BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

These are some great images. These images can be edited if you wish with any decent jpg editor, and you can easily adjust things to a pretty large extent if you you wish with the jpg files. To me, the fact they needed no editing is a not particularly good, since I enjoy editing as much or more than taking the pictures to begin with. I shoot 98% jpg and have zero problems editing my jpgs, and after many many years of shooting and editing jpgs, I can't think of one occasion where I wished I had shot in raw instead. I know this upsets those wearing the raw T-shirts, but so be it. Raw is the last thing that makes for a good picture.

David Martin Loc: Cary, NC

A jpeg is simply the result of allowing your camera to process the RAW image, according to algorithms baked into the camera. You often have the choice of which algorithm is used by your camera, for example "neutral" or "vivid." If you are happy with the result, shoot jpeg.

Others prefer to do the editing themselves and shoot RAW, allowing them to finely tweak white balance, sharpness, saturation, contrast, etc. according to their personal taste, rather than allowing the camera to do it. In addition, perhaps selectively lightening shadows more than the camera's algorithm would have done, or darkening the highlights. Or shifting the color balance.

Jpeg files are compressed and therefore smaller, however the compression is "lossy", meaning that some potentially important data may have been lost. For example, in some cases, it is possible to "rescue" additional data in the deep shadows or bright highlights in a RAW file, that have been lost in the jpeg. It is sometimes quite surprising what can be rescued.

My personal preference is to edit RAW.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

GeneinChi - Pick an opinion you like and run with it.

Or formulate your own.

LEWHITE7747 Loc: 33773

Great answer -To each his own.

KenProspero

To a Beginner

You will probably be able to do most or all of what you want to do now with JPEGs. Also, JPEGS have the advantage (IMO) of looking better with no post-processing.

On the Other Hand -- there are advantages to RAW (read the rest of this thread). If you think you'll advance as a photographer eventually, you may want to start learning now.

Here's what I might recommend. You have two cards -- shoot one in RAW and the other in JPEG. For your 'average shots' where you don't want to spend a lot of time -- work with the JPEG. For the handful of great shots, work with RAW.

In time, you'll decide whether it's worth moving over to RAW entirely.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

That's just false. One simple example: I will switch demosaicing methods/algorithms when processing raw files depending on the image content. Show us how you change the demosaicing algorithm for a JPEG.

That's just false. For example it's much more difficult to adjust WB in a JPEG than raw file and you've personally proven that in the past.

That is just false. Show us how you can load a JPEG into a raw editor and change the JPEG's input profile.

You do this periodically -- you're clueless and you should stop misinforming people.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

Hi. Shooting in RAW or JPEG is simply a personal choice based on the end result you desire. You have been letting your camera decide how to process your images and if that is working well for you than that is fine. If, however, you want to do more with your images, using all of the potential information available in the file, you would need to switch to shooting in RAW. If I were shooting family photos, a day in our life type of thing, I'd use JPEG. But when I'm shooting in the hopes of creating fine art type images I shoot in RAW. I happen to like processing and mainly shoot in RAW so I can control what processes happen with my image. When shooting in RAW I can change all of the parameters in the processing application to suit me without much thought given to if I am creating artefacts (original British spelling) in my image (although I did just manage to do that in the sky of an image!), an artefact is, in essence, digital pixels gone wrong. You can easily research the subject of artefacts in photographic images online. It's much easier to have artefacts in an 8-bit file, JPEG, as downsampling occurs to compress the file and there is data loss, than in a 16-bit RAW file, so a high image quality is more likely to be kept in a RAW file, which may not matter for online posting or a small print but will matter a lot more for a larger print. Also, if shooting RAW a photographer can process for his or her vision, whereas the camera simply uses an algorithm. Shoot a couple of RAW images plus JPEG images and play with the RAW files to see if you like what you can do versus what the camera can do. A caution on shooting both types of files, set up a defined way to manage them prior to downloading as it can get confusing if you don't.

NickGee Loc: Pacific Northwest

This could not be farther from the truth. RAW has everything to do with post processing (i.e., "advanced editing techniques"), given the right software. Listen to CHG_CANON. He's giving you the best answer to your question.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

As usual, you can't even get your browser to quote properly. The above quote is all the hog copies from your post. YOU are the only one the hog fails to quote properly.

You are a prime example of someone with no clue trying to get the entire world to look at their pictures with a some sort of electron microscope and Xray vision, noticing things only you can see, and ignoring the billions and billions of fantastic pictures taken and edited in jpg. Two wonderful jpgs were just posted by LEWHITE7747 in this thread, and RAW was not needed in the least. Both jpg images could be edited to your hearts desire with any decent jpg editor, including loading them in the RAW editor if you wanted.

Raw is the LAST thing that makes for a good photo, and your pontifications change nothing.

LEWHITE7747 Loc: 33773

Sometimes it bothers me that people say in JPEG files are the camera's version via algorithm. What about the camera settings, the physical position of the camera, the light source, the time of day etc. This is not an algorithmic equation. Experience and expertise of the photographer represent a large portion of the finished image. If you have to rescue part of the photo via RAW maybe one should practice his skills as a photographer. I realize some circumstances circumvent ideal conditions and a photo may take a lot of recovery. RAW has its place.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

I have plenty of knowledge and experience in taking raw and jpg's and editing them both.
Good luck to you as well. Your wrong about my knowledge of what I speak, so your gunna need lots of luck.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

You said: "Raw has nothing to do with advance editing techniques. You can do the same things to a jpg as you can to a raw..." That's false. Prove it's not false and answer my question, "Show us how you change the demosaicing algorithm for a JPEG."

You said: "Re-read CHG_CANON reply, it is accurate other than all 12 of the issues he listed can easily be edited in a jpg image." That's false. For example it's much more difficult to adjust WB in a JPEG than raw file and you've personally proven that in the past. Do you need me to dig up the old post where you demonstrated you're wrong?

You said: "Also note that a jpg image can be loaded into a raw editor and has all the same tools available as with a raw file." That's false. Prove it's not false and answer my question, "Show us how you can load a JPEG into a raw editor and change the JPEG's input profile."

You do this periodically -- you're clueless and you should stop misinforming people.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

What advanced editing techniques would be only available to raw images?
I can edit jpg's using all the same tools and techniques used on raw files. You are misinformed.

All 12 issues listed by CHG_CANON can be edited in a jpg file. Unless gross mistakes were made in exposure and tonality, raw will not be needed to tweak the jpgs to your liking. The last thing that makes for a good photo is shooting in raw.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

That's false -- you can not use all the same tools and techniques with JPEG that are used with raw. One simple example: I will switch demosaicing methods/algorithms when processing raw files depending on the image content. Show us how you change the demosaicing algorithm for a JPEG.

You're the one misinformed and you should stop spreading misinformation.