olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

It's a strange conversation(1)............ I like the example you posted, I think it makes the statement/makes the point, sweet and simple ..... not sure how I missed the other point?
peace.....


(1) Beck.

smf85 Loc: Freeport, IL

The real raw data off the sensor is not viewable. The camera processor adjusts the exposure, uses the bad sensor table to delete unusable pixels, and performs lossless compression. The file has no white balance; that has to be applied later in the viewing or JPEG conversion.

At this point the camera creates a JPEG file from the DNG file. The file is. Created from the DNG file and from the exposure data.

Or you can download the DNG file into Lightroom and process it in a way that you think good. Then you can convert it to JPEG. The camera has minimal controls for the process. Lightroom has more. Photoshop still more for DNG to JPEG conversion. And yes the conversion process limits what can be done with the file afterwards - color space, white balance, and compression type/loss level - are all imbedded now. Quite a bit of complexity but everything has reasonable defaults that you can start with. Still there are parts of the conversion process that are “automatic” .

Then there is the Silverfast software. Basically a user unfriendly and unforgiving editor and conversion program. It allows complete control of the JPEG conversion process. It can also disassemble a JPEG - extracting it’s contents and allowing editing of it. But as I said, it’s difficult to use - really difficult.

I shoot in NEF (Nikon RAW) exclusivity. I’ll do NEF+JPG when I have to deliver results very quickly. I normally deliver JPEG unless something else was contracted for such as TIF or PSD. One of the reasons I like JPG is that it really can’t be edited - I think of it like a slide.

Lastly - I miss Kodachrome!

GreenDruid Loc: Toronto, Canada

JPEG is 8-bit data format with possible quality loss by setting lower quality. So at the max settings you can get 256 different values per each "word" of data (color). RAW is either 12- or 14-bit data format, which means it contains up to 64 times more data about color, shades, etc. Thanks to shooting RAW, later on you can use your darkroom (that software you need to get) and process your pictures the way you want. If i.e. you overexposed, or underexposed your shots slightly. 14-bit format will be much more forgiving to you than 8-bit JPEG. Big difference. Trust me.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

You didn't mention one other aspect of jpg images, they are lossy. Each time one saves a jpg, the file (image) changes.
--Bob

Jimmy T Loc: Virginia

bleirer

I took a peek at your user manual, you can get 1050 raw+jpeg pictures on one 64 gb card, so 2100 on a 128gb card. I believe your camera has 2 card slots. So no worries. As to file size, it depends on what quality you set for jpeg or what file type you save the image in, but storage is cheap these days.

I would recommend you get Photoshop elements if you don't have it, it has a beginner mode that really holds your hand, and has Adobe camera raw which is just sliders to adjust exposure, contrast, sharpening, etc. You can export as jpeg at any quality level for email sharing without altering the original.

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

Shooting in RAW is different than shooting in JPEG. Speaking as a RAW shooter, if you're not interested in processing your photos and are happy with your JPEG results, don't bother to shoot in RAW. I shot in JPEG for the longest time and converted to shooting in RAW because I was interested in processing my photos (at a level that can't be achieved shooting JPEG). But if you're happy where you are, continue to shoot as you are.

Streets Loc: Euless, TX.

RAW IS FOR MASOCHISTS! I have all the faith in the world to stay with jpeg. I tried working raw and was never able to achieve a better natural image than what jpeg produced with one shutter actuation. If you hate people, live in consistently bad weather, and can never leave well enough alone, go for raw.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

donb17

me, too - for exactly the same reason.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

I see Irfanview showing many more colors than that, 16.777 million, 24 bit in JPG from my 80D. From my experience it certainly is more than 8 bit. Then it goes on to say 393,550 unique colors which would be about 18 bits. I find that confusing.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I'll never understand this so called argument about RAW vs JPEG. If you shoot JPEG then you shoot JPEG, simple as that. No one has to justify why, it simply is. People who feel it necessary to put down or ridicule those who shoot RAW, apparently have some kind of issue that probably has nothing to do with photography. Those who shoot RAW and put down JPEG shooters, the same applies to you. It doesn't matter what someone else shoots, only what you shoot. I'm one of those silly people who shoot both, usually. I like having the full size JPEG to see a good version of the image to decide whether it's a keeper or not. Not a keeper, both files get deleted. Keepers are processed into TIFF image files and the JPEG gets deleted. I'm not concerned with storage space; storage is cheap.
As I said, there's absolutely no reason for anyone to justify why they do or don't shoot RAW or JPEG. It doesn't make anyone smarter or better than anyone else, and if someone thinks it does, they're not thinking...

chuck A7R3

Thanks to all posts. There’s no ? that max flexibility and enhancement potential is via RAW approach. The trade off for those of us a bit more technically challenged is that jpeg format may be more often acceptable in quality when shot at max res/fine settings with pro grade cameras and lenses.

Streets Loc: Euless, TX.

I shoot only jpeg. I use free "FOTOR" for touch up. I love my Sony A65 with the 18-135 SAM. Now how the hell do I make this better.

(Download)

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

Just remember you can post process in jpeg