Education is more than a classroom—it’s a lifeline. KidsNeedEducation.org, operated by the Aogaah Foundation, embodies this principle by offering free schooling to children in some of Phnom Penh’s poorest communities. The project began with a simple but powerful vision: every child deserves the chance to learn, regardless of background or circumstance.
📚 What the Foundation Does
Free schooling: The Village 15/16 schools provide education to over 140 children who otherwise would have no access to formal learning.
Community events: Annual celebrations, such as the School Holiday Feast at The Family Pub in Phnom Penh, bring together students, families, and supporters.
Sponsorship program: For as little as $100, donors can sponsor a student, covering essentials like books, uniforms, and meals.
Transparency and outreach: The site hosts newsletters, “Who’s Who” directories, and updates on ongoing projects, ensuring donors and volunteers remain connected to the mission.
🧠 Why It Matters
Breaking cycles of poverty: In Cambodia, many children are forced into labor or denied education due to financial hardship. Free schooling interrupts this cycle.
Community resilience: By investing in education, the foundation strengthens families and neighborhoods, creating ripple effects of opportunity.
Global solidarity: International donors and volunteers demonstrate how small contributions can have outsized impacts in vulnerable communities.
⚖️ Challenges and Sustainability
Running a free school is not without obstacles. Funding is precarious, relying heavily on donations and sponsorships. Leadership transitions—such as the departure of founder Richard Meyer due to health issues—highlight the importance of local teachers and community ownership. Yet, the school continues to thrive, proving that grassroots education initiatives can endure with collective support.
📝 Final Thought
KidsNeedEducation.org is more than a website—it’s a window into a movement that believes education is a human right, not a privilege. By sponsoring a child, attending events, or simply sharing the mission, supporters help transform lives in Phnom Penh. The story of Village 15/16 schools is a reminder that education is the most powerful agent of change—and that even modest contributions can rewrite futures.
When Nikon introduced the 35–135mm AF series, it was designed to bridge wide-to-telephoto coverage in a single lens. Positioned as a step above kit zooms, it gave photographers flexibility without the bulk of multiple primes. The AF-D version added distance encoding for more accurate flash metering, making it a practical tool for both film and early digital shooters.
🔍 Optical Performance
Sharpness: Respectable across the range, especially between 35–85mm. At 135mm, corners soften, but the center remains usable.
Color and contrast: Classic Nikon rendering—neutral color with good contrast, especially when stopped down.
Distortion: Noticeable barrel distortion at 35mm and pincushion at 135mm, typical of zooms of its era.
Macro mode: Offers a close-focus feature down to ~0.5m, useful for flowers and small objects.
Bokeh: Pleasant at longer focal lengths, though not as creamy as modern f/2.8 zooms.
⚙️ Build and Handling
Construction: Solid, metal-heavy build—“brick-like” durability noted by users.
Weight: Around 600g, making it portable but not featherlight.
Autofocus: Screw-drive AF—adequate but slower and noisier compared to AF-S lenses. Works best with pro bodies like the D3/D800.
Zoom action: Push-pull design, which some photographers find intuitive, while others prefer modern rotary zoom rings.
🧠 Use Cases
Travel lens: Covers wide-to-telephoto in one package, ideal for street and candid photography.
Portraits: At 85–135mm, produces flattering compression and decent subject isolation.
Documentary/editorial: Flexible enough for mixed environments where you can’t switch lenses often.
Film shooters: A perfect companion for Nikon F-mount film bodies, retaining period authenticity.
⚖️ Pros and Cons
Pros
Versatile focal range (wide to telephoto)
Solid build quality
Affordable on the used market (~$100–$200 USD)
Close-focus macro mode adds creative flexibility
Cons
No VR (Vibration Reduction)
AF is slower and noisier than modern lenses
Optical performance lags behind newer zooms, especially at 135mm
Push-pull zoom design can feel dated
📝 Final Verdict
The Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 35–135mm f/3.5–4.5 AF-D is a classic workhorse lens. It won’t compete with modern pro zooms in speed or sharpness, but it offers a unique blend of versatility, durability, and character. For photographers exploring Nikon’s legacy glass, it’s a rewarding option—especially for travel and portraiture where its rendering shines.
