Why "only" shoot RAW ?

Get cs3 and process your jpegs in the raw module and you will never shoot raw again. No need getting it right in camera now, just like raw, you take what the camera processes and make it better.

What? Don't think that just because you can edit a jpg in the RAW editor that it's the same as having the RAW file. it's not...you're still strapped with all of the inherent limitations of a jpg.

LightUser wrote in post #3577059
Get cs3 and process your jpegs in the raw module and you will never shoot raw again. No need getting it right in camera now, just like raw, you take what the camera processes and make it better.

???

Why drive safely when you have air-bags and anti-lock brakes

Jpegs are still only 8bit and are lossy.

Hi Guys;

Well - first off - MANY THANKS to all for contributing to the discussion; but I think it's time to close it out now...

My original question was; Why shoot ONLY RAW rather than RAW+JPEG?

As with all things in life today, there are clearly advocates for RAW only, and just as many for RAW+JPEG. But, if I can summarise;

It seems that the proponenets of "RAW only" put forward these main advantages;
- Space saving on both cards & disk space
- Faster in-camera clearance of the buffer (when shooting bursts)
- Faster uploading to PC
- Less PC based "file management" time

Whilst the "advantages" of RAW+JPEG seems to be;
- Two files is better than one !(in case of a file corruption, or the like)
- Faster pre-review of JPEG images for later choosing which RAWs for processing
- Ease of being able to provide others with a quick image if required

For my personal workflow, I will almost certainly continue to shoot RAW+JPEG...
- Card storage and/or hard disk space is not a problem for me. Storage is cheap, and getting cheaper by the day...
- I rarely shoot "burst" photography, so the times when I run into a "buffer full" scenario are rare...
- I will still process RAW files for final keepers over an in-camera processed JPEG...
- And I accept the added "time management" involved in having the two sets of files.

Safety in numbers I say!

Cheers;

Lee

I used to shoot only JPG and never saw the point of RAW, thinking you could do all the adjusments on the JPG.

But on my last trip I accidentally set my camea to RAW instead of RAW + L and I was forced to work with the RAW image.

I found that, as well as fine tuning the exposure, I was able to adjust the colour channels and get a more natural looking image. I find this much more useful than the red/blue/green adjustment in photo editing programs.

It only takes about 30 seconds to adjust each image and from now on, I'll probably be taking RAW only. I'll feel more confident working with the RAW, knowing I'll get the best quality image possible, before converting it to a JPG.

As for "why won't I shoot RAW+JPG" - I simply won't use the JPG. If I use the RAW then there's no point in even looking at it. And te chances of file corruption are almost non-existent!

I only shoot RAW, but the newspaper guys I shoot with on occasion say that shoot mostly just Jpeg cuz they only have a few minutes to find that money shot, get it PPed and get it to the paper.

Now, I have a hard time believing they couldn't do the same with RAW, but I have to believe them, plus all the shots I see in the paper are not printed that well, so getting a "great PPing shot" in my mind wouldn't be that important either. Why put all that effort into a shot that is still gonna look like crap in the paper?....LOL