Thread: JPEGS and RAW
View Single Post
Old 07-31-2010, 04:45 PM   #4
Freericks
Met Fan
 
Freericks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,040
Default

I am pretty much the guy Joe describes above... I shoot both (which fills up an 8G card on my 40D lickity split - hey that's the first time I've ever said lickity split in my lifetime).

Anyway - 9 times out 10, I will process the JPEG because frankly, it's easier. The work's already been done by the camera. That tenth time, I'll find that the camera didn't do such a good job and because when a JPEG is created information that is not needed is dumped, I will go to the RAW where that information still exists.

Most of my RAW files, I never look at. I just store. I keep them because I have no idea what the future will hold and I don't know yet if there is information in them that I will need one day (or someone else will want one day). For me, this is the difference between what I shot on Kodachrome and what I shot on Kodak Gold 200. Honestly, at the time I shot them, the only difference I was personally aware of was that one was a slide and one was a negative. Today, I see a massive chasm and realize that there was so much more quality in the Kodachrome. I am protecting myself in case I find that with the RAW.

That being said, card space is an issue, and sometimes on a trip say, I can't just keep banging away what amounts to 20 Meg a frame. In those cases, I have to make a decision, and I usually go the lazy man's direction of JPEG... although in my heart, I know that this is wrong and the smart thing to do would be RAW... but space isn't the only issue... the idea of coming home to process 500 or 1,000 or 2,000 RAW shots with no JPEGs to fall back on is something that would change this from a hobby to a chore for me.

Last edited by Freericks; 07-31-2010 at 05:30 PM.
Freericks is offline   Reply With Quote