A legacy wide-angle lens that punches above its weight.
The Nikon Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D is beloved for its compact size, sharp optics, and timeless rendering—making it a sleeper wide-angle gem for street, travel, and documentary photography. Despite its age, it holds its own against modern glass.
Released in the late 1980s and still available today, the Nikon AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D is one of those rare lenses that quietly earns a permanent spot in a photographer’s bag. It’s not flashy, not expensive, and not packed with modern tech—but it delivers where it counts: optical clarity, portability, and character.
🔍 Optical Performance
Sharpness: Impressively sharp in the center even wide open, with good edge performance by f/5.6. On full-frame bodies like the D800, it resolves fine detail without feeling clinical.
Distortion: Minimal for a 20mm prime—great for architecture and interiors. Barrel distortion is present but easily corrected.
Color and contrast: Natural rendering with strong microcontrast. It handles backlight well, thanks to Nikon’s internal coatings.
Flare resistance: Decent, though not perfect. Hood recommended for harsh light.
Bokeh: Not its strength—background blur is busy at f/2.8, but that’s expected from a wide-angle lens.
⚙️ Build and Handling
Size and weight: Just 260g and 69mm long—ridiculously compact for a full-frame wide-angle prime.
Autofocus: Screw-drive AF is fast and reliable on bodies with internal motors (D800, D3, etc.).
Manual focus: Smooth ring with good tactile feedback.
Minimum focus distance: 0.25m—great for dramatic foreground emphasis and layered compositions.
🧠 Why Photographers Love It
Street and travel: Discreet, lightweight, and fast enough for low-light scenes.
Documentary and editorial: Its rendering feels honest and immersive—ideal for environmental storytelling.
Landscape: Sharp enough for serious work, especially stopped down.
Vlogging and video: Wide field of view and compact form factor make it a solid choice for handheld shooting.
⚖️ Pros and Cons
Pros
Excellent sharpness and contrast
Compact and lightweight
Affordable on the used market (~$250–$350 USD)
Reliable autofocus and build quality
Cons
No weather sealing
No VR or AF-S motor
Bokeh and flare control are average
Edge sharpness lags behind modern ultra-wides
📝 Final Verdict
The Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D is a reminder that good design lasts. It’s not the sharpest or fastest wide-angle lens, but it’s one of the most practical and enjoyable to use. For photographers who value portability, honest rendering, and classic Nikon character, this lens is a keeper.
The Nikon AF Nikkor 300mm f/4 ED (Non-D) may be decades old, but it remains a sharp, reliable telephoto lens for budget-conscious photographers who value reach, contrast, and classic build quality. It’s a sleeper gem for wildlife, sports, and outdoor portraiture—especially when paired with a tripod or monopod.
Released in the late 1980s, the Nikon AF Nikkor 300mm f/4 ED was built for professionals who needed reach and speed without the bulk of the f/2.8 version. Though it lacks modern features like VR (Vibration Reduction) and silent wave motor autofocus, it continues to impress with its optical clarity, rugged construction, and affordability on the used market.
🔍 Optical Performance
Sharpness: This lens is surprisingly sharp wide open, with excellent center resolution and decent edge performance. Stopping down to f/5.6 improves corner sharpness, making it suitable for high-resolution bodies like the D800.
Color and contrast: Thanks to its ED (Extra-low Dispersion) glass elements, the lens delivers vibrant color and strong contrast, even in backlit conditions.
Chromatic aberration: Some longitudinal CA is visible in high-contrast scenes, but lateral CA is well-controlled. Easily correctable in post.
Bokeh: The 9-blade diaphragm produces pleasing background blur, though not as creamy as newer f/2.8 lenses.
⚙️ Build and Handling
Construction: All-metal barrel, integrated tripod collar, and a rear filter slot. It’s built like a tank, weighing around 1.3 kg (46.9 oz).
