Why I No Longer Shoot RAW 

Excellent video and a good explanation of your reasons. I quit shooting RAW years ago, once my Olympus cameras began giving me such excellent Jpegs -- and that includes shooting professionally. I have never had a problem shooting Jpeg. Until I retired recently, I shot wedding, portraits, and corporate events -- mostly corporate work in recent years. I found that virtually all of my large corporate clients wanted on-site daily image upload and extremely tight turn around for prints (for example gold tournament team photos to hand out at awards dinners). I soon realized that shooting RAW was simply a waste of time and storage space, as my clients were perfectly happy with Jpeg files. In addition, as my processing skills have increase over the years, I am amazed at how much improvement I can pull out of a Jpeg file. I make it a point to get exposures and white balance that allow corrections that might be needed. I have a lady coming over this afternoon to pick up an 18X24 in. canvas print of one of my scenic shots that is simply beautiful -- the original shot was done 20 yrs ago as a Jpeg file, using the 5MP Olympus E-20. I see absolutely no valid reason for me to shoot RAW -- others feel differently, and that's perfectly fine.

I appreciate you being so open and informative. Modern cameras have excellent image processing capabilities, and the HEIF format provides further flexibility for image editing.

I appreciate the logic of why you don't shoot raw anymore. As a less capable hobby shooter and one that started fairly recently I've found I enjoy the editing/processing part of my shooting. I experimented with a few raw processors and settled on DXO which has allowed me to automate some basic settings for all raws (corrections and noise reduction). After the common settings I go in and apply spot weighted lighting and Clearview plus where its needed. I like the latitude to fix my small mistakes and improve on the look of photos. DXO noise reduction also allows a lot more latitude in ISO range (allow higher shutter speeds) which has really helped with photos of my one year old in less than ideal light. I continue to enjoy your videos and love the different perspectives that come with this new (to me) hobby/addiction.

I used to shoot jpeg and then switched to jpeg + raw but struggled with editing raw until I started using DXO Photolab 5. The raw files look as good as the jpeg as soon as you open them and The quality of their deep prime noise reduction and lens corrections make me smile every time. I import the raw files and only use the jpeg to view on the camera.

I can't swear I've ever shot a JPEG image on any of my four OM-Ds or the OM-1. I did play around with JPEG on the Pen-F, but quickly realized that was too limiting. I learned to do darkroom work as a teenager, both B&W and Cibachrome color, and embrace Ansel Adam's advice about the darkroom being half of the creative process. You're also going to want to edit based on your publication target: an image isn't going to look the same in print vs digital. JPEGs are too "fragile" for much editing. Size really shouldn't be much of an issue, either. I probably shoot between 500GB and 750GB per year -- I could cut that in half if I spent more time culling -- and I'm still not catching up with the growth of storage options. Only Olympus anyway, you can shoot raw and get all your JPEG color settings pulled in using OMDS Workspace, if you want the original Olympus color. You can't get this in Lightroom, it's some proprietary metadata. I've also found that modern tools can give me the best of both worlds. When I do shoots for work -- usually event stuff -- I shoot everything in raw, cull the shots, then run Skylum's PhotoLemur over the whole image set. This uses computational AI similar to what smartphones do to create JPEGs that are generally better than you're going to get in-camera, and at least comparable to a quick edit by an experienced editor (me, at least). I still have the raw if a processed image isn't up to par, or if they want to use it somewhere beyond corporate in-house and social media.

I've been a photographer since the 70s. My first digital camera was the 2MP Nikon Coolpix 950 .. great fun especially for close-ups which it excelled at. Finally got my first DSLR (a Minolta 7D so I could use my existing Minolta lenses) around 2007. Have used several Sony cameras since then. I've never bothered to shoot RAW mostly because my enjoyment comes from taking photos, not hovering over a computer editing them, and honestly JPEGs have been more than adequate for my needs (max print size 11x19). I'm not shooting professionally, so that's also a factor.

I love Gordon Laing's book: "In Camera" It inspired me to try shooting jpg more often and trying to get it right in camera. I still shoot RAW most of the time but it's a fun challenge sometimes to take away the safety net and go jpeg!

Jpeg from all my Olympus cameras are sufficient for all my needs. I shoot for myself.

I am the odd duck who really loves post-processing. My freelance business was in web and graphic design so I Iearned many graphic software programs like Photoshop to a fairly high level. Since I like post-processing I nearly always shoot in RAW. My hats off to those who dial in their camera's exposure settings to nail their JPG shots as close as possible. Shooting in RAW gives me more latitude for adjustments later and am happy with that format.

