RAW+JPG vs RAW or JPG

[rouxster]

I was wanting to know why someone would shoot in RAW+JPG vs just shooting in RAW or just shooting in JPG. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it, but I'm looking ofr opinions to see if there is something that I am missing (which is surely the case). Thanks.

[OsmosisStudios]

I dont think there are many, but those who do usually have their very specific reasons. I know some photojournalists that shoot both, send the jpgs off immediately so that the editor can proof them, then send a processed RAW for the final edit.

[radityopradipto]

I rarely shooting RAW+JPEG. Most of the time I shoot with JPEG (I reckon it's enough), but when it comes to a serious landscape or portrait, I shoot RAW

[Bear]

I always shoot RAW as it gives me the best option to do what I want in Post; everything the camera saw is there without any lossy compression. If I do want a quick JPG, I use the Instant JPEG from RAW utility to extract the JPG preview straight from the RAW file.

The other thing about RAW+JPG is that the storage requirements become much larger, and if you want to take a few quick shots then you might be waiting on your camera writing both files before there is enough buffer available for another shot.

There is a downside in that you don't get the processing the camera applies to a JPG (vivid, softer, B&W, etc) that are optimised, but using Camera Profiles with Adobe Camera Raw allows you to replicate these pretty well in Post.

Just my two pence.

[Mr Guy]

I tend to shoot in RAW+JPEG as a safety net. I work mostly with the jpegs, with almost all the settings cranked way down and quality cranked way up, so they are only very minorly altered by my camera, but I have the RAW if I need to try and save an exposure or fix a color problem, or whatever the case may be.

Then I spend months debating internally over whether saving all those RAW files AND jpeg files is every going to be worth it.

[dcclark]

For some reason, lower-end Nikons only offer RAW + basic quality JPEG. While JPEG compression doesn't really show artifacts (in a visible way) even at "basic" quality, it's still a consideration. If you're going this route, I'd mainly use the jpegs as previews, not for serious editing.

[kirbinster]

I shoot exclusively raw and if I need a quick jpeg I also use "Instant JPEG from RAW". It pulls a jpeg out of my raw file that is typically fairly good quality about 1 meg in size.

[PrimeTime]

Some people can't view the raw file untill they edit.

I use UFRaw and Gimp, and if i didn't have the software that came with my camera, i wouldn't be able to view my raw files untill i uploaded to UFRaw. With a jpeg you can view the files and decide which one's are worth editing. Other than that, i don't know why you would use it................you can alway save a jpeg from the raw file.