camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Mike wrote: "The topic is a "dead horse" here that has been beaten many times."

RAW vs JPEG is a discussion you will most probably find in any photography forum. Modern JPEG have excellent quality but the secret is to avoid manipulating the image in post. RAW data is all the original information the camera has to offer but it requires good editing technique to extract all of the goodness in the file. JPEG, I am sure you know, is a file that had the intervention of the camera software based on the choices the photographer made when the camera wa set for JPEG images. Because RAW has 14 or 16 bits of information it contains a lot of information, much more than a JPEG image. That information is practically useless if the operator does not know how to edit it.

With 8 bits of information, like that of a JPEG file, it is very possible to create banding and artifacts while manipulating the image, that is why I said that the best thing to do is to avoid further editing of a JPEG file. RAW is more flexible, shows better dynamic range, less noise and considerably more information. Changing a white balance is a piece of cake with RAW and could be a nightmare with JPEG.

I would say that for critical work RAW should be the first choice. JPEG is practical for those who prefer not to get involved with all the work involved in post. Family pictures is a good example.
TIFF is a larger file than RAW, I use that file format to save my RAW data with 16 bits of information in case I need to do some more manipulation in post.

rplain1 Loc: Dayton, Oh.

Yes

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

People are giving you a hard time because this question has been asked and answered a thousand x before. I know it is new to you.

RAW and JPEG are not the same thing... research what they are and what they do to find your answer.

RAW is everything the camera captures with no processing. RAW is essentially a negative. JPEG is a processed print which was made from a RAW capture. So what you are asking is "which is better, a negative or a print" It is a workflow question.

JPEG is simply a pixel-averaging loss-full compression algorithm. Learn what pixel averaging is, learn when it is applied, learn what it does to the photo, at what level of compression. J

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I use a nondestructive editor so I save the raw file in case I need to do some more manipulation in post. The only time I use tif is when I want to do numerical analysis of an image since I have the tools to do that with a 16 bit tif file.

ELNikkor

Now THERE'S a new topic for discussion...

ELNikkor

Right.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

It depends. 😉😉

old poet

gegawpr ????

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

For the best of both worlds, use rapeg.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

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

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Not asking.

pecohen Loc: Central Maine

Nonsense. If you anticipate editing then you should shoot RAW. Similarly, you can colorize a monochrome image but you probably will get a better result if you shoot a color image from the start. You simply have more information in the color image.

Yes, you can edit a jpeg, but anyone skilled in the process will get better results when starting with the RAW file. With the RAW file you simply have more to work with and so you have more options.

pecohen Loc: Central Maine

An interesting question. I can think of a couple examples:

1. If you cannot edit a RAW file because you don't have the right software.

2. You are utterly incompetent at editing. Starting with the jpeg file is better there is not much to be done and not so much you even can do.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

Your choice

Canisdirus

Which is better?????jpeg or raw

Or...or is better.