Your "Shooting Quality"?

[Maleko]

Just curious to see what people shoot in.


Either just RAW, or RAW+JPEG?


Do you think it is safe to just shoot in RAW, and not JPEG? I personally have never heard of a case where either the RAW or JPEG files get corrupt, and then the other file format has saved them. Unless you have?


(I have not put into account SRAW1 & SRAW2)

[Daniel Browning]

Either just RAW, or RAW+JPEG?

Just RAW. Post processing software such as Lightroom make it so fast and easy that I recommend it to everyone that is comfortable with a computer.

Do you think it is safe to just shoot in RAW, and not JPEG?

Yes.

I personally have never heard of a case where either the RAW or JPEG files get corrupt, and then the other file format has saved them.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Neither have I. The optimal situation is two simulataneous cards in the camera (such as CF and SD), then another backup when they are transferred to permanent storage.

[HiFiGuy1]

Either just RAW, or RAW+JPEG?

Just RAW. Post processing software such as Lightroom make it so fast and easy that I recommend it to everyone that is comfortable with a computer.

Do you think it is safe to just shoot in RAW, and not JPEG?

Yes.

I personally have never heard of a case where either the RAW or JPEG files get corrupt, and then the other file format has saved them.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Neither have I. The optimal situation is two simulataneous cards in the camera (such as CF and SD), then another backup when they are transferred to permanent storage.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Daniel,


I only disagree with you on this from my experience recently, because I would have liked to have thumbnails to look at while organizing archived images and had to open each RAW file to see what the heck it was. Therefore I shoot RAW+small JPEG, just so I can have a quick peek to see if it is a keeper or not, and in what folder/classification I need to place it. Small JPEGs don't take up a significant amount of space, and I think it is more convenient to have them. If you want to trash them later after archiving and classification, you'd still have the option.

[Daniel Browning]

...I would have liked to have thumbnails to look at while organizing archived images...

RAW files already have two preview JPEG images embedded in them: one is a small, uncompressed JPEG thumbnail, the other is a very large (usually full size) compressed JPEG. (Yes, that means "RAW+JPEG" is actually saving *two* full size JPEG files.) If you have the right software installed (free downloads from Canon, Microsoft, etc.), the thumbnails are visible in the file managers of XP, Vista, OS X, as well as most image applications.

[TheRoff]

I voted for the RAW+JPEG. But, you really need a category of "depends." If the light is strange and I want a super fine critical photo that I can crop pretty significantly, and I may want a large print, and.........then I will shoot only RAW. I really can't see the purpose of shooting both when conversion is easy. If I am taking a lot of shots, say of a kids soccer game, that will only go onto the web, then its high quality JEPGs all the way.





Larry

[Alan]

Ditto everything Daniel says.


RAW only.

[clemmb]

I shoot only JPEG. I strive to get it right every time so I spend minimal time in processing. I just shot over 600 pics at a wedding and I do not have time to touch every one of them.


Mark

[Jarhead5811]

I shootJPEG only most of the time. I'm not very big on post processing. If I'm shooting something important Iuse RAW+JPEG and delete the RAWs once the images turn out to be correctly exposed. I'd shoot RAW+JPEG 100% of the timeif I had the space on mymemory cards.

[Alan]

I shoot only JPEG. I strive to get it right every time so I spend minimal time in processing. I just shot over 600 pics at a wedding and I do not have time to touch every one of them.


Mark
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Mark, you can "get it right" with the RAW file, too. If you use a target to get the right exposure and white balance, it will ensure the right RAW file, and then if you need to adjust any, you can batch process similar files, finally converting them to high quality jpgs.


That way, you still have the RAW file for future use. The RAW file contains much more information than a jpg, and will give you more flexibility should you decide to go back and edit them.

[Cory]

That way, you still have the RAW file for future use. The RAW file contains much more information than a jpg, and will give you more flexibility should you decide to go back and edit them.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I also think it would be nice to have the RAW due to the fact that the Bride/Groom are going to pick out a few very spceific shots for printing (like a larger version of one shot that will get framed and things like that). It would be a very good thing to have a high quality file to play with for those particular photos. No post editing every shot, but have the files needed to edit/modify special ones.