Not another RAW vs. JPEG article!!!

Yes, another RAW vs. JPEG post, as if there weren't enough of them out there in most photography sites already. However, I've radically changed my opinion on this a few times (and therefore my workflow) that I think it'll be interesting to some of you to know what I'm doing now. This is a topic filled with myths and misconceptions that it's hard to be confident you're making the right choice. So, my latest decision is not based so much on the pros and cons of each format as much as on what I actually do achieve with each one.

I won't go into the detail of what each one is as there's plenty of information out there. I'd recommend you start here for raw and here for jpeg if you want to read up on the specifics.

First, let me get the pros and cons of raw and jpeg (as I see them) out of the way with a simple table (assuming a good exposure). Green is better in my opinion):

	RAW	JPEG
File Size	Larger - For example, my old 6MP Nikon D70s produces a 5-6 MB file	Smaller - The same 6MP camera produces 2-3 MB JPEG files
Writing Speed	Slower - Usually less frames per second (fps) and often less recorded photographs in one burst	Faster - Generally more frames per second (fps) and more photographs per burst
Download Speed	Slower - Not really critical to me, but it still counts when you're in the field and need to download 4GB to your hard drive	Faster - Although it also depends on the speed of the card and card reader
Quality	Higher - BUT NOT STRAIGHT OUT OF THE CAMERA. Files haven't been processed, so all the RAW data is there. RAW files are usually 12 or 14 bit images and compression is lossless. Dynamic Range is higher	Lower - BUT THEY LOOK "BETTER" STRAIGHT OUT OF THE CAMERA. The camera applies processing based on the settings. JPEG files are 8-bit images and compression is lossy. However, a well exposed JPEG will make a beautiful print
Post-Processing Requirements	Higher - RAW files need post work, especially White Balance, Contrast, Saturation and Sharpening, to look good. RAW files tend to look soft and flat straight out of the camera.	Lower - In-camera processing means the photographs are ready to be printed without any post. The camera sets White Balance, Contrast, Saturation, Sharpening, etc., based on the settings you choose
Post-Processing Opportunities	Great - Since all the data is still there, you have much more creative freedom to work with the file without degrading the quality as much. RAW files take Photoshop work better, and you have more leeway to adjust White Balance, Contrast, Saturation, etc.	Less - The file has been processed by the camera based on the settings at the time of shooting, and the compression deletes information. Since there's less data in the file, heavy post work tends to degrade the photograph more than with a RAW file
Compatibility	Limited - Technically, RAW is not a file format so you need special software to read RAW files. If you send a RAW file to your mother, it's unlikely she'll be able to see the photograph. Most print labs won't accept RAW files. They won't be displayed on a website. As an example, Aperture can't read RAW files from my LX3 camera, but it does fine with the JPEG's	High - JPEG files are based on a standard and can be read/written by most software. Pretty much any computer can open a JPEG and they can be used all over the place. Most labs will ask for JPEG's
Longevity	Who knows? - Each manufacturer has a different RAW format, and to make it even worse, the formats are different from camera to camera. (The RAW files from my Nikon D70s are different from those of my D700, even though they're both .NEF). Since there's no standard, I wonder if I'll be able to open them in 10 years	Good - JPEG's are standard and likely to be supported for a long, long time (although there's never any certainty)

When I thought about this, Quality and Post-Processing Opportunities were the most important to me. I had the software to process RAW files and storage wasn't an issue, so I thought I might as well just shoot everything in RAW. And so I did.

For the last few years I've shot all my photographs exclusively in RAW. But a few weeks ago I was re-organising my Aperture Library and realised I had thousands of family photographs, holiday snapshots, and the like that I never did anything with and they were just sitting there forgotten. I thought about doing an Aperture book out of them, but because they're all RAW, I have to spend some time post-processing them so they're at least printable (white balance, contrast, saturation, sharpening). What a pain and huge waste of time. These are not the kind of photographs I want to spend time with this way.

On the other hand, because Aperture can't read the RAW files from my Panasonic LX3, I've set it to record JPEG's only. And I've made beautiful prints from them, sent them to family members, and I'm designing a book of my last holiday. All without the need to do any post-processing.

I've realized RAW is a very dumb idea for these type of photographs. I'd rather share my photos than store them waiting for me to have time to edit them. So, I've now decided I'm shooting both depending on the type of photography I'm doing.

I'm shooting in RAW when I'm actually in a planned photo shoot and I know I want the best possible quality and/or will be doing heavy post processing. I'm shooting in JPEG for everything else.