gemlenz Loc: Gilbert Arizona

you can save them on your computer.

Sunnykaren Loc: Michigan

Thanks!

Grand Loc: Lebanon, Pa

I wear the shirt, but I don't shoot in Raw. Give me jpeg anyday.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

What you really mean is that jpegs contain information based on the in camera settings, and for many that is quite enough. RAW files do not contain the in camera settings unless you are a Canon shooter and use DPP as you PP program. In that event the RAW files look exactly like jpegs straight out of the camera. However, whether you shoot Canon or not, RAW files, which are digital negatives, contain significantly more information and is the preferred way to go if you do a lot of post processing. Applying a lot of post processing to a jpeg will degrade the image and many things that can be adjusted in RAW simply can't be accomplished nearly as well on jpegs. With regard to the experts designing those in camera settings, please realize that no one can guess what you are trying to achieve. If they could we would all be shooting in automatic mode. Even the in camera settings have a wide latitude of user adjustments, not unlike post processing. However, with RAW you can fix almost everything except focus and extreme under and over exposure, as if you took it that way in the first place. The same is not true of jpegs .

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Nicely worded!
Nikon raw and probably most other cameras do contain the "as shot" camera settings, but are not applied permanently as with jpeg files.

CurreyPhoto Loc: Reddick, Florida

Nikon has a program that applies the camera settings to the RAW image. It is called ViewNX2. It comes free with Nikon cameras that shoot RAW.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Exactly. If the Nikon RAW processor is anything like DPP you can use the in camera settings, modify them,or ignore them completely depending uoon your goals. For those who don't often indulge in post processing, jpegs may meet their requirements better. I usually use Lightroom 4 for most of my processing, which doesnt apply the in camera settings, but it goes much farther with far better results than any in camera settings can provide.

dspoon2 Loc: Rockwall TX

Fred, for me you've hit the nail on the head when you mention artistic inclinations...by using the RAW file you can easily maintain the integrity or correct as needed before going on to further creative options.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

For those who are interested in knowing more about RAW vs JPG, here's a link to Cambridge in Color, a great resource for curious photographers' minds
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/RAW-file-format.htm
and a resource from Laura Shoe about shooting RAW+JPG and managing this in Lightroom
http://laurashoe.com/2012/09/24/shooting-in-raw-jpeg-mode-lightroom/
Some years ago when I first stuck my toe in the water with RAW, I shot RAW+JPG because I was afraid I wouldn't know what to do with the RAW files. I've looked back at some old shots from the wonderful Hopewell Rocks since this conversation developed and am posting a pair (same shot) below. The JPG did not capture the amazing landscape, but left much of the seafloor in deep shadow, the crusty rocks just silhouettes against a bright blue sky. With the RAW version, I could safely tinker, and pull back much of what I saw with my eyes - texture, color, detail.

Sunnykaren Loc: Michigan

Minniev, Wow! What a good example...thanks for sharing this along with the links!

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Exactly. While you could restore some shadow detail from JPEGs it would be much less effective and the results would be much less desirable.

dspoon2 Loc: Rockwall TX

excellent example!!! Great shot...thanks

Duccky

I usually shoot both gives me the option to tweak or not