The frequent discussions (arguments?) about shooting raw vs. jpg leave me confused. The following is about image processing ONLY and assumes the photographer is able to compose and set exposure to properly capture an image - both of which are skills unrelated to whether one shoots raw or jpg.

One side says shoot raw and then process offline in order to produce the best possible image - to your liking. Also, raw provides the greatest latitude for adjustments to correct exposure errors made when capturing the images. Ditto with being able to adjust for high dynamic range situations when no in-camera settings can produce a properly exposed image.

The other side says shoot jpg and just make sure you "get it right" when configuring your camera to capture the image. This seems to overlook those situations where light, physics, and mathematics make it impossible to capture a single properly exposed image. As you point out, they are both processed images.

Again, these contrasting comments leave me confused...

First, all camera sensors capture raw images and those raw images are processed into jpg, tif, etc - whatever format the individual photographer chooses (for in-camera shooters, whatever format the manufacturer chose to allow you to create).

In the traditional case of "raw shooters," the raw image processing is done offline using one of the various photo editing software products with a vast array of editing capabilities. Perhaps most importantly, editors offer the ability to adjust individual areas of an image without affecting the entire image and to repeatedly change those adjustments without altering the original image file.

In the case of "jpg shooters," that very same processing of the raw image occurs but it happens inside the camera based upon the particular image processing settings the photographer configured into the camera's menu options and how the manufacturer decided the controls would be applied. And, don't all in-camera options affect the entire image?

There's a third alternative that no one ever seems to talk about, the FREE raw photo editing software provided by the camera manufacturer: for Nikon, that's Capture NX-D; Canon has Canon Digital Photo Professional; and Sony has Imaging Edge, for example.

Each of these manufacturers editing software solutions allows one to capture/store raw images and then, later, apply any of the same internal settings that could have been used to produce a jpg image in-camera. These software editors use the same processing options, algorithms, and controls that were available in-camera. The benefit of shooting raw and then applying any of these equivalent in-camera options lets you select from any of those in-camera settings AFTER you have captured the image as a raw file. And, you can change your mind at any time and apply different "in-camera" controls. That means you can shoot raw and "get it right" even if you selected the wrong options and didn't "get it right" when capturing the image.

In sum: if you shoot raw and use the manufacturer's editing software, you can then later apply any of the same in-camera settings you choose - the same settings that were available in the camera to produce a jpg.

If you shoot jpg, well, you're pretty much done.

The frequent discussions (arguments?) about shooting raw vs. jpg leave me confused. The following is about image processing ONLY and assumes the photographer is able to compose and set exposure to properly capture an image - both of which are skills unrelated to whether one shoots raw or jpg.

One side says shoot raw and then process offline in order to produce the best possible image - to your liking. Also, raw provides the greatest latitude for adjustments to correct exposure errors made when capturing the images. Ditto with being able to adjust for high dynamic range situations when no in-camera settings can produce a properly exposed image.

The other side says shoot jpg and just make sure you "get it right" when configuring your camera to capture the image. This seems to overlook those situations where light, physics, and mathematics make it impossible to capture a single properly exposed image.

Again, these contrasting comments leave me confused...

First, all camera sensors capture raw images and those raw images are processed into jpg, tif, etc - whatever format the individual photographer chooses (for in-camera shooters, whatever format the manufacturer chose to allow you to create).

In the traditional case of "raw shooters," the raw image processing is done offline using one of the various photo editing software products with a vast array of editing capabilities. Perhaps most importantly, editors offer the ability to adjust individual areas of an image without affecting the entire image and to repeatedly change those adjustments without altering the original image file.

In the case of "jpg shooters," that very same processing of the raw image occurs but it happens inside the camera based upon the particular image processing settings the photographer configured into the camera's menu options and how the manufacturer decided the controls would be applied. And, don't all in-camera options affect the entire image?

There's a third alternative that no one ever seems to talk about, the FREE raw photo editing software provided by the camera manufacturer: for Nikon, that's Capture NX-D; Canon has Canon Digital Photo Professional; and Sony has Imaging Edge, for example.

Each of these manufacturers editing software solutions allows one to capture/store raw images and then, later, apply any of the same internal settings that could have been used to produce a jpg image in-camera. These software editors use the same processing options, algorithms, and controls that were available in-camera. The benefit of shooting raw and then applying any of these equivalent in-camera options lets you select from any of those in-camera settings AFTER you have captured the image as a raw file. And, you can change your mind at any time and apply different "in-camera" controls. That means you can shoot raw and "get it right" even if you selected the wrong options and didn't "get it right" when capturing the image.

In sum: if you shoot raw and use the manufacturer's editing software, you can then later apply any of the same in-camera settings you choose - the same settings that were available in the camera to produce a jpg.

If you shoot jpg, well, you're pretty much done.

Thank you for getting the point I was trying to make.

When shooting raw you are afforded the option to use Photoshop, for example, for creative editing while *ALSO* using the camera manufacturers software to apply the same exact settings that could have been applied in-camera to produce a jpg. At any point, you can produce a creatively edited/corrected image or the exact same jpg you would have created in-camera - and can select different in-camera settings after the image has been captured and saved.

You don't seem at all confused about the differences shooting RAW vs JPEG.

For me it all comes down to one thing....

I've never seen a photo that didn't need at least a little tweaking in post processing, and that's MUCH better done working from a RAW file than it is from a JPEG.

Something you forgot... Sometimes it's necessary to shoot JPEGs, such as when the images are needed immediately, when there's no time to do a RAW conversion and work on the image. (When that's the case, I usually shoot RAW + JPEG, to still have the option of later make more tweaks to the image in post-processing if I wish.

Yes, there are times when RAW allows you to correct a mistake. Getting it "right" in-camera is always best. But it's almost never 100%. So by no means is RAW just a means of covering up one's "inadequacies" as a photographer. It's a means of making your images the best they can be.