Quote Originally Posted by Tom Wertman
Without creating another RAW vs. JPG debate I personnally use JPG 98% of the time and here is why. JPG compresses the file by removing what is not visible to the naked eye. At the end of the day I want my clients to be happy with their photos and they are because they can't tell the difference.

Perhaps you're right and I can understand your point of view. If I had to give immediate results I would have done the same. However I think your clients must not be the only ones that are happy. If I'm not happy with the results, but the clients are. I'm still unsatisfied. Therefor I strive to get the maximum out of my pictures and RAW absolutely helps with that. Because I know clients are not hard to satisfy, but I am [:P] And since hard-drives don't cost a fortune and the adjustments in post-processing in RAW and JPEGs take an equal amount of time, I'm voting for RAW. The only downside of RAW-files is that they consume more memory and time to compress and store, but that's a small price to pay.


I even shoot RAW at days where I shoot more than a 1000 pictures...even the smaller adjustments will look cleaner in RAW than in JPEG.


Jan