RAW vs Jpeg

[Nathaniel]

Re: RAW vs Jpeg

I might add that I use both RAW and Jpeg to suit my needs. So nothing is "wasted" in terms of the modern technology. I wouldn't like to spend too much time in front of the computer and that is a personal decision of mine. For example I took over 700 (jpeg)pics on my recent Wirral meet and I really don't know how it got so large; then I realised I machined gunned quite a lot of the birds in flight and so on. I then reduced this to about 202 and although I posted some of the "best" in my opinion (on the nature photography thread) , I still have quite a number of pics to look through more closely using the zooming feature on my computer- esp for sharpness, exposure and so on. Just as a matter of interest I don't think any of my pics which I posted from the Wirral meet,taken in Jpeg, could have been "bettered" by using RAW and converted to Jpeg.(keeping in mind that I do not clone out things here and there or bring in blue skies where the sky is dark and gloomy & so on.I prefer to keep the image as natural and as I have seen it.)
I am quite sure that other members will think differently to me and that is their prerogative.

P.S. In saying what I have stated, I am always open to criticism and I don't misunderstand at all. I have received positive and negative comments from Stan,Les,ColinC,Jeff to mention a few and they were all to my benefit. So if any member could perhaps show me how I could have bettered any of my Jpeg pics taken recently by working via RAW, that would be a constructive point for me and also perhaps to other members who might think like me. So please go ahead.

[planetc]

Re: RAW vs Jpeg

Sorry for reviving the thread, but it seems logical to ask here.
I always shoot raw, and only once did I shoot jpeg when I was away for the weekend and forgot the necessaries to transfer data from the cards so was short on space. This highlighted the benefits as far as buffering goes, allowing me much longer bursts. I still shoot raw, but following a little test think it's going to be very easy to fill the buffer at 6+ fps on the 50d leaving me a wait. My cards could be faster, but the time taken to clear the buffer was the equivalent of the remaining race time, circa 20 secs. Anybody shoot jpeg for this reason?

[Tigger]

Re: RAW vs Jpeg

if burst rate is an issue then moving to Jpeg would seem an option but at the price of possible lost data - I think a better option would be to buy faster cards and hold onto the quality

[the black fox]

Re: RAW vs Jpeg

Unfortunately this is one of the downsides of a older camera ,and I don't think a faster c.f card will help that much ,as the processor won't handle them ,your camera will only write x-amount to the card per sec .saying that the best quality cards do tend to be slightly better though .
You do however have the choice of how you set your camera to render the j.pegs under given conditions which could work in your favour ,and in the right circumstances might help giving you a quantity over quality advantage ,I.e most press shots are pure j.peg

[Tigger]

Re: RAW vs Jpeg

hadn't considered the age of the camera

[planetc]

Re: RAW vs Jpeg

I'll have a play, see how it fairs. Didn't often run out of puff with the 350 so it might be ok anyway. I just recall reading some recommendation somewhere about using jpeg for fast moving sport that made me wonder. I'd rather use raw anyday.