AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

They are certainly "processable", it's just that the range of adjustment is much more limited. It's inherent in the format. If you don't like to do post processing, or work really hard on the principle of getting it right in camera, there is nothing wrong with editing JPEGs. But if you use a capable photo editing program, it is inarguable that you have more range to work with when you start with a full RAW image.

Some folks, and some companies, will always exaggerate to make their points. But I have nothing against those who shoot JPEG, whether or not they post process. You can make some great images that way.

All I'm saying is that for me, I want the maximum range to work with and no image degradation from subsequent editing. YMMV, as always, may vary.

Andy

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

Some people are happy to to do little Post Processing - some want to 'rebuild' their images with all the capabilities of post processing. So without any prejudice as to what is 'correct', it stands to reason that, the larger data of Raw, allows a greater ability to 'alter' in PP than the smaller JPEG file.

What few people accept is that there is a 'workload' in producing a desired image. A person's capability of getting the best shot that their camera can produce determines the amount of PP that they 'think' each image needs. Equally people have different views on what an image 'should look like' or the skill to 'to get it right in the end' for their needs.

There is no 'one fit' for everyone. Someone who simply needs a slight adjustment may be happy to have the lower capabilities of JPEG for the majority of their use. There are plenty of members on here who can work in that way. There is no right or wrong in that.

Other members want to achieve effects that they cannot get consistently 'in camera'. They have a need to learn how to do this in PP. Their choice is either to learn 'better' camera skills or use more Post Processing. So an obvious choice is to use the larger Raw file format.

Indeed as you explore photography, often Post Processing becomes a 'cheaper option' for producing artistic work than buying specialist equipment....or not actually being able to get 'any' camera to achieve a desired look. So again Raw will win out.

The desired 'workload' of getting an image for your own pleasure or sale determines where and how your skills have to be learned. And that is what is different for everyone. Despite the hype No one camera suits everyone and not everyone uses the same Post Processing software.
What works for you personally has to be explored rather than 'determined by others'.

have fun (doing it your way)

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Andy

BebuLamar

You can post process JPEG but what you can do is more limited as compared to RAW. If you shoot RAW you can do quite a bit of adjustment just in the RAW converter. If you don't want to do any adjustment then shooting RAW gives you no advantage.
So PP doesn't substitute for shooting RAW. You shoot JPEG if you don't want to do PP and shoot RAW when you do want to do PP.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I don't think anyone has said the jpegs are not processable, merely that you have a lot more leeway and options with raw and, depending on the image and your processing goals, more often than not, much better results. I've shot and processed raw and jpg files for years. While I can often get quite good results with jpeg files, raw provide me with much more flexibility, especially with images captured in difficult lighting situations.

Keen

JPEG basically edits the image before you get to, saving a reduced version of it. That leaves you less data to work with when you start editing in LR, or whatever. RAW saves all the data, and lets you decide what to do with it. JPEG is good enough for some folks, but RAW is better, as it gives you more data, and more power to make the changes you want. Use what you want, but facts are facts. An inline 4 cylinder MGA is never going to out race a V-12 Jaguar in a straight quarter mile drag.....and JPEG will never provide more post processing capability than does RAW, or even as much as RAW. You can't alter data which does not exist in the file. RAW saves more data than does JPEG.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

RAW is all the image data, JPEG is, lets say most? of it? And that might be being generous.

repleo Loc: Boston

Quite the opposite. If you shoot in RAW you almost certainly want to Pp them in LR or other program. The jpegs your camera produces have already been PP’d by an algorithm written by some team of engineers who never saw what you saw through your viewfinder. The camara will do a pretty good job most of the time , but if you want to put your own stamp on the image shoot RAW. If you don’t want to make the effort to learn or do PP just stick with jpegs. Alternatively, shoot RAW + JPEG and save the RAWs for the future.

markngolf Loc: Bridgewater, NJ

Why not shoot RAW and give it a try. It's only an easy menu selection in your camera and a few minutes in LR or PS. It is not that difficult or complex. Experiment and see for yourself. I've been shooting RAW for 10+ years and I'm far from an expert in post processing. There are many on UHH who are expert. Post processing is a bottomless pit. (at least that is what I think). I do not spend any time on layers, masks, ... I adjust exposure, occasionally use selections and let it go. One has to enjoy the process or it begins to be tedious and laborious. Not for me!!

Unless it's a one of a kind shot, I seldom post process poor exposures.
Mark

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

I agree. Lightroom does about 90% of my post processing - with the gradient tools and color, sharpness, and other adjustments, I generally don't find the need for layer masking.

BUT!

There are a few images where I've been really lucky, and I'm willing to go full Photoshop to make finer adjustments, remove objects, dodge, burn, etc. I used to really enjoy those processes in film darkroom days, and they are several degrees of difficulty easier in this new digital world. I've not played much with HDR, focus stacking, and other more exotic features, but I can see myself playing around with them in the future.

Free time is my enemy, not the technology.

Andy

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

No.

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

Nope, and nope.

I find editing a 16 bit tiff or psd file demonstrably more flexible than editing a jpeg. While you may have experience editing jpegs, your post tells me three things - a)you have less experience with jpegs, or the type of editing you do on them is considered "light" editing - b)you have even less experience editing raw, and c)perhaps your standards for image quality, the equipment you are using for your editing platform, the software etc - all lack a high level of sophistication.

But then I could be wrong - I haven't seen any of your work. If I am wrong, I guess I owe you an apology.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I believe it is true.
In my advanced age I have been shooting more often with my iPhone. Annoyingly it doesn't produce jpg images, they're jpeg images. Not to mention HEIC images. Also I find myself trying to postprocess images from my family (from their iPhones). I find definite limitations in processing with images that are not taken by my DSLR in raw. The limitations are in brightness/contrast adjustments and white balance adjustments primarily. I do not include the jpg compression artifacts that are not present in my raw files.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

No, but it is basically made for images taken in raw!

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Nonsense. You can’t recover what isn’t there.