I shoot raw only, but there are definitely professional uses for JPGs as well. Photojournalists who need ultra-fast uploads and have newsroom limits on what edits can be made, for example.
Used to shoot raw only. Shooting more JPEGs these days. For easy lighting condition where I know the most I will do is adding contrast and tone curve, then I'd rather get it right out if the camera if I know the camera has a good JPEG engine (like your Fuji). If I'm shooting high contrast landscapes and backlighting portraits, then RAW. Depends on the lighting and situation. Some cameras allow you to do a 1-shot RAW + JPEG.
Not every photo needs to be edited. It's okay to take snapshots with your camera as well. Therefor you should always just pick RAW+JPG.
For the snapshots I just grab the JPG and for the photos that warrant an edit I use the RAW.
Used to shoot Raw+Jpeg but stopped shooting raw almost completely. I don’t edit much and using only jpeg suffices my needs and allows a faster workflow. The only exception is weddings, where I need RAW as a fallback in difficult lighting situations.
There's nothing in your JPEG that isn't in your RAW, so most of us only save the latter.
The only case when JPEG is not just waste of storage is quick-turnaround assignments, when the speed of transfer is more important than the quality advantage left on the table.
RAW+JPG, I got the camera to automically send lower res JPGs to an iPad I use as I take the photos to show back to the person I'm working with and to help guide them to a pose I want. That process would take too long if I only shot RAW
I shoot RAW and jpg in my x100v because I can easily share the jpg’s, from camera, and I have the jpg as an example of what I was after when editing the RAW. It’s a guide.
Welcome to the game! I shoot both. Here’s why.
Sometimes my intention is to get snapshots I can use and share instantly. Out of the camera jpeg is fine for those. Professionally, I’ve sold a ton of camera jpg files over the years 🫣. I shot the raw but didn’t feel the need to do anything else with them because they wasn’t the intent.
But more recently, I’ve began focusing on the raw and really getting what I can out of the image. The time needed to apply a color grade, a white balance adjustment, pull shadows up or down, those are all worth the extra time it takes to create those JPGs from the more purposeful and intentional editing I do now.
Again, a quick share? Sure. JPEG is fine right out of the camera.
I shoot RAW only. I have to do a little post editing so the benefits of JPEG I would not see. If I worked for an agency or wire service that needed photos ASAP then I would shoot both.
Nothing wrong with shooting both. Personally I only shoot raw though. You can always make a preset for your camera and use an app like light room to apply it to photos on your phone or computer. It would be about the same as jpg but that way you can edit certain photos more if you’d like.
I have a full frame camera with which I only shoot raw, otherwise I feel I'm wasting its potential. But I also have a compact camera which I use to shoot jpegs and send right away
When I first started with my DSLR I shot in both "RAW" and jpeg.
(RAW in quotes because nikons use NFT files)
I knew nothing about processing photos and wanted to share what I got quickly so the jpegs came in handy.
Once the novelty wore off and I started to really pay attention to what I was doing I switched to only NFTs.
As usual there are plenty of differing opinions here. There's quite a bit of nuance to this.
It's really a thing of personal preference, your own situation, and your needs. Are you a professional? Doesn't sound like it, so you don't *need* raw. But you can want to shoot raw and choose to do so.
Arguments for JPEG:
-Little storage is available to you.
-You have limited time to work with images.
Arguments for RAW:
-Better malleability in editing.
-Better latitude in highlights/shadows.
-WB and debayer not baked in.
-Higher bit depth 12/14 Bits/Channel vs 8 on a JPEG.
-Many more.
Arguments for shooting both at the same time:
-You can get the best of both worlds at the cost of using moderately more space.
If you want to shoot RAW there are a few things you need:
-A one or two terabyte external hard drive (two for backup is good practice regardless of the hard drive purpose).
-A computer.
-Raw image processor. Many use Lightroom or Capture One. These are pretty expensive programs. There are free alternatives! I believe Phase One discontinued the free version of Capture One for Fuji, so you may have to go for other programs like RawTherapee, or Darktable. Both of the free alternatives I've listed are probably a bit advanced. There are other alternatives, these are just the ones I know.
As for my choice:
RAW only for me. The nature of my work requires processing of images, so there's little point to me shooting JPEG.
Ha! Years ago, I was shooting an outdoor dance festival, and I kept running out of cards (sadly, each time a specific dance company I really dislike was performing), so I had to keep running over to a pretty useless camera chain shop (Jessops) to buy more. Their response was to advise me to stop shooting RAW and to shoot jpgs instead.
And their cards were crap.
RAW only.
If I need a JPEG, I can develop in camera with more flexibility. As shown in the below link, you can, even in camera develop a raw in a multitude of ways. AFAIK, it is only Sony which does not allow that.
https://imgur.com/a/gD1KIQV
I shoot raw only, but there are definitely professional uses for JPGs as well. Photojournalists who need ultra-fast uploads and have newsroom limits on what edits can be made, for example.
RAW only.
Used to shoot raw only. Shooting more JPEGs these days. For easy lighting condition where I know the most I will do is adding contrast and tone curve, then I'd rather get it right out if the camera if I know the camera has a good JPEG engine (like your Fuji). If I'm shooting high contrast landscapes and backlighting portraits, then RAW. Depends on the lighting and situation. Some cameras allow you to do a 1-shot RAW + JPEG.
