jenny wrote:
* * * * *
You certainly wouldn't want to make a print from a RAW file as it is simply raw, i.e. unprocessed. It contains all sorts
of junk that needs to be discarded, which is what is done for you to produce a JPEG version.
Often the "reason" for not choosing a JPEG is that the mfr. is making the decision for you. But JPEG is more than a processed picture,
it is a group of internationally known expert photographers who set the standard. If you know better, then you must be an expert.
The next common objection to JPEG then is that you will lose IQ (image quality) by improving your JPEG, but it can
actually take quite a lot before that happens. And to claim that it can not be saved from this is ridiculous because
you can make copies of the JPEG original and work on the copies, saving both the original and any # of versions without
ever degrading the original. The last "reason"for using RAW totally unprocessed exposure is that of being able to save a big
mistake such as over-exposure of white or highlights where visible detail is lost, and shooting RAW allows correction better.
However, that insurance against over-exposure is limited since if over-exposing has lost all detail it can not be recovered.
You will need more storage space if you save RAW files, and all that extra space is the junk you eliminated in processing.
You will need to convert to JPEG for most purposes anyway. 99% of the time I see RAW promoted on this forum, it is not
for doing something better but to correct mistakes, claiming everything can be saved with RAW and post processing, and
most of those "reasons" stem from not understanding one's camera, neither exposure nor the settings one can use
for the best image before pressing the shutter button.
Be prepared, however, that in asking the questions you chose, you stepped into a never-ending and very "uncivil" war of words,
opinions, and "reasoning". So look at the top of any page you are on and find the SEARCH option, press the button and find
that this subject has been argued to total exhaustion for anyone who has been here long.
* * * * * br You certainly wouldn't want to make a... (
show quote)
Jenny, it's a simple matter of science. Perhaps it would be good if you were to research the scientific differences between JPEG and RAW and then comment based on fact. A RAW file holds more data and thus a larger color array, which can, in some cases make a big difference in the finished product (especially in a sky). Also, when attempting to get a photo that you want to be very bright in color RAW is the only format that can provide this effectively and will allow you to shoot one to two stops over the camera JPEG image you seen on the camera screen and still capture all highlight data, thus obtaining the most color available for that image. Color is captured on a camera sensor in linear fashion, from light (with light holding the most overall tones) to dark, and RAW can capture more of the light tones than JPEG. This is only one benefit of RAW capture, there are several other benefits as well. If you, or others, are happy with your results in JPEG that's great. It's all about what the individual photographer is happy with in meeting their goals in photography and there are many levels of photographers, from beginners to the most accomplished, and many levels of knowledge about photography.