... I use the Lumix LX 100 and Lumix G9. in the first I shoot in RAW only, in the G9 in RAW and JPEG. As a not!! Professional Photographer I have always enough place. I develop only a few pictures. The bad ones I throw away. The normal ones I keep undeveloped, may be I use them later. Thank You for Your Videos. I love them. Tirol/ Austria

I shoot mostly jpeg but when I do non league football under very iffy lights I can regularly be up to 12800 iso,only DXO Deep Prime can give me clean images and that only works on Raw files

Hi. I can agree with some of the reasons, but I use DXO Photolab and I prefer to let it eat the raw, even without looking at it, because I am sure it will apply the machine profile I use, the best optical correction there is, chromatic aberration correction, and noise reduction, if any. All this without even looking.

I shoot raw+jpeg. I do use my jpegs from my camera a lot but if I feel I need raw I have it.

When shooting casually I shoot RAW + JPG just in case I want to use those photos for something professional like stock or prints that I may not have thought initially.

My objective is to get it right in camera, so that I need minimal post processing. Recently shot a major vacation day in RAW + JPG, and used 98% of the JPGs over the RAW. So with this philosophy I find RAW is over-kill for my purposes. I did get an exposure comp off by 2/3 stop under exposure during one days worth of shooting , but even the RAW had trouble correcting it. Accept the challenge, think like an old film guy and try shooting only JPG with no or minimal post processing.

After I switched from Canon to Panasonic, and after some testing, I found the camera jpegs to be excellent, and stopped taking RAW altogether. And as you say, they are just for me, social media, etc - no biggie, my memories.

Since it is not a problem to save both on the camera, I take both. Then I look at the jpg's and take them. If I find a very good image in between, I try to tweak the raw file a bit.

Like you, Brian, I shoot for fun. I shoot only fine jpeg 99% of the time. When I take a family portrait a couple of times a year (outdoors in natural light), I shoot jpeg + RAW. But even with those pictures I usually use the jpeg unless conditions were such that I have to do quite a bit of editing. Modern high-resolution jpegs can take quite a bit of editing.

I've shot RAW+JPG for some time and only use the JPGs as "extra large thumbnails/reference images." I use a primarily DxO-based workflow (starting with PL5 where I can only use DeepPRIME with RAWs) often exporting to Nik (especially B&W in Silver Efex Pro). I also just got Topaz Photo AI, as it can do some amazing things (even with old, low-res JPGs), but the bottom line is, I can invariably produce superior images starting with a RAW file (especially as I optimize for printing) and I find editing (and printing) a very gratifying part of the process (recalling my darkroom days, although it's now so much easier and I can do so much more digitally). If I want to post to Instagram (although I just got Vero, so that will change things), I'll convert from TIFF to JPG and re-size (but never re-format--one should NEVER crop to suit any application as the aspect ratio is crucial to the composition!), but that's only ever a secondary concern. I'm shooting for me, not anyone else--if they want to buy a print, great, but I'm certainly not considering what will sell at any point--I'm just trying to make art, and RAWs improve my ability to do that.

I have shot RAW and Jpeg together for quite a while, but I often keep the JPEGs. RAW is nice to have in extreme conditions with shadows and highlight or at night, but, if you like your camera colour science, in correctly exposed images you don't need raw at all. I have several external hard disks of RAW images that still need processing as you cannot use them as they are and I'm lagging more and more behind.

I shoot mainly Raw images, but process them to 2000px on the long edge and 300dpi, instead of the usual 3000-6000. This is mainly due to our camera club switching to Zoom, or displaying on a TV screen when Face to Face. Also for FaceBook, which adjusts to its own dimensions as well. I also use the Nik Collection where an image shot in RAW is better to alter, creatively. I’ve often thought of going back to jpg, but decided against it as there is more data in Raw, and I don’t mind post-processing, can sit there for hours!

I still find myself shooting raw and jpeg simultaneously, unless I'm shooting portraits at something like a Church Fair/Dinner Dance for instant on-site printing, when I'll always use jpeg. However, I also often find myself wondering why I bother, because Lightroom can perform highly successful edits on fine jpegs, giving results almost as good as raw files. As someone who, like yourself, had to rely on film to earn a living for many years, I often find that 'modern' photographers tend to severely over-edit their images, particularly where colour is concerned. Most modern cameras provide a natural looking result straight out of the camera, which is actually all most people need, including the likes of you and me! So I'll probably keep shooting both formats, because it makes me feel comfortable, but less often resorting to the raw, unless an image needs 'saving' because I either didn't have the time to 'get it right' when I took the shot, or I just plain 'got it wrong', though that doesn't happen very often

I shoot raw and import to Photos but immediately run them through DxO PureRaw. If I have done my part correctly then I am done. And yes noise is gone.

