Pixiq

It depends on what you're trying to do, of course. Personally, I shoot in JPG all day long because it suits my needs to do so.

I know that there are advantages to shooting in RAW format if one is going to spend a lot of effort tweaking the images in software, but for the majority of my images the universal JPG format works well.

There will be other opinions here, I'm sure, and there's nothing wrong with having a preference for the RAW format. But to me, the quality of a high-res JPG image, shot on a good camera, is superb. And I'm not willing to dedicate the extra time to RAW image processing.

You know, for a while I thought that I HAD to shoot RAW, but with my own work, I shoot JPEG and edit the images in Photoshop's Camera RAW like I would a RAW image. So for most of my photos, I shoot JPEG.

Although, if I'm shooting something big, I'll shoot RAW as a back-up. Here's a JPEG image I processed like a RAW image.

Boy, what a great topic for "battles" HA!

I feel it really depends on your needs (can you say 'he walks the fence'? HA)...

when I'm doing a portrait session or some kind of 'professional' job, I feel I must shoot RAW - just so I have the best 'negative' to work with.

when I'm shooting for general needs - family and misc, I often switch over to JPEG just because I want to save a bit of space on my drive.

I will say that I'd much rather have the RAW image to edit from and I've been thankful I've had the RAW on many occasions to pull great details out of the depths of a poorly exposed image (yes, I'm imperfect at shooting time).

planetMitch

It depends on your post-processing techniques and if you're able to bracket a shot or not. Shooting a portrait is a great opportunity for the RAW format to be used, but shooting product, landscapes or vehicles (which can all be bracketed) can be shot in JPG and then exposure blended, if needed.

RAW provides all the information the camera has captured and therefore gives you the greatest flexibility for processing the "negative". In principle this should result in the best final image. But will it in practice? In fact, camera makers have put a great deal of effort in refining their built-in RAW-to-JPEG converters. Personally, it took me a long time to develop a post-processing workflow that produced results as good as the camera's JPEG. Now I happen to enjoy all that post-processing "stuff", so I shoot RAW most of the time. But if I knew I would be pressed for time, I would not hesitate to shoot JPEG.

Since I am working with a lot of post-production, I am shooting mostly RAW right now. I do use jpeg, like many others, for my point and shoot stuff.

I shoot both. I shoot 14 bit RAW for the maximum image data for quality and editing purposes then I simultaneously capture a jpg to have a presentable image right away in case of time constraint.

The RAW image is great for post processing. Nikon's picture control utility allows me to create a specific look for certain situations that I shoot.

This is a processed image from a RAW image using picture control utility and photo shop elements 8.

I'm working on finding the best skin tones straight from a camera setting.

I'm all RAW baby.

I have no time constraints or any other issues that require a faster work-flow plus I have tons of storage in my Drobo that I can expand at will.

I want all that flexibility!