rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

If the only cause of detail is subtle color difference, perhaps. I have never noticed a loss of detail; one time I used a lens that I last used thirty years ago with Kodachrome, and I was impressed by how much sharper the JPEGs were than comparable slides had been ... and I'd always assumed my that kit lens had been holding Kodachrome back.

Added: I hardly ever sharpen my JPEGs anymore, because they usually end up looking over-sharp to my eyes.

canon Lee

on a shoot I get my histogram in the ball park, making sure the whites are not too far to the right. Post is where I can tweak it to perfection (my eye). I can re-edit again and again without loss of quality. RAW is a must for me.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

I make minor adjustments some times; I've found that if I save using minimal compression each time, I don't lose anything if I start with JPEG.

In addition to my comments above, I should note that if I need to save intermediate results, I save them in the editor's native file format.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

[compressed into one response}

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

Seems that Raw is for those that strive for the best image possible and Jpg is for those that strive to get something in an image.
Bit like driving - some love the thrill of going places and seeing new things, Some are happy only when they get there.

Great shots - obvious differences and still some argue 'why it is not important'.
Donkey, water and drinking springs to mind.

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

Lee, most of what you say is very good, but this statement that you keep making "it has to be converted to a JPEG" is absolutely false, incorrect, misleading and more to the point you know that.

A JPEG is not required, it is simply one standard form of a bitmap file, of which there are several others such as TIFF and so on, some of which are vastly superior to standard JPEG files. A bitmap of some kind is required, but not necessarily a JPEG. JPEG is the most frequently used format for sharing files on the internet, but it is possible to produce digital images for either electronic display or printing without a JPEG being involved at any critical stage of the process.

It does not help to mislead people, and to claim it makes it simpler to understand as you have done previously is simply demeaning to people and adds to the problem rather than helping it. Misinformation is common on UHH, but why knowingly proliferate it?

JPEGs are fine for the purpose that they are intended for, but photography would continue, even digital photography, without the JPEG format existing.

TheDman has done an excellent job of highlighting the differences frequently observed between the potential of raw formats and JPEG format images from the camera. Please do not add confusion to the mix with misinformation.

Jim Bob

And I'm one of them-called an audiophile by my friends.

Jim Bob

Why do people feel the need to beat this dead horse over and over again? Shoot whatever the hell you want. If one has to pixel peep or examine an image under a microscope to find minor differences and is happy with the process of extracting that detail shoot RAW and leave others folks alone. Geesus. How many times do you folks need to revisit this issue? Is there some type of mass insanity on this site? On second thought, to ask that question is to answer it.

J2e Loc: Canandaigua, NY

Excellent explanation and presentation.
Thank you very much.
J2e

cthahn

RAW has more information, this is a known fact. There is a place for each. If you don't want to use RAW, don't use it. Never complain later if you wish you had.

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

Absolutely, RAW data will provide the ultimate flexibility for PP since it has the cameras original low level image capture data - jpg is processed and compressed by the cameras processor (and may also apply some unwanted color correction and other effects) so it may not be possible to recover some of the more subtle image attributes, or at the very least IQ will be compromised after recovery (vs. straight from RAW). The film analogy would be like going back in time to the undeveloped roll and applying different developer process for push/pull and other effects. That would be impossible with JPG since it's already a developed and fixed transparency. I shoot RAW+JPG usually.

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

Thank you TheDman. That was a great comparison. I personally only shoot Raw. I did my own test once. I shot raw + jpeg. Now I only shoot Raw.

Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

This was useful, but I believe it should be mentioned that the differences would be even more dramatic in print, as you implied when you mentioned not wanting to have to make a large print of the JPEG. Not that I couldn't spot the difference immediately on my iPad, but seeing it online is like playing football in mud--it helps equalize the weaker team, or in this case, helps hide some of the JPEG's deficiencies. Thanks for posting this!

MichaelH Loc: NorCal via Lansing, MI

This is a very good demonstration. I vote for moving it to the FAQ section!

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

Can't really see much difference and my family and friends not a chance