I decide upon file format based upon the destination for the shots and the timescale. Sometimes JPEG, usually RAW and sometimes both. For example, I was recently involved in shooting a sporting event and time was critical. No time for processing and creating secondary JPEGs. Used JPEGs from cameras, cropped and leveled. Everything else was deleted. As in all things photographic, horses for courses. The only problem is remembering to set the correct format so the cameras are generally left in RAW plus Fine JPEG.

Obviously is depends on what you are shooting for. If it is professional work then raw has to be the way to go. But if it is just for yourself as I am shooting, then jpegs are fine, and if you take your time to get it right in camera then that is usually all you need. I sometime tweek the jpegs slightly within the limits that you can with a jpeg. Having said that I set my camera to shoot jpeg+raw just in case, but can’t remember the last time I edited a raw file. I print to A3 and have had my pictures begged for by friends and neighbours who have even had them professionally framed. So ‘horses for courses’ as they say. (That’s an old phrase you don’t hear often now)!

I have always shot 100% of the time in RAW. I am now retired and no longer shoot sports shots for the media. I shoot Landscapes for me and me only. I love the "vivid" setting effects on JPEGs and when I am done with processing RAW photos, they look like the "vivid" setting. But, not everything subject looks good in "vivid", such as people, city-scapes or wild life. If I put my camera on JPEG "vivid", I would always forget to change to another setting such as "standard" for the other shots. In JPEG, it would be hard, if I made the mistake and shot it wrong, to retrieve the natural look of "standard", without the data of a RAW file. In short, I would constantly ruin my pictures. It takes to much storage space to shoot JPEG and RAW at the same time, especially since I bracket all my Landscapes. It is best "FOR ME" to stay in RAW only, at all times. Besides, I do like the challenge and time spent editing.

Haven't shot jpeg for years ( other than the snapshots I take with my phone ). All my cameras feature dual card slots and I shoot RAW to both as a backup. I don't even want a JPEG backup, what's the point? I enjoy the editing process and I'd prefer the very best starting point so RAW is the only option for me. Anytime I want that " straight out of camera " experience I just shoot film which I still enjoy from time to time.😊

Yeah, RAW was necessary at the beginning and I have been shooting RAW + JPEG since 2000, after I bought my first DSLR. Also, as an IT pro even before I started my enthusiast photography journey over four decades ago, I have no issue with storage spaces and using computers. Not to mention I find digital post processing is more productive (and cheaper) than the time I had wasted in my wet color darkroom. However, it doesn't mean I do a lot of extensive post processing than I have to, but RAW can serve as a backup file even if I don't use it. As far as doing it right in camera, I guess most film old timers are doing it (but smarter) even today out of habit, thus it doesn't influence my decision. I still remember wasting the Polaroid for previews on my MF. Although lately, I have been using JPEG more for quick Instax instant prints.

Hi Brian. I tried shooting Raw, but found the images looked worse than JPGs after processing, so went back to JPGs, and I am happy with that. To me the photos look just as good after processing in LR with my presets, and I save a lot of storage space on my HD.

Thanks for sharing Brian. I shoot both JPEG and RAW. However, being a fine art photographer it doesn't matter even when I print the images. The JPEG doesn't hurt since most of my subject matter is static and doesn't talk back.

I like doing the editing, its my hobby. I can understand the pro needing to get things done quickly but I don't so is RAW for me.

I started off with jpeg, then switched to RAW and now I shoot jpeg + RAW. Very rarely I bother with the RAW. Only when I have captured something very special.

Only JPEG for me. I find that 99% of the photos I take are close enough to what I want that only minimal post processing is required e.g. maybe a little cropping and perhaps a small adjustment to brightness. I am more interested in catching the moment when taking shots of people or animals and the composition of shots when shooting streetscapes, buildings or landscapes. I do not take formal posed portraits. To be honest, I worked in IT for decades and at this point do not really enjoy mucking around on a computer more than I have to. I don't print anything and, as a majority of my photos are really just for me (trip photos etc. ) with some shared on social media so the image quality I get from JPEGs on both my Olympus camera and my Sony APSC cameras suits me fine. If I were a professional I might think differently but for now it's JPEG for me :-)

Matti Sulanto and Grant Davies provided some useful tips on settings for shooting jpeg with Panasonic cameras. Though I save raw+jpeg, I try to get my jpegs as close to print-ready as I can. Like you, I try to limit post-processing. By doing so, I spend more time composing the shot to get the jpeg / picture how I want it. This, to me, is the fun part. Do you have favorite in-camera settings that you use?

