RAW

thebaz

No ther'e not Janers booby images , they'll be ready later ! . But first I have to process images , Sinead convinced me to shoot RAW , so i did along with jpeg . Really can't see the advantage of using RAW, apart from controlling WB , which is offset by large files ... please convince me , before i return to my favoured jpeg, and delete RAW

Borderfox

If you have the white balance right I would continue to shoot jpeg

CabanSail

1/ As stated ... White Balance

2/ You have about 2 - 3 Stops more scope for Detail in RAW over jpeg.

3/ You effectively have the "Digital Negative" of the image. I know it's unlikely but if someone were to dispute authorship you should be the only one to posess the RAW File, someone else may have a High Res Jpeg File.

4/ We will start continue the Rumours about you and Ken Rockwell.

bmcgrath

From wiki:

Nearly all digital cameras can process the image from the sensor into a JPEG file using settings for white balance, color saturation, contrast, and sharpness that are either selected automatically or entered by the photographer before taking the picture. Cameras that support raw files save these settings in the file, but defer the processing. This results in an extra step for the photographer, so raw is normally only used when additional computer processing is intended. However, raw has numerous advantages over JPEG such as:

• Higher image quality. Because all the calculations (such as applying the gamma curve, demosaicing, white balance, brightness, contrast, etc...) used to generate pixel values (in RGB format for most images) are performed in one step on the base data, the resultant pixel values will be more accurate and exhibit less posterization.
• JPEG are typically saved using a lossy compression format (a lossless JPEG compression is available). Raw formats are either uncompressed or use lossless compression, so the maximum amount of image detail is always kept within the RAW file.
• Finer control. Using RAW conversion software allows users to manipulate more parameters (such as lightness, white balance, hue, saturation, etc...) and do so with greater variability. For example, the white point can be set to any value, not just discrete values like "daylight" or "incandescent".
• Camera raw files have 12 or 14 bits of intensity information, not the gamma-compressed 8 bits typically stored in processed TIFF and JPEG files; since the data is not yet rendered and clipped to a color space gamut, more precision may be available in highlights, shadows, and saturated colors.
• The working color space can be set to whatever is desired.
• Different demosaicing algorithms can be used, not just the one coded into the camera.

minikin

Jpg is only 8bits per colour channel, raw is 16bits so it contains a lot more information (no so many artifacts when you change contrast, image levels, saturation, convert to black etc in post processing)

Newer printers can print in a 16bit workflow, they will all get there in the next few years.

Don't sacrifice your image quality for the sake of harddrive space.
It'd be like shooting on medium format transparency, duping all onto 35mm and then dumping the original trans.

Gambler

I had the exact same thoughts as you baz but I took a friends advice and used only raw for a month, now I wouldn't switch back to jpeg for any money! I don't even use jpeg + raw, just plain Raw.

Recently I switched to sport mode on my camera to take a few quick pics and was so annoyed when I discovered that it ignored my picture format settings and took them all in JPEG..

Covey

Shooting RAW only for nearly 3 years now.

It's so much better Barry. WB I rarely change so thats not it for me. It gives so many more options, a much better end product imo.

Take for instance a photoshoot of 100 shots with a model (not what I do, but good example). Take first shot and amend for WB, Exposure, contrast, levels curves and colour for example. Copy to other 99 and done. Open in PS and sharpen, job done.