Why "only" shoot RAW ?

Hi Guys;

I've seen a great many comments on the forum about taking the "big-step" and ONLY shooting RAW...

What is the perceived advantage in doing so - apart from maybe saving a relatively small amount of storage space?

Seems to me that the "sensible" thing to do is to shoot RAW+JPEG !

Grateful for the insight that I'm clearly missing here!

Cheers;

Lee

why shot Raw+jpeg
the RAW file itself gives you much more quality in the final result and gives you more room for eposure and WB adjustments and if you really want a JPEG you can just edit hte RAW into a jpeg

Long live RAW

The JPEG file is an unnecessary redundancy. It's like towing an old beater behind your new Cadillac.

The only time I use JPEG is in those rare instances when I have absolutely zero time for processing or no access to the necessary software.

Hi Stavhp;

Stavhp wrote in post #3565815
why shot Raw+jpeg

...So I can review the image in-camera instantly and at any time thereafter!

I'm not questioning the massive advantages of RAW; I'm sold on that; only the "reasons" why you wouldn't shoot RAW AND JPEG !

Cheers;

Lee

When you shoot RAW, you can still see the photo in-camera afterwards ...

lkb-28 wrote in post #3565878
Hi Stavhp;



...So I can review the image in-camera instantly and at any time thereafter!

I'm not questioning the massive advantages of RAW; I'm sold on that; only the "reasons" why you wouldn't shoot RAW AND JPEG !

Cheers;

Lee

I can review the image afterwards with RAW no problem... The reason I shoot "only" RAW is because of CF card space... I get a lot more shots to a card by not shooting RAW+JPEG.

lkb-28 wrote in post #3565878
...So I can review the image in-camera instantly and at any time thereafter!

Yeah, that's pretty much the way it works with RAW, too.

Even if you shoot RAW only, the RAW file contains an embedded JPEG that's used for the camera display as well as thumbnail images with your RAW conversion software.

Because using RAW+JPEG is a waste of memory.

I cold see the advantage of shooting RAW+smallJPEG - but I still think the 'small' JPEG is too large. I'd like to see a RAW+640pxJPEG option.

Hi Guys;

Well - you learn something everyday...

bcap wrote in post #3565883
When you shoot RAW, you can still see the photo in-camera afterwards ...

Curtis N wrote in post #3565919
Even if you shoot RAW only, the RAW file contains an embedded JPEG that's used for the camera display as well as thumbnail images with your RAW conversion software.

Lo & behold, I've just tried, and it works!

I guess when I had previously read about viewing the "embedded JPEG" in-camera, my tiny little brain then said "..well; that means you can't view the RAW file..."

So, now I don't need all four 4Gb cards I have...

Anybody wanna buy one?

Thanks & cheers;

Lee

lkb-28 wrote in post #3565937
So, now I don't need all four 4Gb cards I have...

Anybody wanna buy one?

Thanks & cheers;

Lee

You still need them once in while, especially when you go on a family trip, or party, and take thousands of photos. Friendsly and relatives want the photo immediately. That's when the jpegs come in handy.

Hi cfcRebel;

cfcRebel wrote in post #3565978
You still need them once in while, especially when you go on a family trip, or party, and take thousands of photos. Friendsly and relatives want the photo immediately. That's when the jpegs come in handy.

Yep; I don't plan to abandon RAW + JPEG...

I have the space; storage is now cheap - and getting cheaper by the day - so I'm quite happy with the "redundancy" of both JPEG and RAW...

Cheers;

Lee

The only reason I don't shoot Raw+Jpeg is that it slows the buffer clearing time a bit. I mostly shoot bursts of 3+ frames, so I regularly fill the buffer. It's also nice to get a few extra frames per card (I also burn through memory at a pretty good clip...).

When I'm shooting more static things, I tend to shoot Raw+Jpeg.

Cheers,

Geoff S.

I don't shoot RAW+jpeg because it's just an extra file I'm going to have to deal with. I know I'm going to end up using the RAW file for anything I do with the image, so why have the redundant jpeg as well? It's just going to get trashed. At the end of a shoot I'd much rather have to deal with 300 pictures than with 600 pictures. IMO, RAW+jpeg is great for if you're just starting out with RAW, so you have the jpeg "safety blanket", but once you get a good RAW workflow down, I see no reason for the extra jpeg. Obviously there are exceptions to that where you need a jpeg for quick printing, proofing, etc., but in general I just see it as a wasted file.

lkb-28 wrote in post #3565781
What is the perceived advantage in doing so - apart from maybe saving a relatively small amount of storage space?

Well, relative, is relative,.
If I shoot 18 GB of RAW files,. and also shoot jpeg, thats another 5GB of space taken up by jpeg files that I will never use.

Of course if you are going to use the jpegs, then by all means shoot both. But if you won't, then what's the point?

A much bigger concern is the in camera processing time needed when shooting high speed.

do people automatically assume that al their shots are going to require some extensive amounts of post-processing?
If you get it right 'in camera', then possibly apart from some minor levels, there's no benefit in RAW is there?