Moose Loc: North Carolina

What post processing advantage does shooting in RAW have over JPG? Both formats allow all kinds of photo manipulation so I'm confused as to why so many recommend shooting RAW. Also, shooting in RAW requires post processing whereas JPG doesn't. Isn't it true that you would have to process a RAW photo through software to create a JPG or other file format for printing? If so, isn't that adding an extra step that may not be necessary if you are proficient enough to create the "perfect" picture in-camera?

BTW, PSE 10 does process Nikon NEF/RAW images without downloading any other software. I had PSE7 and could not process a RAW file without downloading another piece of software to recognize the file format.

JimH Loc: Western South Jersey, USA

1) Yes, raw images must be post-processed, at least in some small manner, to be converted to JPEG for printing and other use.
2) JPEGs produced in-camera contain not only 'your' inputs (via presets or camera tunings) but also the camera designer's inputs as to 'correct' color tones, balance, sharpness, etc etc. These may or may not be accurate or correct in YOUR mind's eye.
3) Using raw as an image source simply gives those who WISH to further process their images the raw material, so to speak, to do so.

It's like using a 96-crayon box versus a 16-crayon box to draw a picture. If what you want can be done in 16 colors, then JPEG is fine. If you need all 96, the only way to do that is with a raw source file.

MWAC Loc: Somewhere East Of Crazy

I process my RAW files in LR3, so I'm really not using any extra software as I would do the same with Jpegs before I moved them over to CS5. That's just my personal workflow (adjust w/b, exposure a tad, straighten in LR, then over to CS5).

The advanatages to using RAW over Jpeg is the RAW file stores more data, allowing you to create and fine tune your post work a little more than you could with Jpeg. Jpeg also lose a little data each time opened, edited, and saved again.

A raw file by nature is uncompressed file while a Jpeg will be automatically compressed by your camera. Resulting in of course data being thrown out. Shooting in RAW gives you more control over the final outcome of your image and of course allows you to make corrections to multiple mistakes (like w/b and exposure) easily.

I'm not saying that RAW is the only way to go, there is alot that goes into using the RAW format and understanding how your post workflow will change a little, not everyone is going to want to take the time to understand the pros and cons to shooting RAW.

Just like I have no desire to shot Jpeg, even my family vacation snapshots are shot in the RAW format. (but I'm a huge nerd/geek).

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

True Jim.

The other thing to consider is that the JPG changes are "baked in" and so whatever (for example) saturation level looks good on your brother's face may not look good on a red rose...

In my opinion; one size doesn't fit all for many of the tweaks for a shot...saturation, clarity, color balance, WB, ...I just like to evaluate them on a per-each basis.

snowbear

Because, ultimately, we are control freaks to a certain degree ;)

Try both, then use whichever format works best for you.

Moose Loc: North Carolina

Thanks all for your input. I think Snowbear's suggestion to try both is the way to go. Thanks again.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

My Nikon allows me to capture simultaneous Raw and "high" (resolution) JPGs. I can easily review the JPG, and then tweak any Raw image, which will be automatically saved as a new JPG.

ziggykor Loc: East Texas

JimH Loc: Western South Jersey, USA

This is true - you can print a raw file, with the appropriate raw converters and codecs, depending on your viewing program. However, most raw files are ugly, and what you're actually printing is the JPEG thumbnail embedded in it.

ziggykor Loc: East Texas

I don't think that I said anything about printing a RAW image, so I'm wondering how that was read into my comment. I stated that I print PSD or TIFF!

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

if i heard you guys right over the last few months,converting raw files to jpg or tiff is the way to go.my files would have more info than letting the camera convert. clue me if i am wrong.

Iduno Loc: Near Tampa Florida

The range of control is much greater with raw.

BobD21 Loc: Iowa USA

I just upgraded to PSE 10 Does it automatically recognize RAW and process or where is the menu for it? I have just started using my D7000 and there is a large curve plus I'm slow learner Really appreciate all of the good info all of you share THANK YOU

effrant Loc: New Hampshire

djmarti Loc: cape cod,

There are many advantages of raw. The raw and jpeg unprocessed look identical side to side but it's the hidden detail raw keeps that jpeg throws out. For example if you shot a white lighthouse and the sun washed it away with the right program you get that detail back with raw or if you underexpose an image you get that detail back where with jpeg you would just get noise when you brighten it. And the biggest thing is you have total control over white balance with raw. When you save the file use tiff. It's a large file but keeps all the detail and never compresses. Jpegs good for everyday photos of subjects your not gonna spend time editing. Again raw is only useful if you put work into post processing.