BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

True dat. Can't recover what isn't there in a raw picture either. Well, on a jpg, you can add what isn't there. Let Unmesh Dinda (PixImperfect) show what [you] can do with a black and white jpg here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5Y8YcKnRm0

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

If you do post processing and understand what a RAW file is, I think that you would know the answer.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Some truth in that, but, the real issue is does it matter? If one shoots jpg, and one shoots raw, and no one can tell the difference on what format was originally shot, then, What Difference Does it Make?

I love doing post processing, and I try, albeit not as hard as I could, to get it right in the camera. I have not been able to identify any reason I need to shoot in raw. I've looked at plenty of photo's here and everywhere, and have yet to find a relationship between those shooting raw, and those not in the end results. Yes, I've often looked at photo's of those wearing the raw t-shirts, and still find no compelling reason to shoot in raw. I've shot and edited 100's of photo's in raw, still nothing. YMMV, of course.

Nothing wrong with shooting in raw, but nothing particularly right about it either. The results just don't compare to the massive exaggerations of the raw pundits. Is there a difference, yep, does it matter, almost never.

It gets really old listening to people say 'shoot jpg if you don't like post processing' That is pure rubbish!

penndragonn

👍👍👍

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Better to say you don't have to PP a jpg, but you can. You absolutly must PP a raw file.

Most people would be better off not PP anything, it's easy to screw up a nice picture in post, raw or jpg. Messing with colors, contrast and so on gets lots of people in trouble. But then, what fun is photography if you don't play?

Pro's that earn their living from their pictures already know if raw is needed for what they do. Most probably not, some, for sure.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

With JPEG capture you pre-process. Use a professional white balance target to nail exposure and white balance at the camera. Also set all the camera menus to your needs.

White balancing JPEGs in post is just not desirable.

fetzler Loc: North West PA

NO

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

Shooting RAW and Post Processing compliment each other in every way. They go together "like peas and carrots" to paraphrase Forrest. Many RAW shots are hardly viewable unprocessed, but become magical when PP'd.

WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

Thank you big Daddy😜👏👍

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Part of the "magic" is that they appear so bad and NEED so much PP ! and this requires lots of software, memory/hardware, time, and knowledge ....
.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

RAW says YOU FIX IT. JPG is the camera FIXES IT.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

On the contrary, shooting in RAW allows more leeway in Post Processing. Best of luck.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Or, the adjustment is much simpler because you are using ACR which has dedicated tool for white balance.
I use ACDSee for file management and it has an editor that has a dedicated white balance tool and it is simple as it gets, and works great with a lowly jpg.

True but, your camera should instantly show you pic on the screen, so if it seriously screwed up, you adjust immediately. Of course, it is still possible to lose a picture, particularly a fleeting one that may never recur, but that almost never happens. I't's happened to me so rarely that I don't shoot raw. In fact, I don't recall it ever happening to me where raw would have saved me, at least since I went digital 20 years ago.

You really should transfer the pics from your phone into your PC and file manager. I use ACDSee and for the past 1 1/2 years 90% of my pictures are sent to me from my daughters cell phone, or my cell phone. I treat them the same as any other picture, catalog them, process them etc. I have going on 40,000 photo's with key words. I only process the good ones though, maybe 5%. Another reason raw is not my friend.

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

I'll add - There is no right / wrong way, personal preferrence rules supreme. There are valid reasons for all photographic methodologies, it's the intent of the photographer that really "maps or plots" the course of action. It really is as simple as "different strokes for different folks". For the professional or advanced hobbyist, that course of action is generally already plotted (before the camera or any processing is applied) based on the requirements of the task. The reason cameras have so many capabilities and functions is to try as best to satisfy the needs of the great many. The majority of the photographic community is covered by this marketing/component/capability approach, for those who need that extra specilization, it is available too, as a matter of equipment selection.

JPEG photos can be incredible, and can also be post processed to some degree (indeed, the camera is doing the processing for you, pre-processing "and post", if you so desire), but JPEG's are often just fine for the shooters requirements, SOOC.

In the end, it really is "up to you"!!

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

This is true & false at the same time (and I do get it!!). It is really all intent & composition driven. I often see photos on this (and other) sites that I might have shot or processed differently, doesn't make them good or bad, doesn't make any processing (in camera, pre or post, external to camera post processing) bad or good.

It (other folks pictures) goes back to the personal preference part of all this, and often discounts the intent of the original photographer. When I first jumped into RAW, I had many misgivings and misunderstandings of my own to deal with, and for many situations I still shoot RAW & JPEG. After shooting RAW for some time now, I'm so comfortable with my gear and the approach I can shoot SOOC with RAW. Some may shout "heresey", but it works out for me...