RAW or jpeg

**Judderman** · 16th September 2010, 21:28

RAW is nowhere near the amount of work one thinks it is before trying it. One thing I appreciate (and I'm way lazy so like to do as little work as poss on images) is that you can play about with white balance post capture - pretty useful.

**crafty1** · 25th September 2010, 19:34

In most applications I will use RAW/Jpg as you can quickly view the images on the pc without conversion software.

**Gingie** · 27th September 2010, 10:05

Right, so lets get this sorted?

JPEG is easier due to being able to look at the pictures straight away, however the quality is not as good, how much better is RAW?

Assuming I used RAW, how much extra time would it take to process the pictures, bearing in mind I don't edit my pictures.

What additional software packages would I need to firstly veiw my RAW images, and secondly if I wanted to edit/enhance/ or correct screw up is GIMP good enough, also I don't use my pictures for any other reason than forums so would'nt want to spend beer money!

The general practice is go out, get photos, get home, download pictures onto hard drive and finally format card. Viewing them when time permits.

**yamahapaul** · 28th September 2010, 14:31

RAW all the way! I find that the majority of the time I can use the same settings for most, if not all pics... but then it comes into its own for altering (cameras own chosen) dodgy white balance...