GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Your D750 has a 24 megaPIXEL sensor, puts out 34 megaBYTE raw files, and it sounds like you're saving as a TIFF.
One is a measure of quantity, the other of file size.

Bill_de Loc: US

I would guess that many of the folks who only shoot raw (I did for many years) have simply missed the improvements that have been made in jpg processing over the years. Both in camera and computer based software has come a long way.

With all the in camera options the argument that you are letting the camera make the decisions for you is no more valid than saying that PhotoShop is making the decisions.

---

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

Very well said! I for one agree, but there is going to be a poop storm comin

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

Dale40203 Loc: Louisville, KY

To see exactly where the differences lie between a JPEG and RAW version of the same exposure, open both in Photoshop. Copy one and paste it into a separate layer in the other. Choose "Difference" in the Blend Mode selector. This will compare every pixel in each layer with its corresponding pixel above or below it. If there is no difference, the result will be null or black. Most of the differences will be found in transition boundaries or in areas containing very subtle blends.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

It seems to me that there has been a bit of a misunderstanding over the years about what is physically involved when one or the other of the available file formats is chosen for saving images captured by the camera, as well as what the real advantages are of one format over another. Basic capabilities of the various formats clearly vary, with JPEG built around a bit depth of 8, most raw formats either 12 or 14, and TIFF at 16. Fundamentals of file management also vary, especially the degree and robustness of compression algorithms, both between and within file formats.

The primary advantages of JPEG as I see them, are that the files tend to be of more reasonable size for a given pixel count and that almost anyone has a viewer capable of opening the files. Raw provides more image depth, but the ability of others to open files can be very limited. TIFF (the "forgotten format") actually offers 2 or 4 more bits of image depth than most raw formats, and also enjoys the benefit of standard viewers being widely available.

I saved my images exclusively as JPEGs for many years, and there are some very acceptable ones among them. The ones that aren't cannot be blamed on the file format. Last spring I bought and installed Lightroom and Photoshop to augment other editing software that I'd been using, since my wife signed me up for a night sky workshop as a birthday gift. Let me say that I do understand the benefits of post processing and no longer argue against it. But I agree with MT Shooter and others here that with proper preprocessing it is possible to capture images that can require little or even no additional work, especially with modern cameras.

We have seen that well crafted 8 bit images can produce images that are not easily distinguishable from others. It's not automatic that this will happen, but it is possible. And it is possible to save the resulting JPEGs in a form that will lose very little, if any, detail if all pixels are retained and if the option of minimum compression is selected (Fine & Large on at least a majority of cameras). If any post processing is accomplished in one session and the results saved once, little or no information need be subsequently lost as well.

Multiple areas of photography lend to a multitude of different solutions. File format, preprocessing, and post processing are certainly among these.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

You should always be able to edit a raw image to look better than sooc jpg. You simply haven't mastered editing raw files. In a lot of cases a jpg is as good as a raw image. It's the rare occasion where certain photos shine when taken raw and are edited properly to bring out detail that a jpg can't display. In many cases when a landscape picture is taken and it include a blue sky where the sky changes grades of blue subtly that the 8-bit jpg image will cause banding. You have to edit the crap out of that image to try and get rid of the banding. But taken as a raw and edited and saved as a 16-bit image, this will not be troublesome. Certain white fabrics worn by people look very white while rendered in camera as a jpg, but when adjusted in ACR as a raw, you can bring out detail that you couldn't see in the jpg such as slight waves and wrinkles in the fabric and texture in the fabric. Some of these details aren't going to be noticeable if you aren't editing your raw files to the images full potential.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Even I would agree that having the sun behind you doesn’t tax the camera. My m4/3 gear can do that. So that isn’t going to say much in favor of shooting jpegs.

Have the lighsource in front of you and there is no camera that can record the DR.

THAT is a reason to shoot raw.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

I guess you just need more practice at reading your own byline!

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Looks like you need practice as well.

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

Smooth color and tonal transitions from using a wide gamut, 16 bit workflow throughout your editing process until final output. Jpegs can show banding and other undesirable effects. Also, for the highest quality, seek out a lab that uses wide gamut inksets on top shelf paper. If you can find one local to you that uses a Roland printer with the Symphony inset you'll be in for a treat.

You don't need to resample your images to 300ppi. Labs use hardware raster image processors that do that automatically, as well as anti-aliasing and other image enhancements that home printers typically don't offer. And while you can always buy one, they are expensive.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

-OR- multi image JPEG HDR ... and post processed.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Right, that will also work. You are correct, but MT claims something that isn’t there yet. Hdr scene in one jpeg shot.

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

They are seeing the Light.............

erickter Loc: Dallas,TX