controversy Loc: Wuhan, China

An article from Aaron Nace of PHLEARN:

The RAW vs. JPEG Showdown: Which File Format Do You Really Want?

http://phlearn.com/magazine/the-raw-vs-jpeg-showdown-which-file-format-do-you-really-want/

JD750 Loc: SoCal

OMG here we go again. This has been argued incessantly here and in the photography blog sphere. Strong opinions exist on both sides. Here is my strong opinion (from the article):

There is a time and a place for each method.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

RAW is NOT an image format, JPEG is. You can't really compare the two because they are different things. RAW is strictly unprocessed data with a JPEG thumbnail embedded. If you don't want to take the time to process the data (develop the image), don't shoot raw and don't make any mistakes that can't be corrected as a JPEG. If you want almost total control of your images, shoot RAW.
Why do people keep comparing unprocessed data to processed data?! If you want to compare image formats, compare JPEG to TIFF or something like that.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

It's argued so much because there are a whole lot of people who don't understand the difference. They don't seem to grasp the concept that RAW is NOT an image format, it's simply unprocessed data. Until people understand the difference between unprocessed data and formatted processed data, they will continue to mistake one for the other and argue what is better. All JPEG'S start out as RAW.
I will not be reading the article; I already know the difference, and I usually shoot RAW.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

That is actually a pretty good article. Thanks for posting it and welcome to the UHH forum.

I notice that we already have some people arguing, because, they say, they are so tired of arguing about this.

Should we expect you to live up to that username?

Mike

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

This is something that does not seem to ever end. There is a place for JPEG files and a place for RAW data.
RAW data has the advantage of allowing to work with 16 bits, that is not supported by a JPEG that has only 8 bits. It makes a significant difference when it comes to banding and it holds all of those colors better.
I shoot both files depending on the subject and circumstances.

Al Beatty Loc: Boise, Idaho

Hi group,

I shoot RAW + JPG Fine because storage space is fairly inexpensive. My day-to-day work is photography for catalogs, magazines, and book which require JPG images (a few editors request TIF images) so I use and adjust the JPG files based on the current need. JPG's have all the latitude I need to fit within the dynamic range confines of the average 4-color, printed page.

On the other hand, I save the RAW files for possible future needs like processing for enlargements for wall hangers, etc. (seldom happens). JPG works great for most of the stuff I do. I guess I could say I shoot JPG for my current needs and RAW for any future needs. I think it's a good idea save as much detail as possible so you can access that information in the future when/if needed - RAW + JPG does that for me.Take care & ...

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

“One advantage of jpegs over raw is file size out of the camera.” But, not so fast. Usually, raw file sizes that I see depending on the camera is something between 12 and 24 meg. Jpegs, approx 6-8 meg. However, depending the raw post processing and after export, its not uncommon to see jpegs of 8-9 meg at 100% quality. Save at 90% instead of 100% and file size are a more reasonable 3-6 meg.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I shoot RAW+JPEG.
JPEG for quick viewing in Windows Explorer.
RAW for primary editing (the RAW editor saves the slider settings), and save it as another JPEG for printing & posting.
I only edit what I want to print or post.

xt2 Loc: British Columbia, Canada

Yep, this dialogue has been so over-worked here on UHH. I like both, since discovering Fuji's fabulous JPEG simulations I shoot both simultaneously and have almost completely switched over to JPEG with a bit of post in Luminar 3 or Capture One. Great results with no "pain." But, why would any other reader care?

Cheers!

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

I am not certain that is 100% accurate. Both formats are a set of "instructions" that when interpreted by a program will display an image on a screen. JPEG is a universally available format, raw files are proprietary. Also, it is not "RAW" since it is not an acronym, it is "raw." Do Canon .cr files go through some sort of behind the scene JPEG conversion step in order to be seen? For the image displayed on the LCD screen on the camera, the answer apparently is "yes." But in DPP (Digital Photo Professional)? I don't think so.



I don't think this is necessarily true, either. Canon cr raw files don't take any time to "process data" and whether or not a person is making so-called "mistakes" has nothing to do with which format to use. I work with raw files because the subtle color variations and fine detail that are critical to the results I want with the subjects I shoot are better represented in raw files than they are with camera generated JPEGs - much better - and that is before any "processing" or time consuming effort. The quality of the JPEGs and especially of the TIFF files that I output from the raw files for posting online and printing, almost always with very little work - a few seconds - is almost always much better than could ever be achieved by starting with camera generate JPEG files. Typically none of that involves "mistakes that can't be corrected as a JPEG," although it is much easier to salvage marginal images when working with raw files, However, for me, since the raw files gives such better feedback, such a better representation of what the sensor captures, that working with raw files means far, far fewer "mistakes" and much improved "in camera" images. Working with camera generated JPEGs is always a guessing game and results are less predictable.

Working with raw files has meant less time spent, less skills required, more predictability and far better image quality. For me the decision to work with raw files was a "no brainer" as the saying goes - once I saw them, which is why I think the idea that "you can't see them" is misleading. I can "see" them. I can "see" them before any "processing" which is why I think the idea that raw takes a lot of time and skill in pp can also be misleading.

There is an unbelievable amount of confusion about this topic and I don't claim to be an authority. I am describing my experience.

Mike