BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Perhaps you need another shot of Tequila?

... meanwhile somewhere in Norway Loc: none

All finished work ends up as a jpeg in most cases... My printer will only a accept Jpeg as do my magazine publishers. Jpeg is a finished product.

You don't grind a baked chocolate cake in a meat grinder, then add water, rebake it, and then expect it to taste like one made with scratch ingredients...

Jpegs take a loss each time they are edited, coppied or saved.

Jpegs can be used straight out of the camera and many do... Or if you do have time, or have a need, you can improve them using raw data... Raw data editing is the thing for you to learn to do...

Your camera edited your photo, then it's not good enough, so you edit the Jpeg some more.

Either the camera manufacturers are coming up short with their in camera editing software leaving you disappointed, or you have no personal editing skills to work with raw data... Which is it?

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Are you really that ridiculously dense. I never had the ability to edit that raw file. I never had the raw file. And it really wasn’t a good photo. Not just because of the bad processing. It was out of focus and seemed to lack any thought of composition.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Blah Blah

You obviously have no clue. I and others, have explained why this is a bogus argument. Choosing to ignore the facts won't change anything. I'll admit I don't recall anyone saying copying a jpg will result in a loss, that's more lame than most raw zealots can muster...

First, you can also edit a jpg photo, and an exceptionally large amount of the time, you can do all that's needed to that spectacular jpg photo of yours with no need for raw. Examples are everywhere.

None of the above.
You might as well have stuck with your ad hominin attacks, your knowledge on this subject is trifling.

BTW, MINIMAL editing skills are needed to edit a raw photo. You act like using a raw editor is some sort of gargantuan task that's somehow more difficult than using a jpg editor. It's not, and the user interface is simpler than a full blown jpg editor.

The difficult part is not using the raw editor, but making the adjustment needed to get colors, tones and so on correct so they look as good or better than the original jpg. THAT can require significant artistic skills, and unlike in camera processed jpgs, which normally look really good in the hands of most any photographer with decent equipment, and can be improved to the extent needed with a jpg editor with no need for raw.

I could easily say right back to you that if YOU don't have the personal skills needed to successfully work with (or take) a
jpg image then perhaps jpg editing is the thing for you to learn to do...

I'd rather not say that though, but thought you could stand to hear your silliness said back to you.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Yeah, but you used my jpg photo as an example of what was wrong with not shooting in RAW, THEN you performed a horrendous edit on my photo, which could only be done that poorly on purpose in a bogus attempt to show what is wrong with shooting in JPG mode. What you did to my jpg photo sucked, and could only show enormous incompetence or gross disingenuousness.

Turned out that you were off the wall WRONG, because that particular photo started life as a RAW file. Lack of focus and poor composition are totally unrelated to RAW vs JPG, and is EXACTLY why RAW is the last thing that makes for a great photo. The photo, Pink Flamingo can be seen here. Not a perfect photo for sure, but it was just an unplanned snapshot, but for certain, RAW had zip, nada, nothing to do with any shortcomings. Superflys incredibly horrible rendition I don't have a link, but it was ridiculous. He went to my profile and picked this one out to demonstrate how ugly jpg's are vs RAW. Stupidly, he picked the wrong photo, because it WAS shot in raw.

Basil Loc: New Mexico

Thank you. Some people assume that everyone knows as much about a topic as they do. There are a lot of relatively new photographers who likely frequent this site and who would appreciate seeing information like this, IMHO.

... meanwhile somewhere in Norway Loc: none

I think this is the part where everyone laughs at the entertainment, then orders another drink...

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Your JPEG sucked before I did anything to it. And you’re still so dense you don’t get it. You already screwed up the raw processing. There’s no way to tell if a JPEG was shot raw or not once it’s a JPEG. It doesn’t matter if it was shot in raw if you screwed up the raw processing and then created a JPEG. You are right about one thing, raw has nothing to do with focus and composition. You screwed those up whether it was raw or not. The terrible exposure problems could certainly been improved by properly processing the raw file. And “snapshot” is a lame excuse. You’re pretty much a “snapshooter”. Even if I’m shooting a snapshot I shoot it with intent, making sure I have focus and paying attention to composition.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

I would not disagree other than normally bag of popcorn would be more likely.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

I never claimed to be much more than a "snapshooter" My claim here is you deliberately screwed up my picture in a lame attempt to show what was wrong with shooting in jpg format, and turns out the photo you chose WAS shot in RAW format. Then you stupidly claim it was out of focus, and poor composition, two factors any dummy KNOWS has nothing at all to do with raw vs jpg.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

I found that photo in Lightroom on my phone. Here is your original and my rework. I want you to go over all the things that spoiled it. Could I have done better with raw? Absolutely, but I also think it’s better than what you did. And I never said shooting raw has anything to do with composition or focus. You said raw is the last thing required for a good photograph. I was just pointing out that you can’t even the first two things right.