Autofocus: Screw-drive AF is adequate but not fast by modern standards. Works best with bodies like the D3 or D800 that have strong AF motors.
Ergonomics: Balanced for tripod or monopod use. Handheld shooting is possible but tiring over long sessions.
🧠 Use Cases
Wildlife: Excellent for birds and mammals in good light. Works well with 1.4x teleconverters for added reach.
Sports: Fast enough for field sports, especially when pre-focused or used with manual override.
Portraits: Great for outdoor headshots with strong subject isolation and flattering compression.
Travel and nature: Compact for a 300mm prime, making it a viable option for landscape detail and distant subjects.
⚖️ Pros and Cons
Pros
Excellent sharpness and contrast
Durable, professional-grade build
Affordable on the used market (~$250–$400 USD)
Compatible with FX and DX bodies
Cons
No VR or AF-S motor
Slower autofocus on entry-level bodies
Some CA and flare in extreme conditions
Heavy for handheld use
📝 Final Verdict
The Nikon AF Nikkor 300mm f/4 ED is a legacy lens that still earns its place in a modern kit. For photographers who don’t mind manual focus override or tripod work, it offers stunning image quality at a fraction of the cost of newer telephotos. It’s a reminder that great glass doesn’t expire—it just asks for a little patience and technique.
The AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G performs reliably on both the Nikon D3 and D800, offering creamy bokeh, solid sharpness, and quiet autofocus—though it’s not the fastest or most clinical 50mm in Nikon’s lineup. It shines in low light and portrait work, especially on full-frame bodies.
🧪 Optical Impressions
Wide-open performance (f/1.4): Delivers soft, dreamy bokeh with moderate sharpness in the center. On the D3, this creates a classic filmic look; on the D800, the high-resolution sensor reveals some softness and longitudinal chromatic aberration.
Stopped down (f/2.8–f/5.6): Sharpness improves significantly, especially across the frame. Ideal for street, editorial, and environmental portraiture.
Color and contrast: Neutral rendering with good microcontrast. Works well for natural light shooters and those who prefer minimal post-processing.
Bokeh: Smooth but can show slight nervousness in busy backgrounds. Better than the older AF-D version, but not as creamy as Nikon’s 58mm f/1.4G.
⚙️ Autofocus and Handling
AF speed: Quiet and accurate, but not lightning-fast. On the D3, it’s snappy enough for casual action; on the D800, it benefits from contrast-based fine-tuning.
Build quality: Solid plastic barrel with weather sealing at the mount. Lightweight and well-balanced on both bodies.
Manual focus: Smooth ring, but focus-by-wire feel lacks tactile feedback compared to older mechanical lenses.
🧠 D3 vs. D800 Pairing
Nikon D3: The lens complements the D3’s low-light prowess. Together, they excel in available light reportage, backstage photography, and moody portraiture.
Nikon D800: The D800’s 36MP sensor demands more from the lens. While the 50mm f/1.4G holds up well stopped down, wide-open shots may show softness and fringing that require post-processing.
✅ Use Cases
Low-light street photography
Environmental portraits
Travel and documentary work
Editorial and lifestyle shoots
🧾 Verdict
The AF-S 50mm f/1.4G is a versatile, reliable prime that pairs well with both the D3 and D800, especially for photographers who value character over clinical perfection. It’s not the sharpest wide-open, but its rendering is expressive and forgiving—ideal for storytelling, not pixel-peeping.
For sharper edge-to-edge performance, consider the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art or Nikon’s 50mm f/1.8G. But for a classic Nikon look with modern AF and solid build, the 50mm f/1.4G remains a worthy companion.
Publishing shocking images is neither inherently right nor wrong—it depends on intent, context, and consequence. The ethical challenge lies in balancing public interest with personal dignity, truth with sensitivity, and impact with responsibility.
Photojournalism often confronts us with the raw edge of reality—war, disaster, injustice, grief. These images can jolt viewers into awareness, spark outrage, and mobilise change. But they can also retraumatise, exploit, or misrepresent. So when is it right to publish a shocking image—and when is it wrong?
