Skipping all the pro and con argumentative details, just trust the folks on here that tell you to shoot in RAW. If not for the photographer that you are today, do it for the photographer that you will become. As your processing skills improve, you will wish you had all RAW images. Not only will your skills improve, but your processing tools will improve as time moves forward. I go back to photos I took five years ago when these tools were not as good or sophisticated as today, and reprocess some photos I liked, with much better final results. Those who root for JPG only, do not really get everything their camera can produce, or they are easily satisfied with mediocrity.

The single most important thing you can do with a raw editor is recover shadow information. The top image used shadow recovery:



The bottom image shows what the JPEG would have looked like without the shadow recovery. Those shadows would be lost forever in a JPEG.

This was done with Capture One. I did not exaggerate anything. Any raw editor could have done the same thing.

So that's the +Y for a raw editor. What can you do with your JPEG editor that we can't do just as easily with a raw editor?

I never said a screwed up raw image wasn't more fixable than a jpg. The "X+Y" issue is with TOOLS available. There are not more tools available in RAW development in any editor I've used. In Affinity, jpg's have like 120 tools available, such as haze removal, shape tools, warp tools, text tools, flood fill tools, selection tools and so on. Then there are 20+ more adjustment layers, like white balance, curves, levels, HSL, Color Balance and so on and each of those have like 30 or so blend modes. Then there are a huge amount of filters like 15 or so blur tools, like gaussian blur and a ton of other filters too numerous to count. If that isn't enough, there are add on filters, such as the NIK collection that increase tools available to ridiculous levels. Then there are Channels, Styles, Effects, Layers and so on. A SMALL amount of these tools are available to RAW editors but all the raw tools are available to the jpg. If your jpgs are reasonably good, no need for raw, the range and tools should be more than adequate.

The fact a raw image has a bit more range than a jpg has nothing at all to do with the statement raw has more tools available. Moreover, the tools available to a jpg image include the ability to load the jpg into the raw editor and use the same tools available to the raw image. There can be more range in improving a poor image if shot in raw, but for the most part, it's not needed, particularly with todays camera's, including the lowly cell phone. I know there are people that deliberately over or under expose ALL their photo's so they can fool with them in a raw editor. To each their own.

I never said a screwed up raw image wasn't more fixable than a jpg. The "X+Y" issue is with TOOLS available. There are not more tools available in RAW development in any editor I've used. In Affinity, jpg's have like 120 tools available, such as haze removal, shape tools, warp tools, text tools, flood fill tools, selection tools and so on. Then there are 20+ more adjustment layers, like white balance, curves, levels, HSL, Color Balance and so on and each of those have like 30 or so blend modes. Then there are a huge amount of filters like 15 or so blur tools, like gaussian blur and a ton of other filters too numerous to count. If that isn't enough, there are add on filters, such as the NIK collection that increase tools available to ridiculous levels. Then there are Channels, Styles, Effects, Layers and so on. A SMALL amount of these tools are available to RAW editors but all the raw tools are available to the jpg. If your jpgs are reasonably good, no need for raw, the range and tools should be more than adequate.

The fact a raw image has a bit more range than a jpg has nothing at all to do with the statement raw has more tools available. Moreover, the tools available to a jpg image include the ability to load the jpg into the raw editor and use the same tools available to the raw image. There can be more range in improving a poor image if shot in raw, but for the most part, it's not needed, particularly with todays camera's, including the lowly cell phone. I know there are people that deliberately over or under expose ALL their photo's so they can fool with them in a raw editor. To each their own.

I've spent most of the last 40 years working with computers (Apple II, pc/ms dos, Windoze, and more Windoze, and more Windoze, a little Mac, and for the last several years Linux) so the newness has worn off a bit. (Computers have been very, very good to me professionally. ) But I certainly do PP (most of) my photos as I see the need. I have used GIMP and Rawtherapee and found them to very capable. But when I processed raw files, they were pretty much about as good as the im-camera jpegs. So for me, making adjustments to the in-camera jpegs seems to work the best. I almost always need to crop, sometimes adjust color, contrast, brightness, etc., etc. It's just a lot easier for me to work from the jpeg, most of the work is already done.

I have great respect for those who can turn out beautiful art. Unfortunately that isn't me. (For me, if someone says, "That camera takes great pictures," that's a complement.

Yes, I have done darkroom work, and sold some photos over the years (race cars, motorcycles, jumping horses) even sold stories to magazines with photos. Not that they were great art or great photos, pretty much just maybe good (or OK).

I like the instant processing of digital photography, and much prefer post processing on a computer than in a darkroom (and the sitting down rather than standing). But these days (probably at least partially due to advancing age) post processing is just kind of a chore. I do it because I want my photos to be as good as I can make them. But I can get to my level of expertise from the jpeg. For me, working from raw just eats up a lot more time, and results in more frustration, than just touching up the jpeg. Works for me.

I am certainly very glad that raw files are available to those can make use of them, but I know my limitation, so jepgs work best for me.

Thanks for your reply. All the best.

I never said a screwed up raw image wasn't more fixable than a jpg. The "X+Y" issue is with TOOLS available. There are not more tools available in RAW development in any editor I've used. In Affinity, jpg's have like 120 tools available, such as haze removal, shape tools, warp tools, text tools, flood fill tools, selection tools and so on. Then there are 20+ more adjustment layers, like white balance, curves, levels, HSL, Color Balance and so on and each of those have like 30 or so blend modes. Then there are a huge amount of filters like 15 or so blur tools, like gaussian blur and a ton of other filters too numerous to count. If that isn't enough, there are add on filters, such as the NIK collection that increase tools available to ridiculous levels. Then there are Channels, Styles, Effects, Layers and so on.

Then you haven't used complete/right RAW editors. Have a look at ON1 Photo RAW 2022 (and previous versions, as well - and other software, I suppose), which gives one the opportunity to do everything in RAW or in jpeg - in ONE processor!!! It's just that in RAW, there is much more information, allowing for better manipulation, thus the ability to achieve better results (if better results are of any importance to you!!!). Of course, one can find many excellent photos captured in jpeg, but most likely the capture conditions were such that the added power availability of a RAW image was not required. It also could be that the "good enough" result from a jpeg was exactly that - good enough - but still quite good.

Loren - in Beautiful Baguio City