If you use any kind of editing software like Photoshop, you can create JPEG files, as well as TIFF and other formats, from your RAW files there. No need to shoot anything but RAW......

And then on the other hand, you can shoot the highest quality JPEG for a much faster work flow. The world is devided between RAW shooters and JPEG shooters. Personally I always shoot Fine JPEG, and I teach artists how to photograph their artwork using JPEG for I teach artists how to set their cameras to photograph their art for digital jurying and grant submission.

Larry,

I don't want to start another RAW versus jpg war, but before choosing one or the other, you need to fully understand the implications and they may not be obvious, particularly for beginners. Yes, jpg works faster but there are disadvantages; once you choose jpg, you loose many significant RAW advantages. I would stress to anybody to only make the decision between RAW and jpg AFTER you understand all the ramifications.

It really all boils down to what you intend to DO with the images once you have them captured on your camera. If your intent is to print out 4x6s or even 8x10s, then the JPG format will work just fine. With a little fiddling, I've made wonderful 11x14 prints from JPG images shot with an old 3mp camera.

JPG images are certainly a whole lot smaller than RAW ones and this can be a pretty significant difference over time. What's more, RAW images can't be viewed by most people; you'll have to convert them to JPG or some other format to share them electronically.

On the other hand, RAW images are almost infinitely adjustable in post-processing. The control they give you is simply outstanding and if you're intending to produce "art" then having all that information contained in the RAW image is a distinct advantage.

Most things I shoot JPG. For special occasions, like shooting a glorious sunset, I switch over to RAW. In the end it comes down to a personal decision on the part of each photographer.

Quote:
And then on the other hand, you can shoot the highest quality JPEG for a much faster work flow. The world is devided between RAW shooters and JPEG shooters. Personally I always shoot Fine JPEG, and I teach artists how to photograph their artwork using JPEG for I teach artists how to set their cameras to photograph their art for digital jurying and grant submission.

Cs2 has made working with raw so much faster than it used to be, my exposures jump around alot at weddings and I can set down and edit renumber and correct 300 raw files in about 1 hr, yes then I have to convert them to jpg for sending to the lab but that is basicly a computer function that doesnt require me doing anything, I also can adjust any # of files that need similar correction, by selecting them all and apply the correction its simple once you develop a workflow. You can even select one file make a correction, then in bridge select files that need similar correction and r click and tell it to apply previouus correction with out even opening them. Jpgs are fine under a somewhat controlled enviroment but if you want to shoot in changing light and enviroments I would recommend shooting raw, I wouldnt shoot raw & Jpg since you will have to make corrections anyway so you wont need the jpg's mixed in with the raw, I would shoot raw save as Jpg then the jpg will be corrected when its done and you wont have to do much more to them, sometimes I miss something and have to go back to raw to recorrect or even make a minor change in the jpg. I agree everyone has a different opinion and its best to try a little of both, if your getting good results one way I would stick with it but if you need some after the shoot corrections Go raw and learn the workflow

and here i've been researching cameras and thought "raw+jpeg" was a format. but its Raw or jpeg.

It is both the RAW sensor data file, plus a JPEG image file - a data file plus an image file. RAW is not an image file format - it is a data file format that serves as a container to transport the sensor's unprocessed (raw) output for processing outside the camera. JPEG is an image file format that is used for display and delivery.

I expect it is not difficult to implement and may solve some quick access problems. For example, the JPEGs could be used as proofs to show the client immediately after the shoot. Once the images are chosen, finished, fully corrected and fine tuned publication images could be processed, based upon the RAW data. They too might be delivered as JPEGs, but any image file format that the client wants can be saved to the drive and delivered to the client - TIFF, PNG, BMP or whatever. RAW is never a final delivery format.

I actually prefer the RAW+JPEG format(s), for several reasons.

1) I have all the original data to work with, but I also have an image I can use for "quick and dirty" work (e.g. to print off a proof to show to the customer.)

2) Having separate files (instead of the JPEG being embedded, as is the case in some older systems) means I don't have to have my PC and image-editing software available in order to "work with" the image.

3) JPEGs can be seen on almost any PC, as-is. Unlike RAW format, which needs a converter program.

4) Did I mention that you get the best of both worlds, having all the image data available in the RAW file as well as a "proof" image you can use for a variety of purposes? And all of this without having to carry a laptop around?

Ed, I guess it's a matter of which method works best for you. I shoot RAW only, post-process in ACR and PS, then convert to 16-bit TIFF files for printing. Afterwards, I'll pick which ones I want to upload to my on-line gallery and convert those to 8-bit JPEG. It's a little extra work, but that way I know the images on the website match the print image.....

The big advantage to raw is that you have complete control over exposure and white balance. To me these are the biggies, and if I'm shooting where I may not be able to replace the images, I'll shoot raw and later convert to jpg or tiff as needed. Everything else is fixable in Photoshop. Unless you just need to be able to show someone an image on the spot, I see little use for the raw+jpg feature. It slows down the write time, and I've missed action shots because images were being written to the memory card.

Hi Dwight,
I have a 30D as well, I shoot everything RAW+JPEG (lowest resolution) the reason is that I always get the highest quality (RAW) and if some photos are just for my personal use (friends and stuff) I can use the JPEG version and discard the RAW. But if my camera allowed me to shoot only one format I would go RAW because I'm guaranteed the highest quality, I can always reduce it, but with JPEG I can't get back what I lost. It's like ordering a steak at a restaurant, you can have it cooked a little more than you asked, but if it's overcooked you cannot cook it less.

i strickly shoot raw.it gives me the oportunity to tweek my pics especially white balance .my d300 shoots excellent pics but besides a slight curve adj i often will need to adjust the white balance.with raw i just have a deeper control.besides i hate those jaggy stepps you often get shooting jpeg on strait lines ie wires ect.
no need for the wasted space of raw/fine.you can easily gleen a low pix count for e mailing ect from the raw.