✅ When It’s Justified
Public interest outweighs discomfort: Images that expose systemic abuse, corruption, or humanitarian crises may be shocking—but they serve a vital civic function.
Truth is preserved: If the image is accurate, unmanipulated, and contextually honest, it contributes to informed discourse.
Consent is considered: When possible, subjects should be aware of how their image will be used—especially in vulnerable situations.
Impact is constructive: If the image leads to policy change, aid mobilization, or cultural reckoning, its shock may be ethically warranted.
❌ When It’s Problematic
Sensationalism overrides substance: If the image is published for clicks, not clarity, it risks exploitation.
Subjects are dehumanised: Graphic depictions that strip away dignity or reduce people to symbols of suffering cross ethical lines.
Context is missing: A shocking image without background can mislead, stigmatise, or distort public understanding.
Harm outweighs benefit: If the image retraumatises survivors, endangers individuals, or incites hate, it should be reconsidered.
🧭 Ethical Guidelines for Publishing Shocking Images
Caption with care: Provide factual, neutral context to guide interpretation.
Blur or anonymise when needed: Protect identities in sensitive situations.
Seek editorial review: Run controversial images past peers or editors before publishing.
Reflect before release: Ask: Would I feel respected if this were me?
🧠 Final Thought
Shocking images have power—but power without ethics is dangerous. The goal of photojournalism is not to numb or exploit, but to awaken and inform. Publishing such images demands courage, but also compassion. The question is not just can we publish—but should we. And that answer must be earned, not assumed.
Would you like this adapted into a visual manifesto or ethics card for your portfolio?
Publishing Shocking Images: Right or Wrong
Shocking images command attention, accelerate public debate, and can catalyze change — but they also risk exploitation, retraumatisation, and distortion. Deciding whether to publish such images is an ethical judgment as much as an editorial one, requiring clear criteria, transparency, and a commitment to minimizing harm.
What we mean by shocking images
Shocking images are photographs that provoke strong emotional reactions because they show violence, suffering, severe injury, or intimate moments of distress. They differ from disturbing journalism in degree and immediacy: their visceral impact can both illuminate and overwhelm a story.
Arguments for publishing
Public interest and accountability: Graphic images can document abuses and provide evidence when other records are absent; they can mobilize public opinion and spur policy or humanitarian response.
Bearing witness: Photographers and news organizations sometimes cite a duty to show realities that would otherwise be unseen, arguing that sanitizing imagery risks erasing the urgency of certain crises.
Truth-telling value: When used responsibly, stark images can convey truths that words alone cannot, making abstract harms tangible for audiences.
(These benefits depend on accurate captioning, strong sourcing, and editorial restraint to ensure images inform rather than manipulate.)
Arguments against publishing
Exploitation and dignity: Shocking images can reduce people to objects of spectacle, stripping context and agency from victims and survivors.
Harm and retraumatization: Graphic exposure can cause further trauma to subjects, their families, and communities; publication can have long-term consequences for those depicted.
Manipulation and loss of trust: Cropping, sequencing, or sensational captions can distort meaning and erode public trust in journalism; visual shock for clicks undermines credibility.
Ethical criteria to apply before publishing
Public interest test — Does the image materially inform the public or hold power to account, beyond mere sensationalism?.
Dignity check — Can the subject’s dignity be preserved through framing, captioning, or anonymisation?.
Harm assessment — What are the likely short- and long-term harms to the subject, family, or community? Can those harms be mitigated?.
Provenance and accuracy — Is the image verified, honestly captioned, and placed in proper context?.
Alternatives — Could less graphic visuals, stills, or descriptive reporting achieve the same public interest goal with lower harm?.
Apply these in sequence: fail any single test, and the case for publication weakens considerably.
Practical editorial guidelines
Use clear, factual captions that state who, what, where, when, and why; avoid sensational language.
Consider cropping or blurring to preserve identity and dignity without erasing the essential truth.
