Charlie7 wrote:
Sorry to continue the conversation, but maybe posting a photo will help. This is a photo, shot as raw, uploaded to my Mac and imported into Photos. I have exported the origin file to my desktop to attach. This is my first attempt to post a photo....hope I did it right.
You did and you didn't.....Tiff and other raw files cannot be opened 'outside of' a raw processing programme. However the steps you took will allow you to post a jpg image to UHH that will open in a larger format than 'the usual' image posted without ticking the download box.
To try to answere your thread....The original raw processors allowed you to alter a few things like white balance, crop, straighten and exposure, curves etc - you were then expected to save the changes as a jpg in order to manipulate the individual parts of the image, spot heal, clone and copy and working with layers and all the rest of the tools. PSE and early versions of PS worked in this way. Only later was the range of tools available to do much more in raw. To view the image or print the raw file it had to be converted into another format, such as jpg, tiff etc.....(mainly for outside printing as few people had a home printer). That being the case a whole raft of jpg only manipulation was created as small digital cameras did not support raw.
Times have changed.....PS, Lightroom, the new Darktable etc has many more tools available within the raw process. Some people only ever use these tools because they allow a greater 'flexibility' than the tools within a converted image... Even some of the smallest cameras support raw in some form.
The argument for and against using raw isn't about 'Can you see the difference'. It is about do I need the extra abilities offered by raw...? Some photographers arn't interested in all of the advantages (for a variety of reasons) and others use few or all of the raw capabilities as part of a their worklow plan with some or every image they take.
There is little or no cost consequences with which-ever workflow you use. At some point we all end up with a jpg or similar format for our images. This is because the file size is huge, download time is long and most outside printers still will not print a raw file.
Unless you are earning a living from your camera - photography is a fun hobby.....some people like to expand their skills to the n'th limits and others prefere to do the minimum work to get an acceptable result. Some flit between the two extremes........
Photography, since digital, has exploded into a cultural phenomena.....people use cameras daily for comfirmation of work done, 'look what I am doing/eating/buying' every hour.. to scientific inquiry 'just because they can'. to suggest one is right and another is wrong is completely senseless. But because the range of use is very broad.....post processing is squeezing the 'last drop' out of what our cameras produce. Hense the common advice to shoot raw.
I hope this gives you a non judgmental, non scientific or geeky overview of why the raw v jpg argument is about as well used as the canon v nikon debate continues.
Have fun (or work hard and hope to get rich)