I've been shooting JPEG since I got my D70s and kept shooting JPEG"x with my D80, D300, D700, D90, and now with my D7000. I have no use for RAW. For me it's a waste of time and I've been retired for 17 years and have plenty of time to spend. You would be amazed at how many pro photographers shoot jpeg exclusively. I'm a happy amateur.
I think Roger provided the real reason for shooting JPEG over RAW. We had a thread on this topic recently in the Cafe.
JPEG is the clear answer when post processing time is minimal and you take a lot of images. Journalists need to shoot JPEG for most publications - both for quick turnaround and to maintain the integrity of publishing as shot only. Sports photographers have large volume and quick turnaround. Wedding and event photographers shoot very large number of images and most have no editing. Beyond post processing timeframes, JPEG's take less space so you can fit more images on a card. I was at a wedding recently and the phtographer shot 72 GB of images.
I'm with you - I almost always shoot RAW. But there are some good reasons for shooting a JPEG, and image quality is very good straight out of the camera.
I never shoot just JPEG... When in the field shooting PJ I'll shoot JPEG+RAW so that I can send the JPEG images right form the camera to the news outlets (via my iPad), but I always have the RAW as my backup negative. As a matter of fact even when I shoot J+R I never import the JPEGs, just the RAW files.
#7. "RE: RAW vs Jpeg" In response to Reply # 4 Mon 13-Dec-10 02:59 PM by gkaiseril
Sometimes Jpeg's lose image quality from many edits and saves when the wrong type of compression is selected. If one edits in Nikon Capture NX2, the ability to undo edit steps or remove all the edits is possible.
Jpegs can be easily read by most devices while NEF or RAW formats require special software to be viewed (not the Jpeg thumbnail) or edited.
It comes down to convenience (Jpeg) vs. flexibility (RAW).
Since I started with a DSLR, I've shot primarily RAW images. There have been some travel scenarios where I've let JPG dominate because of storage situations. I was so dedicated to RAW that I excluded cameras from the list of possible additions if they didn't shoot RAW.
A few months ago I decided to revisit JPG. My wife uses a D70 and she shoots dominantly JPG. Her images sparkle, so I decided to see if I could tune my D2Hs and D700 to do the same. With some effort, I got a look I liked.
Now I'm shooting RAW+JPG(Fine) and using the JPG for sharing. I discovered there is satisfaction in both, and a use for both; now with the answers here, demonstrated need for dominantly either.
Thanks for the question. Always nice to hear the world weigh in on what seems like a closed issue.
For years I've shot only Raw images. For stock purposes editing a jpeg and re-saving is a no-no. If one of my images is rejected with possibility of resubmission after re-processing, I absolutely need to go back to the RAW negative. However, in the past year I have noticed the excellent quality my husband gets with Fine jpegs out of his Olympus E620 and I'm thinking that, for images which are purely documenting events, I'd save myself a lot of trouble shooting jpegs.
I've shot RAW+JPEG for years with my D200. The JPEG allows for quick viewing on my laptop (I don't have Photoshop installed on it) or emailing. If I want to do any edits on a few favorites, I do it at home on my desktop using the RAW file in Lightroom or Photoshop, and have the ability to recover a little detail from an overexposed area, for example. On a few occasions, that's made the difference between an acceptable capture and a great one.
Of course, now that I have a D7000 which uses SD cards this is more of a problem - you need more space when shooting RAW or RAW+JPEG, so I'm having to buy extra cards.