Offer warnings and placement choices (e.g., not lead-story fronting on social feeds) so audiences can consent to exposure.
Disclose edits and sourcing when relevant; transparency builds trust.
Use peer review or editorial oversight for borderline cases, and consult legal counsel when publication could create liability or danger.
Conclusion
Publishing shocking images can be ethically defensible, but never automatic. The default should be caution: ask whether the image serves a clear public interest, whether it preserves human dignity, and whether harms have been reasonably mitigated. When journalists and editors apply rigorous verification, contextualization, and harm-conscious practices, graphic images can illuminate truth and prompt change; without those safeguards, they risk exploitation and eroded trust
Why ethics matter more than ever in a visual-first world
In today’s media landscape, photojournalism is one of the most powerful tools for shaping public perception. A single image can evoke empathy, outrage, or action. But with that power comes responsibility—and risk. The goal is not just to capture what’s visible, but to honour what’s real.
🧠 The Nature of Truth in Photography
Photography is not neutral: Every image is filtered through the photographer’s lens—literally and metaphorically.
Truth is contextual: A photo without background can mislead, even if it’s technically accurate.
Editing shapes meaning: Cropping, colour grading, and sequencing all influence how viewers interpret a scene.
“Photojournalism fundamentally aims to document reality, yet it is not an objective mirror of the world”.
⚠️ Where Manipulation Begins
Staging or reenactment: Asking subjects to pose or recreate events crosses into fiction.
Selective framing: Omitting key elements to steer narrative perception is ethically suspect.
Caption distortion: Misleading or emotionally charged captions can twist meaning even when the image is accurate.
Digital alteration: Retouching, compositing, or removing elements undermines credibility.
These practices erode public trust and violate journalistic codes of ethics.
🧭 Minimalism with Integrity
Minimalist style avoids manipulation by focusing on presence, restraint, and ethical framing.
Intentional composition: Framing that respects subjects’ dignity and avoids sensationalism.
Contextual honesty: Captions and layouts that inform without editorialising.
Emotional resonance without distortion: Provocative images that stir reflection, not exploitation.
This approach aligns with the ethical imperative to “represent the truth without distortion, even as technological innovation complicates the lines”.
✅ How to Navigate the Line Ethically
Ask before you shoot: Consent builds trust and deepens narrative authenticity.
Caption with clarity: Include who, what, when, where, and why—avoid emotional spin.
Disclose edits: If you crop, tone, or adjust, say so. Transparency matters.
Peer review sensitive work: Run controversial images past editors or colleagues before publishing.
Reflect before release: Ask yourself: Does this image inform or manipulate?
📚 Final Thought
Photojournalism’s power lies in its ability to reveal. But revelation without responsibility becomes exploitation. Navigating truth and manipulation isn’t just about avoiding ethical missteps—it’s about building a practice rooted in trust, clarity, and care.
Photojournalism is often seen as passive documentation—a mirror held up to the world. But the most powerful photojournalism doesn’t just reflect; it provokes. It challenges assumptions, confronts injustice, and forces viewers to reckon with realities they might otherwise ignore. In this sense, photojournalism becomes an agent provocateur—a catalyst for dialogue, discomfort, and transformation.
🔥 Provocation with Purpose
Truth is not neutral: A photograph of a protest, a refugee camp, or a grieving parent is not just a record—it’s a statement. It demands attention, empathy, and often, action.
Disruption is ethical when intentional: Provocative images must be rooted in truth, not sensationalism. The goal is not to shock for clicks, but to awaken conscience.
Emotional resonance drives change: Images that evoke anger, sorrow, or solidarity can mobilize public opinion, influence policy, and reshape cultural narratives.
⚖️ Ethical Boundaries of Provocative Imagery
Avoid manipulation: Cropping, staging, or misleading captions erode trust.
Respect subject dignity: Even when exposing injustice, subjects must be portrayed with humanity.
Context is critical: A provocative image without background risks misinterpretation or harm.
🛠️ How to Use Provocation Responsibly
Pair images with clear intent: What do you want the viewer to feel, question, or do?
