J.Peg or Raw

Is there anyone out there still undecided about which is best Jpeg or Raw, I've used both and do you know I can't make up my mind, Sometimes I think Raw is the best and sometimes I think j-peg is, and sometimes I look at the images on the computer and think what is all the fuss about, am I alone in these thoughts or is there more photographers,who feel the same, be honest.
Paul

With the GX10 fiddling with developing RAW was marginal over jpeg from the camera tweaked with a simple program, for the effort. (I was probably also less demanding). K-7 is a different matter.

Personally I use JPG, as I'm quite happy with the results the camera produces in that format and I'm not sure RAW would help much with my usual problem of blown skies (a grad ND filter would be much better).

I do wonder if the JPG processing engine on newer bodies has improved, as pretty much every user of other systems I meet says "you should shoot RAW" even though I'm getting perfectly good results. Could this idea have got around in the early days of DSLRs and not been challenged since?

Received wisdom doesn't change quickly and I do wonder how many RAW users have tried the excellent premium JPEG setting on the K20D. They might be surprised.

The other one I've heard is "You're not getting the full 10mp unless you shoot RAW"

Now I can sort of see where this idea comes from as the JPG images are smaller files than RAW, so the camera has obviously discarded some information it regarded as meaningless while processing the data. But it's still using the full 10mp of the sensor to produce the image.

Even the tree-star setting on the K20D produces quite accepable results. I shoot over 90% JPEG and I am satisfied with the results.

RAW is of course the ultimate, but requires "development" in a RAW processor like Silkypix. Adobe RAW, etc. I tend to reserve RAW for situations when exposure is tricky, like a high contrast situation.

But I don't buy the argument that one must always shoot in RAW to get a good result.

14bit versus 8bit tone range. Gee let me think....

Nothing wrong with shooting JPEG only, but for best detail recovery, RAW is obviously superior and nothing to do with "latest" JPEG processing.

Interesting article herehttp://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
At the moment I am shooting raw + jpg.
I find it easier to manipulate the jpg but I have the raw file if needed later.
I suppose as i progress I might change how I do things.

Raw every time! Much better for noise, and highlight recovery. And if the shot isn't worth processing, I bin it!

I do shoot Raw plus jpeg though, as the latter are handy for quick viewing.

I wish I could mark your post as 'contains a very good link'. Thanks Pete.

C

All interesting comments,I own the KM mainly because it's a uncomplicated camera, and all the family can use it, to be honest for me there's not a lot of difference between the two modes,I use a 8gb card so there's no issue there with file size, the raw processing can be done within the camera, I sometime use raw +jpeg,on raw with all that information the buffering time seems endless, especially if something is going on and you want to take the next picture.
I'm very interested in the comments on the K20d as this is my next move,the more I get into photography.
Thanks for been honest everyone, I'm sure the argument will continue on this subject in the forums and magazines.
Paul

I agree with John, the **** JPEG on K20D is impressive. But brings up the question what settings do people use that get 'baked in' to the JPEG?

+1 sharpness
Natural
sRGB
Daylight WB

I have a K20D and I always shoot RAW. The camera had a vertical banding problem which has proved an unbelievable pita to get repaired but the sensor and PCB have now been replaced. When I first started using it I shot JPEG's and I must admit I was very unimpressed indeed, so I shot RAW and I have continued to do so. However, since those replacement parts were fitted I have noticed that the white balance in particular is much more accurate than it first was and I figure that JPEGS will probably come out of camera much better too. However, as I am used to RAW now I doubt I will ever go back to find out. I process in Lightroom and I find it a pleasure processing the RAW files.

I long ago developed the policy that my cameras only have one quality setting, maximum.

In the case of the DSLRs, that means Raw. I'll select which data is "unimportant" thanks.

That said, if you want to see what can be done by a master who only shoots JPG, just have a look at John's portfolio.

Max quality JPG is like Slide film used to be. No second chances to tweak exposure, what you shoot is what you're going to display, but if you always get it right in camera the result will be fine.

In day-to-day shooting the thing I like best about RAW is being able to totally ignore white balance until I get home.