So, obviously a lot of opinions on photographing RAW or JPEG.

But maybe the conversation needs to be about something else. Maybe it should be about the quality of the overall image, both from a processing perspective and from an image formation perspective, i.e., what is a good photograph, both technically and aesthetically? Maybe it's not so much about file type. I see many photographs on this site that I'd call a snapshot (and snapshots, too, are ok at the right moment and are the keepers of our history at times) more than a photograph where someone is trying to form an artistic image in the endeavor of photography and then many people respond with how great the image is, which I often fail to see (maybe my shortcoming). I am aware that are various levels of photography and photographers and various goals in photography.

What I do know is that if you take a jpg and use it straight out of the camera (no human processing at all) it lacks that personal touch and the artistic perspective that you alone, as a human being and the photographer who took the shot, can give the photograph. Those of us who do take RAW photographs automatically do this as RAW requires processing. So, maybe the conversation should be about how we all, as individuals, actually form and process our images.

I've included below two images below, one is a RAW image (#1 - bottom) that I processed to meet what I saw and wanted to share, the other photo is straight out of the camera, untouched. I will say that the in-camera JPG processing (#2 - top photo) did not account for the degree of bright light, especially in the water in the forefront at the right side. It also made everything much darker than I would have chose to portray the scene. This scene, to me, was about the light shining on the boats and the lovely clouds in the sky (to which I added some drama). (A view from the deck of a motel I was staying at on the estuary in Oakland, CA.) The purple you see in the water on the RAW file only came across when imported on this site and might be because of the darkness of the water. Nikon D800, 24-120 Nikon lens, Fine Quality JPEG taken at same time as RAW, both exported at 2,000 pixels across for import here, 150 ppi, ISO 100, 120mm distance, f/11, 1/1000 of a second. I know someone will want to know this.

Click on the Download to see the photo larger to actually tell the difference between the human-processed photo (RAW version) and the machine-processed photo (JPEG version).

What do you think? Maybe the discussion is not about the file format as much as about the formation and processing of the image?

1. The Ansel Adams comment was mean't to illustrate the absurdity of the notion that computer time is wasted and we should be happy with the results of the jpegs. So carrying it to it logical conclusion, the consensus on this forum would be that Adams spent TOO much time in the darkroom and imagine how tedious that must of been. I can only imagine that Michelangelo must of felt the same while on his back painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel while Pope Julius II was down below berating him for not working in jpeg.

2. Galen Rowel shot 35mm with an N90s. And if he did live into today, he would be shooting raw and loving it. I don't care why he changed, but were his images any less worthy because they weren't taken with a medium format rig? Or was he then just phoning it in? That was the insinuation, that no one can do great work unless it is with a medium format camera. So, who is being the elitist now? And are you putting down DX shooters by extension?

3. The processing power of the computer is a whole tool box and not just a hammer as you say. You pick and choose the right tool for the job and you determine the level at which each is utilized. Less is better.

4. Kids today. Yes, at some point if you aspire to something beyond a snapshot you are going to have to step outside your comfort zone and learn all the tools in that toolbox. To say otherwise is encouraging complacency, laziness and does a disservice to those coming after us. I would rather see a generation of real individual artists than a bunch of drones doing the same thing day in and day out and not pushing the roadblocks aside that others have put in their way. I mean, isn't UHH mean't to be a place to learn something new?

In conclusion; this subject gets brought up time and time again because it get stifled and drowned out by the mob. Rather than just take what is said at face value and try to integrate it into your processes and determine for yourself if it is a good fit; too many get offended and pull a Berkeley riot trying to drown out other voices.
So the next time you see "RAW" in the subject line, just stay away and if you insist on joining, check your anexities at the door.

The subject keeps coming up because people like to talk about it and show everyone how great they are at post processing.

Anybody who has experience with raw and JPEG straight from the camera knows the difference and the advantage of developing from raw on the computer.

As someone who just showed up here three days ago, you may not be aware of how much this dead horse has been beaten into the ground - half way to China. The same arguments over and over again ad nauseam.

The reason via the lens started this topic was to smoke out some other ideas about what makes a good image besides raw or JPEG processing.

Aren't there some other qualities we can talk about for a change?