aellman Loc: Boston MA

Thank you! >Alan

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

This is coming from a RAW shooter: If you're not going to post process then there is absolutely no value in your shooting in RAW.

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

It really depends on the subject matter and lighting conditions, doesn't it?

Here is an example of what I am talking about where a proper exposure for a raw file results in a poor exposure for jpeg. I took these a couple of hours ago. First pic is the best I could get without blowing out the overcast sky, straight out of the camera, no adjustments. Its a lousy jpeg for sure. But because I shot raw, the second image is after a brief time spent in Lightroom. I adjusted the white balance to 4865, highlights to -100, shadows up to +77, exposure to +.57, blacks to -25, clarity +17, Saturation +19, dehaze +36. It took me all of 2 minutes to get the result you see. I'm pretty sure that you can't get to the second image starting with the first image as a jpeg. I would welcome anyone, including yourself, to give it a shot, and get it done in 2 minutes or less. Oh, yeah, its a two frame pano, merged in LR.

I don't think the value of raw is overstated at all. It is a faster and better way to get to a good result, and 99% of the time the result is better. If you have a limited experience with raw or have used poor tools to edit raw files (like faststone, picasa, etc which are not really raw converters), then your choice and recommendation is completely understandable.

(Download)


(Download)

James56 Loc: Nashville, Tennessee

Here's my attempt using only the 1st jpeg. Processed with PSE, Topaz Detail and Clarity. I didn't time it, but it came out nice. But your right, Raw gives you more of a chance to recover from poorly exposed images. I recommend Raw, but if you don't have it...don't fret, some jpegs be processed nicely (like this one).

(Download)

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

Raw V Jpeg in this forum is akin to Full Frame or Crop, Nikon V Canon etc. You will get a lot of replies expounding individuals experiences rather than any really practical advice.
As you say you do actually post process your images (we all have to otherwise we would never get any results out of the camera) I would suggest that you try shooting RAW+Jpeg and looking at the images on the two processing options that become available on most PP programmes. The Raw options sometimes will only open when a Raw file is present.(you can use it on a Jpeg if you search for how.) You will notice that the RAW file looks like a bland alternative to the Jpeg that sidecars it. That is because it has not been 'created' into what your camera manufacturer thinks you want as a final image. By the way RAW can also be processed differently by different RAW programmes. (That's really not what you want to know!) This seemingly makes a RAW image 'Virgin' to some people or an unnecessary pain in the ass step to others.
If you are good enough in PP'ing your images RAW will allow you to better? /alter?/change? the Jpeg that you are used to seeing (and then PPing ) But you can do lots more to an image in PSE once it has become a Jpeg!!!!! hence the confusion about 'the benefits of working with RAW files. Some people think half the work is already done by shooting Jpeg others think that the initial work done to a RAW file makes an even better finished product. You will need to make a 'copy as' Jpeg to print it in any case.
At the end of the day - how good are you at tweeking the sliders, working with levels and curves, etc before you want to open up new layers and add fairy dust to your grannies portrait? Post Processing images allows you to change what the camera recorded to what you think you want the image to look like. That bit is up to how good you are and how long you want to work on it..
Try it and see or rather try it and see what others think is the better image. Self delusion in the 'quality' of an image is a whole different topic.
Have fun and shoot whatever way is 'right' for you.

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

Good job, for a jpeg.

But I don't understand when you say "Raw gives you more of a chance to recover from poorly exposed images" it does that - but raw involves a different mindset when it comes to camera settings - my point is that what constitutes a "poor exposure" for a jpeg is a perfectly normal exposure for a raw file. Case in point, the adjusted jpeg has halos around the trees against the sky, and it has some strange artifacts across the sky at the left side of the green tree and faintly in other sky areas. Also, the sky has a magenta cast, and poor detail rendition. Granted, you were only working with a file that is 2048x1787, but the difference is clear, and even clearer if you were to print these. I look at students work all the time, and at this point I can easily tell which images were processed from raw and which were done as jpegs out of the camera.

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

One analogy I like to use is the following. You have an orchestra with one violin, one, viola, one clarinet, one french horn, one kettle drum, one tuba, one trombone, etc - basically one instrument per section. Then you have a full-blown orchestra with 4-6 instruments per section, each with it's own score that complements the other instruments in the section and the orchestra on the whole. Which one do you think is going to sound richer and fuller?

Editing a jpeg, with a limited color gamut and bit depth is like trying to get big full sound out of the first orchestra.

jcboy3

If you don't post process, then you can't use RAW files. They don't have any processing done to them in camera. The camera processes the image data to generate the JPG, applying a number of settings (white balance, contrast, saturation, etc.)

But if you don't post process even the JPG files, then you are missing getting the best out of your camera.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Thanks for the demo. I am sure that the first picture is probably closer to the scene as it really was, but I'll bet the second image is the one you envisioned when you took the photograph. I really enjoy the second one. The first one, not so must at all. And yet the basic difference is RAW versus JPEG. And I realy do like the second shot since I was not able to get out and do any fall colors this year. Really good demo of RAW versus JPEG.

BJW

While we are on the topic of post-processing, is there any benefit to Lightroom 6 vs Lightroom Creative Cloud?
Thnx

Grnway Loc: Manchester, NH

Well said, and demonstrated, Gene!

Many of us who shoot raw and use PP have done something very similar to what Gene has shown.

Here's my take: I tend to shoot both raw and jpegs. Many of the events I shoot (school sports, political events, etc.) require immediate availability to the target audience. They may go on a Facebook page, school yearbook, or similar. They're not looking for perfection and, quite frankly, there's usually little need for PP. The dynamic range of the photos, in those situations, are not extreme enough between the highlights and shadows. In-camera processing usually will suffice. They get fine jpegs.

However, when I look at my raw files, I may want to work on some of them at a later date to see if i can tweak them a little.

Shooting just in jpeg is like shooting film, and throwing away the negatives. Sure, you'll have the jpeg files, but you'll have an altered file that was not was originally shot by the camera. You never know when you'll want to reproduce and improve them later on, even if you have no interest in them now.

par4fore Loc: Bay Shore N.Y.

For me most of my jpgs are fine but just like film in the film days, I always wanted my negatives in case I got that one shot worthy of a contest or printed display. Raw is my digital negative. For me the best use of raw (when needed) is going back in time to adjust the exposure.
Don't short change yourself, shoot both.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Not if you don't process. They will look worse. If you want to get into processing, raw offers advantages. Some good links -

http://www.lightstalking.com/these-are-the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-shooting-raw/
http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2015/02/25/7-things-didnt-know-raw/
http://photographyconcentrate.com/10-reasons-why-you-should-be-shooting-raw/
http://digital-photography-school.com/raw-vs-jpeg/
http://reframe.gizmodo.com/why-you-should-be-shooting-raw-in-one-simple-gif-1607230731

Satman Loc: Indy

I do some processing, at 75 I can relive the moment, clean up the picture, and see it in a new light..

Isn't progress great, now if we could just clean up the past...

Software will improve, present the best pictures you can...you may never know what you missed..

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Alan, as you stated in your question, that you don't post process, your best bet is to shoot in both RAW and jpg. That way, if you ever decide to learn the few post processing steps you'd need to utilize all of the information captured in the RAW format, you'll have those images. But, if you don't wish to do post processing at the present, you'll still have the jpg images you can use right out of the camera.

Utilizing the jpg format and its limited ability to be processed, it more like using a Polaroid camera.
--Bob