Use restraint: Sometimes the most powerful image is the one that suggests rather than shows.
Engage in aftercare: Follow up with subjects, offer access, and monitor impact post-publication.
🧠 Final Thought
Photojournalism as agent provocateur is not reckless—it’s radical in its clarity. It dares to disturb, but never to distort. It holds power to account, amplifies the unheard, and reshapes public imagination. When guided by ethics and purpose, provocation becomes not just a tool—but a responsibility.
Photojournalism sits at the intersection of truth-telling and human consequence. Every frame carries the power to inform, persuade, and move audiences — and every decision a photographer makes shapes who is seen, how they are seen, and what the world believes. This post explores the core ethical tensions photojournalists face, practical principles for navigating them, and concrete strategies to minimise harm while preserving journalistic integrity.
Truth and Representation
Truth in photojournalism is not a single objective stamp but a practice: choices about framing, timing, captioning, and editing all influence how reality is represented.
Framing and context matter. Where you stand, what you include, and what you exclude create a narrative. A photograph isolated from context can mislead, even if the image itself is accurate.
Manipulation undermines trust. Cropping to change meaning, compositing, staged scenes presented as documentary, or selective captioning that distorts facts breaks the contract between photographer and viewer.
Captioning is part of the image. Clear, factual captions that name who, what, when, where, and how protect accuracy and reduce misinterpretation.
Ethical practice: favor minimal, transparent edits; always document what you changed; and pair images with honest captions that situate the photo within its broader factual context.
Sensitivity and Dignity
Photographing human suffering, grief, or vulnerability raises acute ethical questions about dignity, consent, and exploitation.
Consent is context-dependent. In public spaces, consent may not be legally required, but ethical consent is often still appropriate — especially when photographing children, the injured, or traumatized people.
Dignity-first framing avoids sensationalism. Prioritise images that preserve a subject’s humanity rather than exploiting pain for shock value or virality.
Power dynamics shape the encounter. Consider your role: are you a witness, a rescuer, an intruder? That role should guide how you engage, whether you ask for permission, and how you present the resulting images.
Practical rule: when in doubt, err on the side of protecting the subject. Blur faces, withhold identifying metadata, or delay publication when harm is possible.
Impact and Consequence
Images change things. They can catalyse aid, influence policy, or, conversely, endanger individuals and communities.
Assess downstream risks. Could publication expose someone to retaliation, stigma, or legal jeopardy? Could it retraumatize survivors or their families?
Consider community outcomes. Photojournalism about marginalised groups should aim to amplify voice and context, not reduce people to symptoms of a problem.
Balance immediacy and care. The pressure to publish quickly must be weighed against the potential for irreversible harm.
Decision checklist: identify likely harms, consult peers or local stakeholders when possible, and include mitigation steps (anonymisation, delayed release, contextual reporting).
Conflicts of Interest and Independence
Maintaining editorial independence from subjects, funders, and platforms preserves credibility.
Avoid advocacy masquerading as reportage unless clearly labelled. If your work has an advocacy purpose, make that explicit.
Be transparent about funding and collaboration, especially in crisis reporting where NGOs, governments, or activists may influence access or narrative.
Resist platform pressures that reward sensational imagery; prioritise ethical criteria over clicks.
Policy habit: disclose relevant relationships in captions or credits and keep editorial decisions separate from commercial or advocacy impulses.
Practical Tools and Protocols
Ethics scale best when embedded in routine practices. Adopt simple, clear protocols that make ethical choices automatic.
Consent templates. Carry a brief, translated consent card or app-ready text explaining use, distribution, and rights.
Harm-assessment rubric. For every sensitive shoot ask: Could this image expose or endanger? Is consent informed? Is context adequate?
Metadata policy. Decide whether to strip geolocation for vulnerable subjects and standardise how you store consent forms and release notes.
Editorial peer review. For sensitive images, run a quick internal review with an editor or trusted colleague before publication.
These tools reduce ad-hoc decisions and create consistency across projects and platforms.
