bgl Loc: Brooklyn,New York

I am almost embarrassed to admit that I have never even experimented with using the raw format - my preference has been the finest jpeg settings. I just set the camera to take raw plus jpeg and my question is what is the quality of jpeg in that setting? I'm sure the answer is staring me in the face . . . .

Thanks in advance!

jeryh Loc: Oxfordshire UK

I think you will find that camera raw plus JPEG is Fine !

tainkc Loc: Kansas City

With a Sony, it is not a big deal. All that Jpeg does is to compress the information into an instantly viewable picture. The processor in the camera guesstimates what the photo should look like. Raw is basically an uncompressed, unedited file with no loss of information, allowing for greater latitude when post processing of a photo. A good example would be the working on white balance. With a Jpeg, the white balance is already pretty well worked according to what the camera thought it should be. Most of that information is pretty well lost when trying to re-work it in post, making it more difficult to correct if it is not quite right. If that same picture was shot in raw, you will have all sorts of latitude when correcting for the white balance since all of the information is still there. And so on and so forth. Raw can be overrated though. If one sets all of sets up everything in camera properly, there is no need for extreme correction, thus saving file space (if this were to be a problem). Go look at james56 posts. He uses a Sony hx300. It has no raw capability. From the looks of things, there is no need for it.

bgl Loc: Brooklyn,New York

I have a fair grasp of what jpeg is and used the highest (least compression) setting possible. I was wondering if the raw + jpeg setting means I am getting a jpeg with more compression than I had when I used jpeg alone at the highest setting. I have been generally happy with jpegs that way but want to see what I can do with raw by comparison. White balance adjustments can be a problem in post editing jpegs. It remains to be seen if I can get better results editing raw files.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

I have a different Sony camera, the RX100. The JPEG alone and the JPEG with a RAW are identical.

tainkc Loc: Kansas City

Even though I believe a Jpeg can start out just fine and dandy, editing a raw photo can bring about results that one could never do when working within a Jpeg. So, yes, you can get better results in the long run when working with a raw file.

jethro779 Loc: Tucson, AZ

I would think as long as the .jpg file was set to highest quality it would be the same either way.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

In general, and for a large number of images, it is likely that a jpeg will provide a similar image to one that is processed from a raw file, in which case raw+jpeg is ok - possibly making unecessary work for yourself when it comes to file management.

But when you have marginal lighting, extremely wide contrast range, etc - raw will usually yield a better image. Under those circumstances how you record the image as raw can be dramatically different from how you would do it to make a satisfactory jpeg. So in those circumstances raw+jpeg is of little value.

I think that once you start using raw, you will find it easier and faster to process than jpeg, and you will end up using jpeg for the purpose it was intended - as a final output, not as a file for editing. You will use psd or tiff for your working files so that you can avail yourself of layers and 16 bit files.

bgl Loc: Brooklyn,New York

I have been assuming that raw + jpeg means 2 separate files (one that I'm familiar with and one to learn to use). Please correct me if I am wrong.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

another way to go might be to shoot in raw+jpeg then convert the raw to jpeg and compare the two. if the jpeg from conversion is better you have a solution.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

correct - my point is that there are some situations where you can exploit the greater dynamic range and color depth in a raw file, which can result in a different exposure setting than you would use for jpeg.

bgl Loc: Brooklyn,New York

Yes, I understand your point. That is precisely why I am making this change (not so easy for an old guy to learn new tricks!). And I thank you for your comments.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Hey, I'm almost 64 - is that old enough, or too old. :)

bgl Loc: Brooklyn,New York

you're just a kid. I'm in my 80th year!

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

great to hear you are still having fun with cameras -