the impact on the performance of most cameras, raw+jpeg for certain situations is the worst.

Vs RAW+jpeg, you do get more buffer with just jpeg, but if you shoot just raw things speed up quite a bit too.

So my feelings have always been when performance is of concern, pick one or the other, not both.
Cameras are so good today, particularly that 5D4, I have no problem just shooting jpeg. This is 180 from where I stood a few years ago, where I shot raw 100%.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19128555
...
Cameras are so good today, particularly that 5D4, I have no problem just shooting jpeg. This is 180 from where I stood a few years ago, where I shot raw 100%.

I still shoot 100% RAW, but that is only to preserve the option to go back and re-edit some images when processing engines are updated/improved, etc. Realistically, I have very much considered moving back to JPEG w/ the 5D4 at least simply due to needing little editing and file transfer speed considerations. Haven't *gotten* there yet, but it's under consideration.

Snydremark wrote in post #19128563
I still shoot 100% RAW, but that is only to preserve the option to go back and re-edit some images when processing engines are updated/improved, etc. Realistically, I have very much considered moving back to JPEG w/ the 5D4 at least simply due to needing little editing and file transfer speed considerations. Haven't *gotten* there yet, but it's under consideration.

I'm not there yet either, I still shoot wildlife, my passion, in RAW.
But I find when I am doing work for portraiture or events, that I haven't gone to the RAW in ages,. so last year I simply stopped bothering.

The 5DIV is the camera that changes my perspective. It gets things right so consistently that I rarely have to resort to reprocessing the raw. Still, nice to know it's there if needed.

I am able to open the raw images with "PHOTOS" I think it is a Microsoft app As I mentioned is the main reason I shoot Raw and JPG is for culling I find it faster to cull the JPG and then delete the associated raw at the end.
Like Dan I like RAW for my BIF but for other snapshots I do the JPG.

I am thinking of setting C1 to JPG C2 to RAW+JPG and C3 to RAW and set P which I do use when just snapshotting to JPG

I enjoy experimenting and playing around with settings on my 5DIV

Just did a test with my normal BIF 1/1600 & f/7.1 and with RAW only I get 23 shots before the buffer filled and with RAW+JPG I get 20, not much difference to me.

But as I saw JPG only is unlimited and for busy situations where the light is consistent I will try it.

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19128611
I am able to open the raw images with "PHOTOS" I think it is a Microsoft app As I mentioned is the main reason I shoot Raw and JPG is for culling I find it faster to cull the JPG and then delete the associated raw at the end.
Like Dan I like RAW for my BIF but for other snapshots I do the JPG.

I am thinking of setting C1 to JPG C2 to RAW+JPG and C3 to RAW and set P which I do use when just snapshotting to JPG

I enjoy experimenting and playing around with settings on my 5DIV

Just did a test with my normal BIF 1/1600 & f/7.1 and with RAW only I get 23 shots before the buffer filled and with RAW+JPG I get 20, not much difference to me.

But as I saw JPG only is unlimited and for busy situations where the light is consistent I will try it.

Sounds like a good experiment to try, for sure. And yeah, if I'm just heading out to take some random shots, like at one of our local car shows or something, I definitely switch to jpeg and just snap away happily now days, too. The 5D is overkill for that kind of photography, but it's fun overkill

Went out this evening with my 5DIV and set it to JPG only and then did a couple test shots to check the histogram and make sure the exposure would work.

Soon there after some Canada Geese flew over and I just held down the shutter button and fired off about 80 shots, normally I would have had to try to time the birds as they were in areas that might make good shots, instead I worked on my AF and centering the birds.
I like this but think it is for certain situations. I had changed the picture style to Neutral with no sharpening. I worked them in LR and Topaz.

They came out ok. But I do like the Raw+JPG and have the JPG as standard with sharpening, then I can quickly go through the images and delete all but the ones in good focus quickly. It works for my workflow.

Here they are, it is the same goose but taken about 100 yards apart but fairly constant light