kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

I save the original raws, plus edited files as 16 bit tiffs or psds if I have multiple layers. I make small jpgs for the web or other online uses. This allows me some latitude in making changes to the edited files depending on the use or situation without having to restart from the raw if I want changes.

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

But a raw file cannot be displayed or printed as is, therefore MUST be altered in order to act as forensic evidence. So can it be unbiased evidence if I alter it to my taste and sensibility. or do I leave it to an impartial, known algorithm to deliver a final image? I do not want my case to rest on how YOU think the crime scene should look. Much rather trust Fuji!

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

Ha, Ha, Gene! You know what that means down here!

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Yes! As shown in a recent post about life in different states.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-474706-1.html

Bison Bud

As a relatively new member I have to say that there is a wealth of interesting and useful information exchanged here and I thank those that contributed on the subject at hand. However, there also seems to be a lot of personal agenda and often a complete lack of respect for the opinions of others that I could do without.

With that said, I feel okay archiving jpeg images as long as they are copied elsewhere prior to any further processing or saving and as stated, I also save the original raw file so I can do it over if needed. However, due to this thread, I think that I'm going to start also converting my edits to .TIFF files and archive them as well. It will take a lot more storage space, but may save some work down the road and memory is fairly cheap these days.

Bison Bud

As a relatively new member I have to say that there is a wealth of interesting and useful information exchanged here and I thank those that contributed on the subject at hand. However, there also seems to be a lot of personal agenda and often a complete lack of respect for the opinions of others that I could do without.

With that said, I feel okay archiving jpeg images as long as they are copied elsewhere prior to any further processing or saving and as stated, I also save the original raw file so I can do it over if needed. However, due to this thread, I think that I'm going to start also converting my edits to .TIFF files and archive them as well. It will take a lot more storage space, but may save some work down the road and memory is fairly cheap these days.

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

Don't get spooked by the loud opinions here on UHH! Controversy is the spice of life - or at least in photography! And a lot of people here have just a wee bit too much time on their hands. It is better, (more genteel) after all, than watching wrestling, isn't it?

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

And it's also good that we're separated by many miles. Who wants to watch a couple of old men fighting?

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

This has been a heated discussion and I cannot remember when JPEG vs RAW was discussed previously in the forum that so much controversy was generated. I have seen some insults and disrespect for others opinions.
I have always stated that I use both files depending on the subject. I know excellent professional photographers that only use JPEG files for wedding photography and they are doing very well. If you know what you are doing a JPEG image offers lots of manipulation in post.
Yes, RAW files record all the information present at the time of the exposure and from there on it is all in the hands and creativity of the photographer when using editing software. To use the file it has to be converted to a JPEG and we loose the 14 bits, the color gradations and the color space if it was a wide color space like ProPhoto. If we save the file in the RGB color space there is no commercial printer that I know off that will be able to print that file. When I shoot JPEG I save as a TIFF in case I do further manipulation of the image in the future. What I have done has worked very well for me.
No need to talk about copying a JPEG file, it has been discussed already and Jerry among others have proved that saving a JPEG several times do no do harm to the file. I cannot speak on behalf of others but I can say that I have been very satisfied with the quality of my JPEG images and many of my best enlargements have come from those files.
No matter if we shoot RAW or JPEG, that is for each individual photographer to decide. RAW files will end up as JPEG at one time or another and those files will be compressed and data will be lost.
Modern JPEG images have come a long way since I started photographing digitally back in 2002. The majority of us cannot see the changes that take place when a 12 or 14 bits image is converted to 8 bits nor we can see either the changes in colors that take place from one color space to the other. There are millions of colors involved.
To make this short, shoot the image file you prefer but do not tell me that there is no quality in an original JPEG because that is not true.

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

Quite! I roast, grind and brew my own coffee beans. It does not mean that Starbucks is dishwater!

tomad Loc: North Carolina

As mentioned on another thread, I've tried to shoot RAW and I guess I'm just too dense to learn to use a RAW editor. I've played around extensively with several editors and I just can't seem to figure it out even though I'm a life long photographer and retired from 35 years of computer software engineering. I have a camera that takes both RAW and Jpeg and I can't edit the raw file to even get it to look as good as the same Jpeg. There are so many variables and any time I touch any of them I make the image worse than it was!

jwn Loc: SOUTHEAST GEORGIA USA

we all shot RAW...the question is do you want the camera to convert to JPEG or do you want to control the conversion.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

You get the complete file. No more compression. If you open and save it again there will be some slight but insignificant compression. Only when you open and do some heavy editing then save it again as a jpg will there be a significant amount of more compression to the file.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I imported 100 tons of soil from South America and planted my own coffee trees. I harvest the beans when they are ready, and then I go through the lengthy process of turning them into my morning cup.

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

Actually, there are labs that will print wide gamut, even ProPhoto.

I have used http://www.metalandpaper.photo/ with good results.

I think White House Custom Color will also accept Adobe RGB and Prophoto and NOT convert the images to sRGB before printing.

Here is another that I have not used, but understand they also produce high quality prints in wide gamut:

http://www.nancyscans.com/

If you print your own work and use certain Canon and Epson printers with a PC you can even send a 16 bit image to their print drivers as well as Adobe RGB or ProPhoto color spaces.

This is an excellent video that explains the benefits of working in large color spaces and has great visual comparisons that show the shortcomings of using just sRGB.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLlr7wpAZKs