planepics Loc: St. Louis burbs, but originally Chicago burbs

At my camera club meeting last night we had a presentation on Lightroom (something I've never used) by a guy who teaches it, does travel seminars (domestic and global) and is a pro photographer and graphic designer (for about 35 yrs), and someone asked a question about the difference (aside from data storage requirements) and his response was "Shooting JPEG is like coloring with the basic 8-crayon box while shooting RAW is like using the whole Crayola factory. I guess maybe I should start trying to shoot in RAW more often. he also said Lightroom is easier to use and he can do 90-95% of everything he needs to do in Lightroom.

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

Very accurate analogy with the crayons. But that is hardly the main reason. RAW captures much more level information. This means that shadows can show detail rather than just black. And where a sky may be washed out in JPG, RAW may have sufficient details that the image can be fixed.

The JPG is your camera's attempt to represent what the picture is and it is scrunched down to 8-bit levels for each of the 3 colors -- red, blue, green.

But RAW saves the information in 12-bit or even 14-bit resolutions (typically the full frame cameras).

Since RAW is not preprocessed, it needs to be post processed to look good. Straight out of the camera, JPG will actually look better. But once processed, the RAW can far exceed the JPG.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

It really depends on your editing program and how much attention you dedicate to it and your skill with it.

Its not for everyone.

asjohnston3 Loc: Irving, TX

Ditto on the Crayon analogy..... Nikon .NEF files just have so much more usable data in them... I have Lightroom but am currently using an open-source program, FastStone Image Viewer 5.3 most often for my initial review of files.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Uh oh, here we go, Déjà vu all over again!

If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try again..., or just shoot raw (and jpeg if you wish) and get over it!

Not that raw is intended to let you get away with a lax approach in any way, shape or form, but it offers so many possibilities that jpeg simply does not.

"Somewhere, along the road, inspiration waits for you,
Somehow a guiding light, always shows the way...."

with apologies to Cathie Ryan, and a shout out to Maggie Prior...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVblehWofVk

juicesqueezer Loc: Okeechobee, Florida

I started using Lightroom last year and have not looked back! Great program and easy to learn. Great analogy with the crayon's. I still try to get it right in the camera, but when all else fails, I'm glad I shoot RAW.

Mr PC Loc: Austin, TX

I'm a big believer in getting it right in the camera, but I enjoy post processing. For HDR and other shots that may need detail recovered from shadows, you can't beat RAW. I also do a lot of bird and wildlife photography in continuous shooting mode, so for that, I prefer JPG, so I can shoot more action shots without filling the buffer. It really depends on what type of image you are interested in making, there are always tradeoffs. I'd rather start with a RAW image, but there are situations where I wouldn't get the same number of good shots if I were shooting in RAW. Good luck.

n3eg Loc: West coast USA

You can keep your 8 pack of JPG crayons, I've got the RAW box of 64 WITH THE SHARPENER!

SteveR Loc: Michigan

So what if you have the whole Crayola factory when you shoot in RAW? Once you convert the photo to jpeg or tiff, that factory is lost and you're reduced once again to the 8 crayolas. Can anybody explain it any differently to me? I've had this question since I went to the Nikon seminar and never gotten an answer.

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

Not exactly the right way to look at it. If you have a picture with a large dynamic range, meaning it ranges from very dark to very bright, there is a lot you can do with the RAW image that isn't available to the JPG image. For instance, you can pull detail out of the darks. And you can pull detail out of the brights, and then shift lows higher and highs lower such that you get the entire scene in your result.

Now JPG is not entirely defenseless here. Cameras often have the means to inrease the dynamic range, sort of like you do in post processing. My Sony cameras have settings for this and can keep detail from the darks and highlights and produce an image that is improved over not using it. These cameras also have the option of doing image bracketing in camera and producing an HDR type result. Neither is as good as can come from the real RAWs, but they certainly are better than not using it, and they don't require post processing.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Or possibly received an answer and not comprehended it entirely....

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Not from anybody on this forum. Perhaps you can enlighten me. So....are all the color tones of RAW lost or not when converting. If not, please explain how they are are not lost. This would make a tremendous difference on how I view RAW.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

It is pretty simple. A raw file retains all the original data captured by the camera. Nothing is discarded. Edits made to the raw file are recorded like a recipe, a set of instructions to process the file , but the changes are only enacted each time the file is opened, the original file remains unchanged. The recipe can be deleted or changed but the original image data is preserved .

Only when that raw image data file is converted to a jpeg is infomation discarded. Since the jpeg is a different file - with less information and with changes made permanently, there are now two versions of thr image data captured by the camera , the original raw data plus the recipe, and the resulting jpeg from implementing the recipe .

Only if the raw file is deleted is the original data lost . So long as the raw file is retained any number of jpegs can be created, either the same or different if the recipe is changed.

Don't know if that helps, but you could think of jpegs like pages copied from a book. So long as you keep the original book nothing is lost and you can copy as many pages as you want as often as you want. If you discard the book you cannot restore it to its original form from the copied pages.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Sorry Peter, but that's nothing new. I knew that the original RAW file would be unchanged and contain the original data.....the Crayola factory. However, what good is it to have the Crayola factory in a the Raw file if you can't get that wide palate of colors into your print? In order to print, you have to compress the file, losing all that good data, ending up with the 8 crayons to print from. That's the problem. You have to discard all those beautiful color tones. What good does it do to shoot in RAW if you can't get those colors into your print???

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

OK, we agree to differ. We see a different light. I'll keep the book and as many copied pages as I want, you just get the copied pages.

I think it is sad to throw away a good book, but each to his own.