trapper1 Loc: Southside Virginia

If there is no intention of altering an image after taking it, is there any advantage in shooting RAW vs. JPG, such as greater sharpness, etc.?


Trapper1

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

If you have no intention of altering an image there is no advantage in shooting raw. In fact there is a disadvantage. Raw files tend to be flat looking and less sharp than jpegs straight out of the camera because no in-camera settings for sharpness, contrast and color tone are applied. Only shoot raw if your intention is to edit the raw files in post processing. You can get far better results with well edited raw files than with jpegs straight out of the camera. Whether you edit them or not, raw files need to be exported to a format such as jpeg, Tiff, or DNG before they can be shared,

User ID

Agreeing with Silvers (above) .....

You wind up with a jpeg as a finished product after you finish whatever raw file processing is desired. So when none of such processing is desired, theres nothing inferior about shooting direct jpegs.

----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------

Acoarst, our UHH Sacred Tradition demands polluting the thread with *WHY* working with raw files is "always" preferable, but that is simply NOT the question here. For my own use, direct jpegs are seldom suitable, but that doesnt change my above simple reply to the original simple question.

My estimate is that we have a solid 20 pages of off topic drivel awaiting us. Im grating the cheese and melting the butter right now ;-)

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Real Nikon Lover Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Candidly, with the quality of the jpgs coming out of the Nikon color pallet it is darn hard to improve upon them. In fact many of the Raw photos I have seen post processed were actually worse than the jpg versions. As artistic impression is dumbed down and replaced with AI on demand, it will be interesting to see how the results of new artists turn out and whether they will stand the scrutiny or the test of time by serious photography professionals.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

There is NO sharpness difference between the two.

You can, if you want, place a Jpeg image in the RAW workflow of Photoshop by simply pushing the Ctrl/Shift/A keys all at once once your Jpeg. image is loaded into Photoshop.
Again, NO sharpness differences.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

It has been mentioned, RAW data needs editing to bring back all of its goodness. I agree, sharpness will be present in a RAW data and that is more evident if the camera lacks a AA filter.
The best thing that could happen to a JPEG file is to keep manipulation to a minimum.

User ID

Kinda puzzled parsing that. Please help me to "make heads and tails" of this. Where, or how, do you get to see that ?

Whose work are you talking about ? As the audience for other peoples displayed work, we dont see those two different versions. We are shown one finished product. We are not shown "how the sausage was made" :-)

Acoarst in our own work we can each readily see and compare processed raw files to direct jpegs (shot "raw+jpeg") ... but I dont imagine your disparaging remarks are directed toward your own work !

In what context, as a viewer, are you seeing both the direct jpegs and processed raw files presented for your appreciation or evaluation ? Are you an Adobe trainer or such like ?

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

It depends on the software used to process the raw data. You have to do that in both cases.

A) To create the camera JPEG the camera's embedded software must process the raw data.
B) To create a usable image (assume JPEG) software on your computer must process the raw data even if only by applying a set of standard defaults.

So, same raw data but two different renderings because of the processing software.

Camera JPEG processing software is variable across different camera brands and your answer is in that brand-dependent variability. As a general rule the camera software operates at a disadvantage because of the requirement to complete the processing quickly -- the user could press and hold the shutter release.

Without that in-camera requirement to work quickly software on your computer has the option to use different processing algorithms that take longer but also perform better.

Here's an example:
This is the SOOC JPEG from the camera and so rendered by the Nikon EXPEED processor: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/otkdu77fy8oirweqpeb36/DSC_0716.JPG?rlkey=vbk30sgmhxnxywfyssp27d5w3&dl=0

This JPEG is rendered by DXO PL-7 with minimal processing:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/keefnv3qg8bmeudqgahno/DSC_0716_DxO.jpg?rlkey=1qg56ckgevmonevrmaepy2j8v&dl=0

The PL-7 processing does a better job with the high ISO (6400) noise filtering and fine detail rendition. The Nikon software would take too long to apply competitive processing and that disadvantage shows upon close inspection.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Does it really matter what format you capture your image files if your camera still has a mirror?

leftj Loc: Texas

That's a question only you can answer.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

BUT you have not allowed for further pre-process adjustments that could have first been made in camera, by those who better understand their camera than you seem to. Your argument is therefore faulted.

bkwaters

Best answer ever.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Whether you're successful or not, you'll never actually feel the joy of accomplishment unless you shoot in RAW.

bkwaters

If there will be no post processing performed ever, than one must shoot in jpg in order to post or print the photos.

While this has nothing to do with your question, a low iso, correctly exposed and sharp photo will be no better if shot in RAW compared to JPG. As the computer and computer software have more processing power and time, flawed photos can post-processed better if shot in RAW with the post-processing often resulting in a superior image compared to a SOOC JPG. But again, that was not your question.