rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Of course, human intelligence can make some difference, at the cost of human time.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

And money.

MakisM1 Loc: HOUSTON

You know that 'the road to H##ll is paved with good intentions'!

With RAW, at least you can change your mind!...

ronpier Loc: Poland Ohio

31 posts so far with nothing said. DELETE

bdk Loc: Sanibel Fl.

if u are never going to edit it, JPG is much better than RAW.

SlideArtist Loc: Connecticut

I think many have given you the best answer. No post processing, no real advantage in raw vs. jpeg. I'd add that I only shoot in jpeg, my post processing is very minimal using faststone software and have been very satisficed with the results in making minor adjustments in shadows, highlights, color adjustment and some cloning out of unwanted elements in image. I'm a hobbyist, enjoy taking pictures, belong to two local camera clubs and win a few awards for my images.

User ID

.

(Download)

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Apparently, you must have accidentally hit the "revive" button rather than the "delete" button.

therwol Loc: USA

If you're not going to edit, RAW is useless. It needs to be edited.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Not really true.

spectraflash Loc: Boston

Great explanation by mwsilvers although I would add one caveat to shooting JPEG only: in the event you shoot some incredible images at some point, you may wish you had captured them with the deep data embedded within RAW files. Factors like greater bit depth and increased dynamic range can maximize image quality potential far better than in-camera JPEG processing.

ColonelButler Loc: Niagara-on-the-Lake ON Canada

OTC jpg = the old days where you sent the film to be processed and prints made by a photo finishing lab. Have you not figured out how to move beyond that point in time?

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Too much yada yada about how great Raw shooting is but wheres your photo proving it is so? Maybe if printing it in with the choicest process yes.

Online, like here in UHH, its generally jpeg. IMHO, disliking jpeg but posting online is like pissin on ones own pants while belittling the other guy who got wet with rain.

Again i state my stand, comparing and polarising on the two forms is a stupid argument. They both have uses and each works best on their own purpose. .

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

It's only yada yada if you don't understand the difference.

Below are the results from testing six cameras from three different manufacturers. They produce almost identical results for the raw file from about EC-5 through EC+4. The JPEG results vary a little in the middle brightness range from one model to the next. The only outliers are the two 16MP cameras. They all have the same curve shape.

The raw file captures over 8 stops of brightness using integers from about 32 through 16000. These can be converted to evenly spaced log values from about 5½ to 14 but the log conversions are not rounded.

The camera's JPEG uses the converted log values, applies a curve to them and rounds them off as integers from 0 to 255.

We all know what happens if you overexpose the image. The highlights stop recording at about 16000 and the JPEG can't go higher than 255. Blown raw highlights cannot be recovered.

But two things happen if you underexpose. First, the JPEG does not get close to 255 and it and it moves down the curve toward the left. You will end up with a little more highlight contrast.

The second problem is that the deep shadows move to the left at the same time. This is something we can fix if we start over from the raw file but not if all we have is the camera's JPEG. There may be only 8 possible values left.

The third problem is that any attempt to correct the contrast or brightness in the JPEG can result in banding. That not likely to happen when you are working with the raw data.

It may take some effort to absorb this concept but once you see the ramifications you will discover why raw is worth the effort.

The raw file can record up to ten or more stops of brightness values, 16000 distinct values.

btbg

No one on here dislikes jpeg. They are trying to explain the advantages of shooting in raw for post processing purposes. Of course they are posting jpegs on line. They don't have any choice. You need to remember that this site only allows you to post jpeg, you can't post tiffs. The advantage of shooting raw is if you are going to every post process. The problem with shooting jpeg only is if then at some point in times years later you decide to post process you have limited your choices. If you are 80 and never going to post process then by all means shoot only jpeg. I believe that the original question is "is there any advantage to shooting raw if you don't intend to post process." And, the answer is yes, but only if you might end up post processing at a later date. Comparing the two forms is not a stupid argument, because that comparison comes because of the OPs question.