Rongnongno Loc: FL

Beside the obvious yes when it comes to potential and other things the difference is glaring if you compare a decoded raw file from the embedded JPG within the raw file.

I will wait a bit before posting the proof due to UHH MPD requirements (no image in the first post).

For those who cannot wait and use ACDSee or any other program that allows for switching from raw decode to JPG, check it by yourself - if you have not already done so.

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

When I shoot Raw + Jpeg, look at both in Photoshop Bridge, there is a marked difference in the two images. Some change has been made to the Jpeg, but the Raw is just as shot/as is. But I can do a lot more improvement / adjustments with the Raw image, that I cannot do with the Jpeg.

Bill_de Loc: US

Won't the raw file look however it does based on the defaults in the software used to view it? It is often said that a raw file is not an image. If that's true then the data it contains has to be interpreted. So aren't you seeing what the software decides to show you, not necessarily the way it looked in the viewfinder?

--

repleo Loc: Boston

I usually shoot raw+jpeg. The raw file is usually flater and colors a bit duller. I believe the camera displays the jpeg image in the viewfinder during review and I can notice a slight shift in intensity as the image comes up. Only / always process the raw file. I just use the jpeg as a marker so I can find what I'm looking for in Windows Explorer. I know that is very wasteful of memory. I promise to correct my ways some day.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Are we not viewing the jpeg that the software interpreted and embedded, period?

Brent Rowlett Loc: Atlanta, GA

You will not see any difference because the RAW image is viewed as a jpeg. The difference will be the amount of data contained in the file to manipulate. Also when you bring a RAW image into Lightroom, one is able to see the color temperature value, use a white pick to find the optimum color temperature and adjust multiple images to a numerical value like 3200K or what your white balance target reveals. With a jpeg it is very difficult to adjust hue with the tint sliders.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Please!!! The images!!! The images!!!

Bill_de Loc: US

Yes, until the raw file is processed (interpreted) by software. If you are talking about viewing on the back of the camera all you see is the derived JPG.

--

Say Cheese Loc: Eastern PA

I always wanted to ask that question but was not sure it was something I should have known for years. I could not see a difference between the RAW and the JPG. I missed the obvious answer. Thanks

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Even in a raw editor, you are viewing an interpreted image. The raw file is data, not an image.

Bill_de Loc: US

I think that is what I said.

--

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Sorry, I was more tuned to the "back of the camera" part.

cedymock Loc: Irmo, South Carolina

When we moved from film to digital we have become reliant on software. Both JPEG and RAW photos use software, jpeg developed in camera and raw on computer. Jpeg was for instant gratification the raw file allows us to better change the photo like what was once done in a darkroom. I also shoot jpeg and raw to help in my decision of develop or not, memory not a problem for me.

pecohen Loc: Central Maine

Of course it depends on how good your vision is.

But what you ask is not really the right question. The JPG file has been processed, perhaps well possibly poorly but it has been processed somehow. The processing was probably based on the assumptions of an engineer somewhere who made some general assumptions to establish some fixed rules for processing. On the other hand it's hard to know what you mean by looking at a RAW image. To look at the RAW image you have to use some software and depending on what that software does in order to present it to you it may appear quite different.

Perhaps you are using your camera manufacturer's software and that software does exactly the same processing by default as your camera does. In that case you will see a rendition that probably looks identical to the JPEG file (although the JPEG file has been compressed: see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyaKQnnS3A8 ).

On the other hand, the software you use may not do any processing (well, it does have to convert the RAW data to a pixel based format) on the image until you tell it what to do and in this case it probably will not look as good to you as the JPG file that has been processed even if not processed skillfully.

So what is the right question? The right question is whether you can get a better result than the camera's JPG image by applying your software's capabilities to use you skills to it in PP. With decent software and some practice you will almost surely get a better image starting with the RAW file.

After you do some processing work yourself you are apt to start asking yourself a different question. You might start asking yourself whether it would be more useful for improving your photography to buy better processing software or to spend that same money on a better lens.

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

Why ask the question if the answer is obvious??? The only real advantage I have found with shooting Raw is the ability to recover blown highlights that are about 1 stop over my JPEG files. On occasion I still shoot raw+jpeg to see what if anything magical will happen, like shooting raw makes me a better photographer.. It's doesn't in the least amount. I feel sorry for those poor bastards that think shooting raw will somehow make them and their photos float above the rest of us JPEG shooters.. If you ain't got it, Raw won't get it for yeah. A crap shot is a crap shot, is a crap shot........