RAW vs JPEG Shooting

Warning: Camera geek post below. If you do not know what either RAW or JPEG is, then you probably should ignore this post.

A few months ago, a friend and I were discussing the tremendous size that RAW files can take up for storage. We were both feeling overwhelmed by the amount of photos we were taking and the amount of demand from our wives (who like to scrapbook) for JPEG files that they need to be able to upload and order them. For both of us, the majority of the reason we shoot in RAW is because of the tremendous flexibility that it gives you for processing the photo later on the computer. Shooting in JPEG allows the camera to do most of the image processing, and leaves you with little room for corrections or changes without degrading the quality of the image. Essentially, if you're going to shoot any images in the JPEG format, you're probably not planning on doing any processing to the photo after you get it on your computer.

We both agreed that it was probably in our best interests to shoot both RAW for our own fine art work, and then JPEG for more informal events such as family get-togethers, etc. This would ensure that we can keep up with our insane amount of storage needed for our photos (JPEG's are smaller than RAW files), and allow us to make the photos our wives would want readily available for their scrapbooking.

So the other day I decided that I would shoot our entire visit to the National Zoo in the JPEG format, which would allow me to shoot more photos (since they take up less space on the memory card), and since I figured that we'd be outside most of the time with good lighting. Needless to say, I was both right and wrong. I only shot about 100 photos (yes, that's not much for me), so even had I shot in RAW, I would have had plenty of room on the memory card. I ran into many situations where the light was less than ideal, and I ended up regretting it when I had to go through my images and try to correct them. Some shots were taken indoors where a flash would have ruined the photo and other settings would have caused me too much blur. Thus, I had to underexpose a few images. Generally, if you shoot in RAW you can lighten the underexposed images enough to fix the photo. JPEG is nowhere near as forgiving. I ended up having to discard several images that were good shots, but too dark in important areas.

On the bright side of this story is that because I was limited in what I could do in JPEG for processing, my processing time on the computer was much shorter, and many of the images came out great without needing much help. In any case, I think that the conclusion is that from now on, I'm going to give up on JPEG shooting unless I have no choice. The lack of control over my post-processing options makes me a little nervous in thinking that that one great image I may one day get might be tanked due a complicated lighting or color issue that could have been easily been adjusted in RAW.