Tom DePuy Loc: Waxhaw, N.C.

I took one photo, had my camera set for raw-jpeg normal...
Only thing I did was crop and convert the raw file over to jpeg so I could post on here. Wanting to see what if any differences might show....I ve noticed that some of my photo's that I post are grainy...Ive been shooting in raw an then converting to jpeg's for postings....
also these were shot with my d7100 and my 55-200 mm kit lens

original jpeg

(Download)

raw converted to jpeg

(Download)

catalint Loc: oslo

not sure if I am 100% correct here, but I have the same kit and I can say that the RAW file needs to be PP in order to lose grain. On the JPG version there is already applied noise reduction.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

You are forgetting that when you are working with raw images, they NEED processing. You must do more than just crop it. This is where raw is superior to jpg. You have more data for post processing or manipulating on a raw file vss. a jpg so you can sharpen, remove the artifacts and noise, bring up the contrast, brightness, shadows and end up with a better image than the 'in camera processed jpg' image.

chaman

If you are using RAW and just converting them to JPEG you are loosing your time.May as well just shoot JPEG and let the camera handle the file for you. You must be committed to work the RAW file in PP and consider that as important as taking the initial shot.

Bill_de Loc: US

If most of your images are satisfactory with the in camera processing of JPG, that is great. That is why the camera makers spend so much time and money improving that process. And, although many would disagree, you still have a of latitude with a JPG in post processing. Raw will provide more wiggle room if you need it.

RAW processing works if you learn how to use it. I have noticed here and on other sites that many who spend a lot of time professing that RAW is the only way to go, rarely post a really good image. On the other hand, many of the photographs posted here after RAW processing are fabulous. It's good to have choices.

Almost everything I post is JPG. Take a look, and consider the image quality, not necessarily the content. I like to show, rather than just tell.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/user_topics_listing.jsp?usernum=61331&page=1

--

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I tweak my photos in the RAW editor and convert and save (over top of the existing JPEG), saving the RAW. The RAW can always be adjusted again, and saved as a new JPEG if I desire. The original RAW image never gets altered.

Bill_de Loc: US

You just reminded me of something. I save my JPG's with the file name the camera assigned. When I finish editing I 'save as' with an appropriate name. So, my JPGs, like your RAW images never get altered. The originals never get saved multiple times, so there is no degradation.