I have been taking photos for over 40 years and have never used RAW (most of my cameras did not have RAW capability). Now that I can shoot RAW with the D7000, why should I? I assume the reason is you have more control over the finished product and end up with better PQ. On the other hand if you have to use software to adjust each photo it would seem that using RAW would be very time consuming.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Here's a prime example of the difference:


In-camera JPEG:





using the RAW, after post processing:




Which do you prefer?


When you shoot just jpeg, you're letting the manufacturer dictate every processing step for you. Think of a jpeg as a Polaroid.... there's not much you can do with it after the shutter snaps.

With RAW, however, every bit of information your camera recorded is available to you to do with as you please. Exposure, white balance, contrast, etc. can all be adjusted far more with a RAW file than could ever be done with a jpeg. RAW files are the digital equivelant of film negatives.

Sure, shoot jpegs if you're just going to email/post on the 'net the images and that's all you'll ever do with them. But once you learn how to shoot & work with RAW, you'll probably rarely shoot jpegs again.

A jpeg is considered an 8-bit image, which means there's 256 shades of every color. Shooting in 12-bit RAW, you increase that depth to 4,096, and 16,384 with 14-bit.

____________________________

My toys: gripped D600, gripped D7000, D60: Nikkor 10.5 fisheye, 10-24, 17-35 2.8D, 18-105, 24-85, 50/1.8D, 70-300, 105/2.8D Micro, 500 f/8 Reflex: Sigma 600mm, Celestron 2000mm: PB-6 bellows, auto macro tube set: SB600: Manfrotto 055XB/804RC2/390RC2 & 560B-1: Gossen Starlite: Easy-Up AP1500: 40' WonderPole

There will be times when exposure or white balance will be screwed up, in spite of the processing power in the camera. Shooting raw gives you an excellent chance at fixing those problems easily, rescuing your photo. Yes, it complicates your workflow some, but using Nikon software allows you to see what the camera captured - unlike other manufacturers software, which must estimate what the camera did. You could shoot RAW+JPEG, which gives you the best of both worlds. Use the jpeg if you like it, process the raw file if you need to. But it does take up more file space. Me, I just shoot raw only. Easier for my simple brain to keep up with, and I like having all the data that the camera captured if I ever want a large print made. JPEGs throw away much of that data to keep file size small.

Rich

I shoot in the "RAW", for the same reasons stated above. It does take up more memory, But think of it as your box of "negatives"(as in the ones used in the film days).

In response to the "It takes more memory", keep in mind.... memory is cheap, and the price is going down every day.

I currently have 10tb of memory spread between 6 hard drives. Total cost for this: $559. 8th of it is for back-ups.

____________________________

My toys: gripped D600, gripped D7000, D60: Nikkor 10.5 fisheye, 10-24, 17-35 2.8D, 18-105, 24-85, 50/1.8D, 70-300, 105/2.8D Micro, 500 f/8 Reflex: Sigma 600mm, Celestron 2000mm: PB-6 bellows, auto macro tube set: SB600: Manfrotto 055XB/804RC2/390RC2 & 560B-1: Gossen Starlite: Easy-Up AP1500: 40' WonderPole

I shoot in RAW+JPEG (basic). This allows me to view the JPEGs if I don't have access to Lightroom or another RAW converter. I don't have any special software on my laptop (an old one) so this makes it easy to view my captures away from home, and even email a couple if I want to. Then at home I import everything via Lightroom, pick out the "keepers", and do any adjustments using the RAW files of those keepers. Example: my sons both graduated to their next kickboxing belts recently. Photographed under changing mixed lighting conditions (setting sun through windows and fluorescent tubes of two different colours) produced a garish, ever-changing white balance. But in Lightroom I was able to improve the white balance quite a bit using the RAW files, and get some great captures.

Shooting RAW has allowed me to turn good pictures into great pictures on more than a few occasions.

Brett

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

My guess is most Nikonians would take the "I shoot raw" stand.
Reasons include the ability to handle some post-processing things more accurately.

On the other hand, jpeg offers speed and smaller file sizes and as the image out of the D7000 is around 6meg or more at Large Size, Best quality, it is still up there for large size prints.

Commercially we shoot either or both depending on the job, but for magazine work have always shot jpeg.
From a D200 jpeg, I have made consistently saleable images for clients from the Large, Best Quality of prints that are 18"x30" for wall mounts or posters.
(I have a set of 6 prints that I test with my photo students, and let them try to work out which were shot with raw, which with jpeg. I don't lose my $50. very often)

With memory cards, harddrives and all storage media being really inexpensive, if you want the benefits of raw, the storage cost is negligible.
Programmes like LR and Aperture3 take most of the hardwork out of the raw conversion anyway. Letting you and me concentrate on the big issues of mood feeling and emotion.

DJ

.. I set out to discover the inventions of God. -John Muir

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

The answer probably depends on the type of photographer.
I mainly shoot RAW and post process the best images in NX2 - because it gives me the greatest range of options - and more "get out of gaol" options when I occasionally make a mistake
Print and web images ideally need different processing anyway to get the best results.
That aside jpeg can produce extremely good images. A pro would not be a pro long if they were not competent at getting settings right, and if shooting several hundred images jpeg is much quicker to download and post process.
The D7000 (and several other Nikon bodies) has the option of writing RAW to one card and jpeg to another if you prefer to work that way.

Photography is a bit like archery. A technically better camera, lens or arrow may not hit the target as often as it could if the photographer or archer does not practice enough.

Len Shepherd

Raw, absolutely. You'll want to invest in some good software. Products like Adobe Lightroom can greatly speed up the time it takes to process multiple raw photos. And then you can fine tune the ones you plan to share and display -- the keepers, in other words.

