anotherview Loc: California

The RAW file format provides more image information giving more elbow room for later image development. A larger file size results.

The JPEG file format derives from the RAW file while in camera according to camera metering and settings. This in-camera pre-processing discards some image information. But this discarding gives a smaller file size.

That said, some experienced photographers will shoot in the JPEG file format when they can control lighting and color calibration to produce a well-exposed image.

Photographers who shoot many pictures of an event (like a wedding) will use the JPEG file format to minimize processing time in order that they may write an invoice sooner.

Please know that shooting in RAW requires more processing afterward, first in the RAW software and then in the photo editor to finish the photograph. You will spend more time and effort going this route but potentially will have more control over results.

You could try shooting with your camera set to RAW + JPEG. This setting will give you two files, one in each file format.

Of course, with this setting, your images will then take up more space on the hard drive, yet consider the very low cost of computer storage these days. You could just buy, say, a 4 terabyte external hard drive to save all your photo files.

Finally, please consider one day when you have gained more experience in shooting and in image processing, you may wish to return to your earlier images to process them for their value in light of the passage of time. You will thank yourself for having a RAW file of those precious images.

TimS Loc: GA

Anyone else surprised the 'use search' police haven't popped up yet?

ole sarg Loc: south florida

I would not say the camera is making arbitrary decisions but rather informed decisions from the data available.

Now if you like to "develop" your image and print according to what you like then raw is the way to go. Most of what I shoot is in both raw and JPEG and I make up my mind as to which I want to enhance in my own way.

Greg K Loc: Iowa

LMAO...Yes!

Rip Tragle Loc: Estes Park, CO

I use both for different reasons. RAW is used for photographs that you
real want to work on to achieve the best photo because of it's ability
to sore All the information.... like if I am going to print a 2x5 foot
panorama. But it must be kept in mind any RAW picture needs post
processing to be at it's best.
Jepg used at it's finest size/quality setting can be set in camera for excellent
pictures without the need of of post-processing other than basic crop
and perhaps a little tuning for exposure, color-balance, contrast with a
simple editor. Goodness, if I was shooting something like a party
and 40 or so shots were needed I would not use RAW as most of the shots
would be fine right out of the camera. I have achieved excellent scenics
as well with jepg. For the most part jepg is just fine.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

first you have to decide if you want or need more than jpeg gives. is it worth useing the raw program that came with the camera, or the expense of a hi-end editor. there is a learning curve that goes with it.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

You are right, arbitrary is going too far. It's based on the logic that can be built into the camera's program.

I still trust my own creative judgement over that tiny computer.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Read this and you'll see why. Yes, there are pictures so it's not hard to see the difference.

http://www.slrlounge.com/raw-vs-jpeg-jpg-the-ultimate-visual-guide

James R. Kyle Loc: Saint Louis, Missouri (A Suburb of Ferguson)

RAW....

If I shoot Sports = jpg... For one thing, the speed of the shutter is faster and I get the shot(s). However, where "action" is not really the important factor (i.e.= Portraits - Landscape - wildlife - and events) I always use RAW. Remember that You are the photographer, not the camera.

"A photograph is not taken. A Photograph is Made."

MainStreet Business Loc: Butler, MO

The most important reason to shoot RAW+jpg to me is that in hurried shooting sequences, I often don't have time or forget to properly change camera settings.

I have been able to save many good shots by being able to change exposure, white balance and color control after the fact. In jpg only, they would have just been trash, but in RAW, I am able to salvage them.

Many liken RAW to film negative, but I personally view it more as a frame of undeveloped film. I can change it if I like, at least to some degree.

Yes, you can do some of that editing in PP, but each time you save a jpg, it recompresses and gives up quality in no small way.

If your camera will allow it, I always recommend RAW+jpg.

Hope this helps,

John Hurshman

Alfresco

If you Google raw vs jpeg you'll find numerous links that'll answer your question. I think of jpeg as driving a family sedan with an automatic transmission, put it in gear and all the thinking is done for you. Raw, on the other hand is like driving a Porsche with a six speed manual transmission, you are in charge and in complete control, from start to finish. RAW is not magical or mystical and doesn't require vast amounts of skills know only to a select few. I use a iMac which comes with iPhoto and it does everything that I need done. If I need more, I use Aperture on the Mac, sort of like iPhoto on steroids. Both programs translate all of the formats seamlessly without any help from me.
Keep in mind, each and every time you open and do anything to a jpeg, it gets diminished in quality. If you fail to set all the settings in your camera, white balance, exposure etc, where they should be for that jpeg photo, too bad.
Not so for raw, any setting you forgot to make on your camera can be easily corrected when you process the photo.
Try it out for yourself and I think you'll find its worth considering.

Brian in Whitby Loc: Whitby, Ontario, Canada

I use raw for the creative control it gives me to set the mood or feeling to the image. I can make a cloudy day seem like sunshine or a sunny day seem cold. The creative interpretation is my decision.

GaryS1964 Loc: Northern California

I'm a big fan of Perfect Photo Suite. I have already ordered version 8. The new Eraser tool in version 8 rivals Photoshop CC's Content Aware Fill tools.

Another tool I like is Raw Therapee. It does a good job of RAW conversion plus has good tools for post processing. Best of all it's free.

BTW - I try and set up the camera to get the best image possible out of the camera and shoot in RAW + Jpeg. The goal is to have to apply PP to the least number of photos. If your camera doesn't allow both then shoot in RAW for the reasons already explained. Most RAW conversion programs will allow for batch conversion to Jpeg and you will have the RAW files to use if you want to do PP.

j.mcdanielphotography Loc: Ardmore, Tn

Thanks

altheman Loc: Christchurch, New Zealand

Why would you under-expose a RAW image? You should always expose so that the bar graph on the histogram is not quite touching the right hand side, this is so you can have as much image data as possible in the first stop which contains the brightest tones! Read this!!!
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml
and this!!
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/optimizing_exposure.shtml
It is never a problem to reduce the exposure in Lr or whatever software you use you will find that you get less noise etc