wteffey Loc: Ocala, FL USA

I shoot a lot of RAW images. I'm not a RAW fanatic, more of a "might help, can't hurt" thing. If I discover on download that I used JPEG only, I'm not going to freak out because RAW will only (maybe) improve an already usable shot, not rescue something really bad.

If my photo is "soft" because I missed the focus, or the subject moved, or the camera moved or the shutter was too slow for the action, or I just pushed the lens or sensor beyond it's usable envelope, RAW is not going to help. Careful JPEG processing might improve things so I am not too proud to show it to someone, but it is what it is.

Rarely is a photo "globally" under or overexposed. Usually one area is too dark, or one area too light. RAW processors have "shadow" and "highlight" features that allow an adjustment to correct this problem, but like most RAW adjustments, these are applied "globally". A good JPEG editor with layers and masks is much more precise.

As much as I concentrate of composition and timing, I still get photos that are great except for the "booger" coming out of little Johnny's nose, or the fly on Triggers nose, or the reflection on aunt Clara's eyeglasses etc. RAW is not the way to rescue these photos.

In short, use RAW to fine tune exposure and white balance, or to tone down an overactive JPEG processor if your camera will not let in do it "in camera", or just because you enjoy the RAW interface in Elements, but be prepared to learn and employ JPEG processing too.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Uh?
I agree with most of it (like getting it right FIRST*) but...

Photo editors allow for any type of edit (local or global) regardless of file format. Luminosity differences? Use a luminosity mask**.

Incidentals like 'boogers' 'flies' or 'what not' are as correctable in raw than JPG. Raw is even better at that. As to the process? It is the same.

I shoot raw and never process a JPG unless forced because I do not have a raw for whatever reason, sorry.

-----
* Using raw to correct one own mistake during shooting is rather ridiculous as a concept if you ask me. That include focusing, exposing (ISO-A-S) and compositing as you mentioned.
** Come to think of it, I think PSE added raw native edit only recently so now I am not so surprised by your comment... Upgrade.

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

Much of what you say is true. However, for me, JPG is the 'sharable' file in digital photography. It gives me the ability to easily share my images and since so much of this is done "on the web", it helps to have a smaller file.

All my images are important to me. Even the crappy ones, for I learn what not to do from them. That image starts out as an output from the sensor in my camera. For me, that is what I want to work with. That's the image. A JPG is only part of that image.

A quick search rendered this for me as I looked for something that tells us WHY we use JPG.

"This is the right format for those photo images which must be very small files, for example, for web sites or for email. JPG is often used on digital camera memory cards, but RAW or TIF format may be offered too, to avoid it. The JPG file is wonderfully small, often compressed to perhaps only 1/10 of the size of the original data, which is a good thing when modems are involved. However, this fantastic compression efficiency comes with a high price. JPG uses lossy compression (lossy meaning "with losses to quality"). Lossy means that some image quality is lost when the JPG data is compressed and saved, and this quality can never be recovered."

In short, JPG is a trade-off for when we need small files.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

I think that too much is made of the "raw is better for processing and jpg is just for sharing" thing.

I've shot jpgs exclusively for years without issue and with doing some pretty heavy handed post processing. I've printed HUGE also without issues using jpgs.

It may be that in the past this was more true but these days I think that the jpgs that my cameras spit out are more than up to the task of holding up during post.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

I've read your entire post several times and only come away with the impression that you don't understand Elements or whatever else you're using.


Are you just totally unaware that layers and masks and such can also be used to process RAW images? :roll:

Bill_de Loc: US

I agree. Things were different when we needed to save 10+ images on a 1.4mb floppy. I process a little differently for posting & emailing than I do for printing larger than 8X6. To that end I always save a copy and preserve the original.

I do shoot Raw and JPG. If I have an image that I know I will be playing around with, I use the raw image.

The images I post here are almost all from JPG, sized at 800x600 pixels including the frame. I use 'save for web' in PhotoShop and optimize file size at 150 KB. That's a carryover from the days when that was the maximum size allowed for uploading to many sights.

The quality of my posted images are adequate, IMHO, even if the photos themselves are lacking. It makes me wonder when I see uploaded images here in excess of 5MB, some in the teens. The law of diminishing returns must apply at some point.

Oh well, to each their own. There is nothing wrong with raw.

--

wteffey Loc: Ocala, FL USA

OK, when I'm wrong I'm wrong. I use Elements 12, which as far as I know, does not allow layers and masks while in the RAW editor. What is the name of the RAW editor that does allow layers and masks while editing RAW Files? Elements 14? I would seriously consider switching.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

I think the new one allows for raw editing. Download the trial version before spending your $$$

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-elements/features.html

bdk Loc: Sanibel Fl.

RAW vs JPG again. I shoot RAW, I enjoy editing my photos.
Yes I can edit a JPG in PS6 but why would I want to?
If I ever shot in JPG the camera school instructors said they would come to my house.
Take my camera and all the lenses, and then smack me on the back of the head.
I dont need that so Im sticking withe RAW

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

Comparison of raw vs JPG

http://petapixel.com/2016/02/04/heres-a-crazy-comparison-between-raw-and-jpeg/

Bill_de Loc: US

That's why I shoot both, for those rare occasions when I have to push the limits. But since I don't expose haphazardly with post processing in mind, my question is, how much will it effect a normal person, looking at a posted or printed, properly exposed image. By normal I mean someone not looking for pixels, but at the flower, landscape, bird, or whatever. Will it affect what they see.


--

wteffey Loc: Ocala, FL USA

Ah, good to know. Next time I need a really good photo of a black wall I'll make sure to use RAW.

warrior Loc: Paso Robles CA

Raw or JPEG I like to convert my photos into pieces of art. This is what I enjoy

wteffey Loc: Ocala, FL USA

I almost always shoot both. At normal viewing, the RAW result is sometimes a little better than the JPEG. I often ask my wife which is better and she frequently sees no difference. (I already hear keys clicking writing to tell me I don't know editing. Don't waste your time. I don't pretend to be an expert) Which brings me back to my original point, RAW may or may not improve a decent JPEG file, but RAW certainly will not save a really bad image.

Bill_de Loc: US

And you do just that!

--