Hi Chris - your are indeed entitled to your opinion! Sadly though I think it's one which is not provable.

I have, many times after reading UHH posts on the subject, tried to prove this theory that RAW is better for editing than JPGs. I do set my cameras to give good exposures though and then see little difference on the screen between the 2 files when first downloaded. Anyway I haven't been able to show that RAW is better than JPG for editing in any way. Most of the times there's been little need to edit the RAW at all apart from a little sharpening. I have found however that the RAW files from small sensor cameras are more much editable than their JPG's. Obviously Dynamic range is involved here. APS-C and Full Frame cameras I find there's little difference between the 2 files when displayed on my Retina iMac.

I could, as many have, post examples supposedly showing how much better a RAW file edit is than a JPG edit but there is no way I could prove that's really what I did - I can only show you JPGs anyway and there's no way to record the edits that I made which would prove the theory. Not suggesting anyone would tell porkies about what they'd done but we all know how the Media in particular can "massage" the facts to give an entirely different slant to a story. It is entirely possible to "lie" by omission. Still life must go on - all the way until it ends! Cheers JohnR

As shot, RAW and JPG should look identical. It's only when you try to pull out shadow detail or recover blown highlights that you see the difference. JPGs just don't contain the data, it's as simple as that. I have attached an example, something I had on hand that I had captured in JPG and RAW - the JPG file has a blown out sky and it unrecoverable. In the JPG reducing exposure just makes it darker but in the RAW it brings out a blue sky and clouds. This was shot on an iPhone by the way, nothing fancy. I won't ever shoot JPG if I can help it because of this.

Hi Chris - your are indeed entitled to your opinion! Sadly though I think it's one which is not provable.

I have, many times after reading UHH posts on the subject, tried to prove this theory that RAW is better for editing than JPGs. I do set my cameras to give good exposures though and then see little difference on the screen between the 2 files when first downloaded. Anyway I haven't been able to show that RAW is better than JPG for editing in any way. Most of the times there's been little need to edit the RAW at all apart from a little sharpening. I have found however that the RAW files from small sensor cameras are more much editable than their JPG's. Obviously Dynamic range is involved here. APS-C and Full Frame cameras I find there's little difference between the 2 files when displayed on my Retina iMac.

I could, as many have, post examples supposedly showing how much better a RAW file edit is than a JPG edit but there is no way I could prove that's really what I did - I can only show you JPGs anyway and there's no way to record the edits that I made which would prove the theory. Not suggesting anyone would tell porkies about what they'd done but we all know how the Media in particular can "massage" the facts to give an entirely different slant to a story. It is entirely possible to "lie" by omission. Still life must go on - all the way until it ends! Cheers JohnR

You're so kind and helpful with your completely unnecessary criticism that you've managed to be really mean whether you meant that or not. Thanks for nothing buddy I won't be posting anymore so I won't upset your sensitive nature.