Here's one of my daughter taken last weekend that I liked. I relied on post processing to make the colors much more vivid than what the camera processed as a jpg file (I shoot raw + jpg).

http://www.gondorphotography.com/School-and-Sports-1/Girls-Riding-Their-Bikes/i-8Zg5VZZ/0/XL/_dsc4084-XL.jpg

Beemerman2k
2000 BMW R1100RT Motorcycle
Nikon D7000
Nikon D70s w/ SB600
Nikon N70 w/ SB28

Visit
My photo gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I shoot both. If I nail my exposure and white balance, I'm going to like my JPG much better than I will like my RAW (especially if I used picture controls). All of my settings are applied, I like the color better, and it saves a ton of time.

However, I don't always get it perfect. I used to be a wedding photographer and a lot of times I didn't have time to do a custom white balance, adapt to the changing light, or maybe I just blew the exposure. Having the RAW gave me flexibility to fix it in post.

So I shoot both, generally use the JPG, but have the RAW as insurance.

There is a JPG preview that is actually a Large Basic JPG embedded in the RAW, so I think you can shoot RAW and either use Nikon software or Photo Mechanic to extract it after the fact.

Mike

Like another poster, I've shot JPEG's that have been printed and profitably sold at 20"x30" (from a D200), and I could easily do this with a D7000.

But I now shoot RAW almost exclusively. Why? Because each time you re-save a JPEG, even at best quality, you lose a tiny bit of quality. But if you go back to re-edit a RAW file, you have a number of saving options where you lose nothing.

I think most people could easily get away with shooting JPEG's, even as many newspaper shooters do. But most people aren't the type of photographer who would frequent this board...

www.billkeane.zenfolio.com

>If I nail my exposure and white balance, I'm
>going to like my JPG much better than I will like my RAW
>(especially if I used picture controls). All of my settings
>are applied...

Just for completeness, all your in-camera settings would be honoured when shooting NEF's - if you open the NEF with Nikon View NX2 or Capture NX2

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

Brian,

Thanks for adding that point. I usually use Aperture so I don't think about it, but you are absolutely right.

Mike

I have, use and love LR3 for all of my archiving and post work, and feel I've gotten fairly proficient in handling my RAW pics. That said, my saving RAW or jpeg info still depends on what it is I'm shooting.

Anything I think I'll have ambitions of wanting to print bigger than a 4"x 6" (i.e.: wildlife, landscape, artwork, significant structures, etc.), I'll always save RAW. If my subject matter is something that I know will likely never go beyond a 4"x6" print or internet viewing (i.e.: family birthday/holiday gatherings, bicycle races, the grand-kids, etc.), I'll let the camera do it's thing in converting jpeg.

It's not that I care less about what I save jpeg (they're my grand-kids!!!!), but more a matter of the sheer volume of images I'll have and the knowledge that given how, and by whom, they are going to be viewed, if I got it right in the camera (which I really work hard on trying to do) there's just not that much more I'm going to add to it in post work. Far more times than not, the 7K generates very nice jpegs.

Storage is relatively cheap and I have TB's of it, just don't see the point in saving loads of huge files when they provide little benefit and require far more time to handle. I print a fair amount (mostly for myself for around the house) on an old Epson R1800 that can do 13"x19". I have many A3+ prints, some shot RAW & some jpeg, and no one can tell the difference. There is the occasional jpeg I wish I'd saved RAW that would have allowed some degree of post work that I couldn't manage from the jpeg, but those are rare, the sacrifice is always small and of all the people who might view it, I'm likely the only one who will ever know that it had more potential, only if...

It's all personal choice. Just thought I'd throw that out there as a different stance than what the prior posters have offered. Always enjoyed being different.

Todd

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

No question. Shoot RAW. Once you've done it for a short while you'll wonder how you ever shot JPEG.
Bill

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>No question. Shoot RAW. Once you've done it for a short while
>you'll wonder how you ever shot JPEG.
>Bill

You'll wonder WHY you ever shot jpeg!

____________________________

My toys: gripped D600, gripped D7000, D60: Nikkor 10.5 fisheye, 10-24, 17-35 2.8D, 18-105, 24-85, 50/1.8D, 70-300, 105/2.8D Micro, 500 f/8 Reflex: Sigma 600mm, Celestron 2000mm: PB-6 bellows, auto macro tube set: SB600: Manfrotto 055XB/804RC2/390RC2 & 560B-1: Gossen Starlite: Easy-Up AP1500: 40' WonderPole

Some devices do not process RAW images only Jpegs. So if you are traveling and want to print an image at a local drug store, WalMart, Costco, or internet Cafe, then you might want to have shot RAW + Jpeg.

My Epson P7000 can read some RAW formats, but it can not send them to a printer.

George
My Nikonian Galleries

A good point, and while traveling, I have shot both in the past for that reason. However, since the D7000 can post process raw images in the camera - allowing you to select any image or multiple images and convert them to jpg with your desired settings, I don't find it necessary to shoot both formats anymore.

So I just shoot raw. Saves space over shooting both formats, ensures I have an indestructible digital negative so I don't have to be as disciplined in post processing file management (I have accidentally saved over "master jpg's" in the past" and it gives me more latitude in post processing if I need or want it.

Visit my gallery.

Well whether anyone likes it or not every digital camera made now shoots in RAW. It is the user that determines the outcome of that image, via the menu.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Been shooting in raw since my D70s; gives you the most flexibility in post-processing without loosing pixels.

Phil
A Canadian Nikonian
My portfolio: www.pjr99.500px.com

JPG for sports - due to buffer. RAW+RAW for everything else.

http://www.adamcartwright.com

Raw. 'nuf said.

~Joe in Western NC

My Nikonians Gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.