Bill_de Loc: US

It's treated like one on UHH!

--

frankie c Loc: Lake Havasu CIty, AZ

OMG here we go again. Why do you care. Shoot whatever makes you happy. There seems to be this constant effort to somehow prove that one is better than the other. usually the argument is to want to hear that there is no practical difference between the two formats, especially since you are going to wind up with a JPEG anyway. Why not just cut out that un-necessary step of RAW. Nobody ever mentions that their are also some other formats available as choices. Especially important if you are actually going to print the file. OK So what. Honestly what you choose is of no particular concern to me. I make my own choices for my own reasons. I do have one question though. If you went to a bank and were going to deposit all your money, and the banker tells you that you have two choices. Choice one is a lossy account the other is a non-lossy account. Now in the non-lossy account all your money will be there with the ability to prevent loss on money do to an unforeseen event. However, in the lossy account some of your money will be immediately missing but you will hardly notice it so it's really the same as kinda having all your money there. In the case of an unforeseen vent occurring you will have no ability to recover that lost money. Which one will you choose? hey just sain :)

Bill_de Loc: US

Frankie,

For someone who doesn't care you had more to say than those who do.

--

frankie c Loc: Lake Havasu CIty, AZ

LOL... you right.... unfortunately sometimes my opinions type faster than my common sense. You prolly already know what opinions are like an I have mine. So I reserve the right to be an A-hole. Just sometimes. Thanks for reading it though :) have a wonderful evening.

Bill_de Loc: US

---

Dr.Nikon Loc: Honolulu Hawaii

I worked on and off for over a year on one to be printed on canvas .., it’s for a customer ..I believe my favorite aspect to,photography is the post editing ..> I love it ...

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

Hi Julian, I think you have much to learn about digital photography and the possibilities. As others have suggested, do an online search to learn more about the different formats. If most of your work will be done in perfect light and with colors that are all mid-range tones with little or no sky showing, JPEG might do just fine. If, however, you want to shoot anything that is challenging, such as working in high dynamic range lighting situations, RAW would be a better choice. In the end, however, what matters is are you happy with your results.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Yes, I agree with all the discussion of the virtue of RAW vs JPEG. The JPEG in modern cameras... the built in algorithms ... do a very good job of processing and plugins in edit programs further enhance.

From a practical perception view, Raw vs JPEG, excluding problematic photos, end up at the same place. Yes, color and contrast etc may differ based, on RAW operator twiddling, but usually RAW is a time consuming bragging point. Eight inks vs six, can we humans see the difference? Humans are the weak link in the process... eye/mind... and of course the projection or the printing, method of display, level the playing field.

For viewing prints is the LED 5200K bulb for $30 better than the Walmart 5200K bulb for $10... Perhaps to a spectrophotometer... but to the human eye, questionable.

Summary: If your camera settings, yes even Auto, result in a good JPEG, then why waste time and perhaps end up with worse results using Twiddled RAW.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

[quote=burkphoto]Hey, guys, raw is great, but it’s not a religion.

Amen, brother.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

There is nothing to prove. Capturing an image as raw provides at the very least, more dynamic range and detail capture. If that matters to anyone, then they need to shoot raw. Otherwise they could and should shoot jpegs. The ability to adjust all parameters of an image - including white balance - without destroying pixels in the process, a good benefit.

Bank analogy is a good one, but incomplete. The non-lossy bank will also compound interest, and you will get a bonus for selecting it. Ok, so it's a toaster oven that you already have. But it's nice to get something for free. Just sayin' . . .

johnst1001a Loc: West Chester, Ohio

Just got back from Alaska, 5,500 pictures, all RAW, even though with two cards, I can shoot RAW and JPEG at the same time. I chose to use two cards, recording both in RAW, as back up, and a good thing too, I had mistakenly selected record to only one card for about 1/3 of my pictures. Had I selected a card instructed to record jpeg then I would have lost the ability to have more leverage on picture quality in post processing with jpeg.

ELNikkor

The beauty of having an expensive, high-res FF camera is its versatility to shoot the whole range of resolutions. Even if 90% or more of my images are in low res jpeg, it is worth it to have the option of high-res, larger pixels, RAW when the opportunity to shoot a really awesome scene presents itself.

joe p Loc: Philadelphia, PA

Good analogy

Fotomacher Loc: Toronto

This topic has been discussed frequently for the last 15 years. Please research on the internet or use the search option on this site. Flamers, please back off. Newbies are people too.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Much of the cost in an expensive camera is down to video, and also to the custom adjustments. Many enthusiasts are not in to video. Apart from exposure, RAW afficianados don't need the custom adjustments. Some of them don't even know how to use them, and they tend to be the ones who denigrate JPG and/or SOOC. It has been suggested that PP is a form of chimping, whereby it is possible to keep doing it, discarding it and doing it again until it seems right. But again, the RAW club usually denigrate chimping with a supercilious smile