When is JPEG a better choice than RAW for digital photography?

You are so right. RAW is king when it comes to photography. The amount of control it gives us along with the amount of data that it holds cannot be matched. But you have to process the image into a format that people can use for printing or showing online. I process most of my images into .tif files. This type of image holds the most color depth and information. Quite often I deliver images as .jpeg or .png files. 300 dpi for printing and 72 dpi for internet usage. Now. When do you shoot a jpeg instead of a RAW file? Only when you have to! Twist my arm photoshoots. I shoot Jpegs when there is no time for processing images. Shoot and hand off the images at the end of the photoshoot.

As a portrait photographer, I personally feel that shooting in RAW is the way to go for portraits. Sure, there are times when the JPEG format might be alright, but when it comes to portraits, RAW is king. Some of my portrait work is dark and moody. When it comes to the post production part of my job, I need all the dynamic range I can get, and you lose a lot of file information when you process JPEGs. With RAW files, you get all the info from the camera's sensor, and this allows you to get very creative and produce a signature look that eventually becomes a part of your brand.

Most cameras will allow you to shoot to 2 memory cards at the same time, so that there is redundancy in the files to avoid any disaster. I shoot most of the time to the main card(CF Express) all my RAW files. The second memory card works as a back up and all files are saved as Jpegs. I never had to use the Jpegs, but if there was no choice, I'd rather have them than nothing in my hands. Jpeg files are a lot smaller than RAw, as they use compression, but that storage space saving comes a t a cost. Jpeg files show some artefacts that would not be acceptable in the print or Advertising world as a finished image, but if quality is not your thing, who cares?

I would never shoot a job in just jpeg format. I do shoot both, and the reason I do is because I sometimes set my camera to a specific look. For example, I might increase the contrast purposely for a look I want. If I am shooting a lot that day and change settings, those jpeg images are my reference files. I can refer back instead of trying to remember what I was going for. Fujifilm cameras create beautiful jpeg files, and with all of the creative options, it helps to have those reference jpeg files afterward. Also, jpeg files might be used as proof images, giving the client quick access to images to pick from. Otherwise, the RAW capture is going to be the one I use to create the finished look.

As an event photographer, I always shoot RAW + JPEG, because I can deliver the JPEGs immediately onsite when needed, but I can deliver much better quality finished images later by processing the RAW files in my computer with corrected color, contrast, brightness, geometry and sharpness.

The only real reason to shoot JPEG over RAW is speed, and you have to be pretty good at 'getting it right in camera' for the JPEG route to work. Ultimately, the benefits of shooting RAW far outweigh the drawbacks of storage, but it does depend on what you're shooting. If you need to shoot and deliver almost instantaneously, and if you're using a professional camera, then shooting RAW will undoubtedly show you down. My advice to most people considering this route is - shoot both - most cameras will allow dual capture of RAW and JPEG, and then it gives you a fallback should you need to do any work to the RAW images.

All these facts are very true, however in most professional cases it's worth the hassle dealing with RAW files. If you are out on location and are running out of card space and have no option to swap, shooting JPG vs RAW is a better solution than filling up on RAW and not being able to complete the project.

When edits are done to JPEG files, there is a loss in quality, which can affect tonal quality, sharpness, etc. Not so with RAW edits bec. RAW is non- destructive.

It depends on what is most important to you: If it's taking photos faster and taking up less space on your hard drive, go for JPEG. If it's retaining all the image data to be able to manipulate it better in post-production/editing, then go for RAW. Imagine flying somewhere for a trip. A JPEG takes a carry-on. A RAW file takes a carry-on plus two suitcases. :)

For a working professional photographer, the speed, storage and processing power requirements of handling RAW files are easily met with modern equipment and software. For the end client, though, download speeds and storage requirements, as well as compatibility with pretty much any app out there, make JPEG a good choice for delivery of final images.

If you are a hobbyist, shooting JPGs is fine, but if you are a professional with access to industry standard editing tools and photo storage, you should to be shooting RAW in order to gain full control of your images, and to offer clients the best quality possible.

Is this written by AI? Because they're incorrect that JPEGs save processing time. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. If they need adjustments they are likely require MORE time in post-processing. Who writes this junk?

Processing time is irrelevant when the files are in editing mode...ie L'Room and P'Shop. There's a pleasure in editing files which will retain detail in blacks, whites, colour subtlety as you go. Unedited RAW files do tend to be "flat" whereas a JPEG can look OK straight from the camera. Agreed all pro work should be on RAW unless as with some journalism the image must be used immediately it's taken.

At sports events, I need to get the pics over to the editor asap. Most of the big agencies ask for jpegs as they are easier and quicker to download. Saying that, If speed of delivery is not key, I will shoot both Jpeg and RAW simultaneously

Yes shooting jpg will save you time in processing if you are doing a direct upload, however this comes with a caveat. You need to NAIL all of the in camera settings. Changing anything, white balance, exposure, color tone, etc in post will be infinitely trickier afterwards. I shoot RAW+JPG when I need to do an instant upload, but am very selective on which files get sent based on correct exposure & color.

If your exposures are accurate, JPGs have more than enough detail for magazine and print use. Yes, RAW gives more detail and colour information and you can do more adjustments etc, but once printed, any extra colour information is lost. I was the staff photographer on a magazine during the conversion from transparency to digital, we did all the tests imaginable to see what was best. Even at DPS, it wasn't possible to tell the difference between a 150mb 16-bit TIF from a RAW file and a 10mb JPG once it was on the printed page. At the magazine, I worked solely with JPGs - due to the number of images I was working with on a week-by-week basis. After leaving, I had more time to process my work, so I shoot RAW.

I think these are issues that affect the amateur photographer rather than the professional one. I personally have the right equipment to process the 50 MB files that my camera produces and I see no point in shooting jpegs.

If you are using this article asking a 'should I shoot in RAW?' or am I ok shooting in JPG and posting to Facebook with no processing you have found your validation. Loads of professionals who know the settings front to back and can nail ALL the settings as they shoot can get away with JPG vs RAW, however most of us like the flexibility and more creative freedom that RAW provide. Yes JPG can be faster and easier, but inevitably you will be in a situation where more data would be handy. (although thats also true shooting in RAW.. just not as often) In the end, shoot what you are comfortable with. Yes experiment with the other file type to see if and when you should blend the 2 or swap completely. You may find your choice drifts between each.

This whole article is amateurish and kind of "duh." Not offering anything of value. What's the point other than clickbait. Linkedin, get real people rather than goofing off with AI.