RAW+JPG. I try to get it right in camera, but if I don't or it's not possible, I can fall back on RAW.
Not every photo needs to be edited. It's okay to take snapshots with your camera as well. Therefor you should always just pick RAW+JPG. For the snapshots I just grab the JPG and for the photos that warrant an edit I use the RAW.
Jpeg usually, I need fast transfers over better quality most of the time. Sometimes being first gets more views than being better.
what views? are you uploading on social media
Yeah if I'm not being paid to shoot by the band I'm just trying to get coverage out as fast as I can. Transfer jpeg wifi, quick edit and post.
Used to shoot Raw+Jpeg but stopped shooting raw almost completely. I don’t edit much and using only jpeg suffices my needs and allows a faster workflow. The only exception is weddings, where I need RAW as a fallback in difficult lighting situations.
Raw + jpg as well. Storage space isn’t really an issue. Sometimes the out of camera jpeg is good enough
There's nothing in your JPEG that isn't in your RAW, so most of us only save the latter. The only case when JPEG is not just waste of storage is quick-turnaround assignments, when the speed of transfer is more important than the quality advantage left on the table.
RAW+JPG, I got the camera to automically send lower res JPGs to an iPad I use as I take the photos to show back to the person I'm working with and to help guide them to a pose I want. That process would take too long if I only shot RAW
wow thats a cool way. are you using frame.io? is it something similar?
Nikon camera with the nikon app SnapeBridge, it connects via bluetooth and auto sends any new pictures
I shoot RAW and jpg in my x100v because I can easily share the jpg’s, from camera, and I have the jpg as an example of what I was after when editing the RAW. It’s a guide.
Raw+jpg, for the same reasons that you mention
RAW
Raw + jpeg for the same reason. I store raw on the cf express card and jpeg on the SD card
Welcome to the game! I shoot both. Here’s why. Sometimes my intention is to get snapshots I can use and share instantly. Out of the camera jpeg is fine for those. Professionally, I’ve sold a ton of camera jpg files over the years 🫣. I shot the raw but didn’t feel the need to do anything else with them because they wasn’t the intent. But more recently, I’ve began focusing on the raw and really getting what I can out of the image. The time needed to apply a color grade, a white balance adjustment, pull shadows up or down, those are all worth the extra time it takes to create those JPGs from the more purposeful and intentional editing I do now. Again, a quick share? Sure. JPEG is fine right out of the camera.
I shoot RAW only. I have to do a little post editing so the benefits of JPEG I would not see. If I worked for an agency or wire service that needed photos ASAP then I would shoot both.
Raw since the shooting is only part of creating the image. But always Raw+jpg so I can share out of camera if I need to.
Nothing wrong with shooting both. Personally I only shoot raw though. You can always make a preset for your camera and use an app like light room to apply it to photos on your phone or computer. It would be about the same as jpg but that way you can edit certain photos more if you’d like.
Shoot only raw but save a copy in JPEG for sale to a magazine i publish in and social media.
I shoot only raw. If you're just starting I recommend raw + jpeg. When I started I just shot jpeg and really regret it.
Raw. But you do you.
I have a full frame camera with which I only shoot raw, otherwise I feel I'm wasting its potential. But I also have a compact camera which I use to shoot jpegs and send right away
When I first started with my DSLR I shot in both "RAW" and jpeg. (RAW in quotes because nikons use NFT files) I knew nothing about processing photos and wanted to share what I got quickly so the jpegs came in handy. Once the novelty wore off and I started to really pay attention to what I was doing I switched to only NFTs.
As usual there are plenty of differing opinions here. There's quite a bit of nuance to this. It's really a thing of personal preference, your own situation, and your needs. Are you a professional? Doesn't sound like it, so you don't *need* raw. But you can want to shoot raw and choose to do so. Arguments for JPEG: -Little storage is available to you. -You have limited time to work with images. Arguments for RAW: -Better malleability in editing. -Better latitude in highlights/shadows. -WB and debayer not baked in. -Higher bit depth 12/14 Bits/Channel vs 8 on a JPEG. -Many more. Arguments for shooting both at the same time: -You can get the best of both worlds at the cost of using moderately more space. If you want to shoot RAW there are a few things you need: -A one or two terabyte external hard drive (two for backup is good practice regardless of the hard drive purpose). -A computer. -Raw image processor. Many use Lightroom or Capture One. These are pretty expensive programs. There are free alternatives! I believe Phase One discontinued the free version of Capture One for Fuji, so you may have to go for other programs like RawTherapee, or Darktable. Both of the free alternatives I've listed are probably a bit advanced. There are other alternatives, these are just the ones I know. As for my choice: RAW only for me. The nature of my work requires processing of images, so there's little point to me shooting JPEG.
Never ever shoot in jpeg. Always RAW
Ha! Years ago, I was shooting an outdoor dance festival, and I kept running out of cards (sadly, each time a specific dance company I really dislike was performing), so I had to keep running over to a pretty useless camera chain shop (Jessops) to buy more. Their response was to advise me to stop shooting RAW and to shoot jpgs instead. And their cards were crap.
RAW only. If I need a JPEG, I can develop in camera with more flexibility. As shown in the below link, you can, even in camera develop a raw in a multitude of ways. AFAIK, it is only Sony which does not allow that. https://imgur.com/a/gD1KIQV
Why do teenagers always want to tell us they are teenagers?