Ethics as Creative Constraint
Ethical limits refine creativity rather than stifle it. Constraints push photographers to find new visual languages that honour subjects and strengthen storytelling.
Seek dignity-rich compositions that communicate powerfully without exploitative detail.
Use silence and restraint. Sometimes withholding an image, or choosing an image that hints rather than shows, tells a stronger, more ethical story.
Invest in relationships. Long-form engagement with communities yields deeper, less extractive imagery and greater mutual benefit.
A reputation for ethical stewardship becomes a creative and strategic advantage: it builds trust, access, and long-term story opportunities.
Closing Thought
Photojournalism’s ethical challenge is ongoing and situational. There are no perfect rules that fit every moment, but a consistent ethic — grounded in truth, sensitivity, and accountability — gives photographers the tools to make defensible choices. Ethical practice protects subjects, preserves public trust, and ultimately strengthens the impact of images in service of public understanding.
Shooting in RAW means saving the sensor’s unprocessed data so you can shape the final image later. RAW files act like a digital negative: they keep maximum detail, tone, and color information that in-camera JPEG processing would otherwise compress or discard.
What RAW actually contains
RAW stores linear sensor data with higher bit depth than JPEG, preserving more tonal steps between shadows and highlights. This gives you extra headroom when correcting exposure, recovering highlights, or pulling detail from shadows.
Advantages of shooting RAW
Greater dynamic range and recovery — You can recover more detail from highlights and shadows because RAW keeps more tonal information.
Flexible white balance — White balance is not baked into the pixel data the way it is for JPEGs, so you can change it non-destructively in post.
Superior colour depth and grading — Higher bit depth means smoother gradients and more room for colour grading without banding.
Non‑destructive edits — RAW editing writes instructions instead of permanently changing pixels, so you can always revert to the original capture.
Better noise handling — RAW processors can apply more sophisticated noise reduction because they have access to the sensor’s full data.
More control for critical workflows — Commercial, landscape, and fine-art work benefits from the latitude RAW offers for exacting color and tone control.
Disadvantages of shooting RAW
Larger file sizes — RAW files are significantly bigger than JPEGs, which increases storage needs and backup complexity.
Slower workflow — RAW requires post-processing, which adds time to editing and delivery compared with straight-out-of-camera JPEGs.
Compatibility and portability — RAW formats vary by camera brand and model; some software or older devices may not read every RAW without updates or converters.
Longer write times and smaller burst buffers — On some cameras, RAW capture can slow burst rate or fill buffers faster than JPEGs, affecting action shooting.
Need for consistent color management — RAW gives flexibility but demands disciplined color pipelines (calibrated monitor, managed profiles) to get reliable outputs.
When to choose RAW vs JPEG
Shoot RAW when: you need maximum image quality, plan heavy editing, require reliable highlight/shadow recovery, or are producing work for clients or prints.
Shoot JPEG when: you need instant turnaround, extreme file economy (long events with limited cards), or when images are destined only for quick social sharing with minimal editing.
Practical workflow tips
Use RAW+JPEG if you sometimes need immediate, shareable files but still want RAW for archives and editing.
Cull JPEG previews to speed selection; reserve RAW for final edits.
Invest in fast, large-capacity memory cards and a reliable backup routine to handle RAW volumes.
Create camera-specific presets or base edits to speed RAW processing while keeping non‑destructive flexibility.
Keep your RAW converters updated and standardize on one or two tools (Lightroom, Capture One, or your camera maker’s software) to ensure consistent color and metadata handling.
Short checklist before you shoot
Do you need maximum dynamic range and color control? → RAW.
Do you need immediate delivery with no editing? → JPEG or RAW+JPEG.
Do you have storage and backup planned? → If yes, RAW is safe; if not, plan for it before shooting large volumes.
Shooting RAW is about trading convenience for control. If your work values tonal fidelity, color precision, and future-proof archives, RAW is usually worth the extra planning and processing time.
a world without pictures is like coffee without cream and sugar, bitter 