If I'm just goofing around by shooting anything that catches my eye on a walkabout then jpeg is fine. If I've made a special trip to a specific location to capture the best images I can then I go ahead a capture them in jpeg + RAW. Having good quality large storage SD cards is key in this case but multiple smaller ones will almost guarantee I don't lose an entire batch due to a failed card. This is a hobby for me though so for those who do it for a living it may be a different mindset.

What you say makes a lot of sense. I shoot in raw mostly as I very much enjoy the editing process

Yes, I shot both JPEG and RAW . Post is a completely different learning curve to understanding and master . I would agree today w/ Digital media venues JP is sufficient . I would position myself to be flexible depending on the photographic need .. Personal , Commercial etc . In sum no disrespect to Jarad .. He is correct shot RAW , but you as a person must determine why ,because either select the very workable RAW v JEPEG aka “ This what you get “

In jpg the photos are poor. I set on my Olympus curves, contrast ecc.. but is not enough in many cases. In raw, even with small cameras like fuji x10, I can work selectively with Lr for smartphone.

I still shoot in raw/jpg because I can :) I also like editing my raw files however I believe if you nail a jpg then you don't have to necessarily shoot Raw. I encourage people to shoot in whatever format they want as everyone is different.

Brian -- are you cropping to 16x9 in post, or do you have the option on your camera to change the view/capture to 16x9 (I think that my Lumix G85 can do that)? I find it a lot easier composing if I can only see what the final aspect ratio will be....

This is very welcome common sense. So much of enthusiast discourse about photography fails to take real-world conditions into account. I can't help but roll my eyes when RU-vidrs, whose product will be viewed on a phone, tablet, or at the largest, a laptop, sitting in a studio with well-controlled lighting conditions tell me that I must shoot 4K on a full-frame camera.

Jpegs good enough for me.

I shoot jpeg + RAW. The jpeg allows me to pick the best shots before I go ACR to edit and saves the messing around in Bridge Years of habit. I suppose Bridge is now an easier option?

I am happier now than ever to shoot RAW because with the free OM Workspace there is a very effective AI noise reduction plu-in that makes my ISO 3200 and 6400 images so much cleaner and brighter without having to buy a 3rd party like Topaz (which is good as well). The plug-in ONLY works with .ORF files so no benefit for Olympus jpegs.

I shoot both and if jpeg come out good I use it for the client. If I need to pull a lot of shadows I use raw.

Nice light where you shot this video...

I shoot jpeg + raw especialy in low light condition, sw denoising is better than in-body process.

JPEG+RAW, but hardly ever deal with the RAW.

I got my first digital camera, the Olympus Camedia 2040Z not all that long after release in 2001, and then decided to wait until digital got as good as film ... And that for me was the Lumix FZ200 bridge super-zoom (still got it). Impressed with that I got a used E-PL1, which in turn prompted me to get the Lumix G5, which got be started with MFT, and then the GH4. Before the GH4 (~2014) jpg were not all that clever and needed raw post-edit to improve them. Around 2014 there was like a quantum leap in jpg quality from cameras like the GH4, G7, E-PL7, E-M5ii, PEN-F (2016). The latter can still produce photos every bit as good as from the G9 now. I do shoot raw+jpg but rarely post-edit the raw - I expose for the jpg. I am so often disappointed by raw conversion on the computer not coming close to what I got from the camera. Even Dxo, great at noise reduction but its default attempt is usually vivid and harsh without the subtle filmic colours I like to achieve from the camera jpg. If the jpg is no good, the raw will be useless too. When raw files are over two years old, I will not revisit them, so I delete them to free up space (with a batch delete, basically find raw >2yo and delete).

Shoot it right and you don’t need to shoot raw. Mask On Nurse Marty

Jpeg all the way. I chased the raws for a while but when you get to 400 to 600 shots for something, it is is just too overwhelming.

Couldn't disagree more... I shoot 22-28000 images a year for ME as I travel FT. Raw every time, import with a set import recipe to LR mobile and bam.. (different for my GX9 one for EM53 and for my DJI MİNi 2 and my Insta 360 One X2) 95-99% sorted just tricky low light or high contrast images to edit... PLUS as RAW engines get better (as they do every release) things you thought were lost maybe retrieved..😉 YMMV..

I feed up editing RAW files, so to day i shoot 80% in JPG and in special cases in RAW . thanks for all the inspiring videos 👍

Jpg and only jpg for me, I've shot raw and found that it's more trouble than it's worth. I don't think I'll ever set a camera to take raw images again.

I suppose it's because It's illegal in most places, anyway t's about time you put some clothes on.

I will shoot raw. Jpegs are too limiting