jdubu Loc: San Jose, CA

The jpegs you normally shoot are going to look better than a CR2 file without any processing. That is because the camera has taken a raw photo and applied processing during the save to convert to your finished jpeg. This processing is based on algorithms the manufacturer has deemed the general viewing audience prefers.

With a CR2 file, you have to do the processing to get to the look (or beyond) of an auto processed jpeg.

The difference is any information that the camera threw out during conversion to jpeg or compression of the jpeg file, is literally thrown out and lost. If there were any settings that were wrong, i.e. white balance, styles, etc. they are embedded in the jpeg and are hard to rectify easily.

Starting with a raw file, any processing you do is not applied permanently to your original file and the original (or copy) file can always be referenced to process again, if you want a different outcome.

If you are happy with jpegs, no one can tell you that's wrong. Just remember that any changes you want to make can be harder because the original file has already been altered and some photo info discarded.

amehta Loc: Boston

Your CR2 file has both the raw and jpeg (low quality or resolution) images, so you can do the comparison now. You can use Instant JPEG from Raw (link) to extract the embedded jpeg.

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

Dynamic range is the most important advantage raw has over JPEG; however, your test photo may not need or have a large range. Knowing when to use raw and when to use JPEG is the key. I still don't know. Therefore, I shoot both RAW + JPEG.

wteffey Loc: Ocala, FL USA

In my experience, most photos under most conditions will, in the end, look the same whether initially shot RAW or JPEG. The difference will show up if the photo is taken under less than ideal conditions, or with special lighting or color parameters. Under these conditions, the photographer has more options to "recover" an ideal finished product if initially shot in RAW. I have found that I do not need to shoot RAW 100% of the time. I usually same RAW for shots when I suspect I may need the extra latitude later on.

mccampbell60 Loc: Michigan

Frankly! I have the same results. My SX50 settings Raw+Jpg give me the same results. CR2 and Jpg are brought up on ACDsee side by side, I see virtual no difference. Both are edited the same I see no difference. I have several different editing programs, I see no difference. Shooting manual, P, auto I get good results even when shooting 28 to 1200. Even when I stretch out to 50x the results are comparable, even when they are bad, they are bad in all similar details.
I know I need a better trained eye, but all the hoopla of one over the other just does not seem to be worth all the hoopla.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

You've gotten good answers here. I often shoot RAW+JPEG. The raw will allow for more adjusting, but the JPEG give instant gratification. You get a picture ready to go. Raw always need some adjusting, JPEG, not necessarily.

Of course we always have that huge word, "depends."

Blaster6 Loc: Central PA

You have missed some very technical details that easily cause confusion.

Technical:
First of all, every digital camera shoots RAW every time. Some cameras only have the ability to convert and save this RAW data a JPG and others allow you to have both. Any camera settings such as white balance, sharpening, etc. are all applied immediately to the RAW data and a JPG is produced. If your camera allows saving RAW then the RAW data is saved and the settings that would have produced the JPG are attached.

The part that matters:
When you take a picture with your camera you have various settings that can change the way the resultant photo looks. The obvious example is white balance.
When you shoot in JPG those settings are applied and you are stuck with them. Sure you can make some changes to the JPG but some detail will be lost and you can never completely undo the settings the camera applied. Some data has simply been lost forever. Some data is simply discarded because it is determined to not be needed.

When your camera creates a RAW file it also attaches a sidecar file to the RAW that contains instructions for all your camera settings that will make that RAW look exactly like the JPG. When you import your RAW into lightroom the settings are applied and your RAW will look exactly like your JPG--just like you wanted because that is how you had your camera set.

Here is the good part. Lets say you had your white balance set wrong. The RAW only includes the white balance setting, it does not apply it to the RAW file. (Lightroom just displays it that way for you). If you want to change the white balance you are simply changing the instruction in the sidecar file. The RAW never changes but the way lightroom displays it does. That means you can make any changes you want as many times as you want. The base file is never modified and all the image data is there for you to work with. If you were working with a JPG the actual colors in the image have been changed and each change is going to further degrade the quality.

So the short answer is your RAWs look like your JPGs because Lightroom is reading your camera settings and applying the same edits that your camera applied to your JPG. The big difference is you can completely undo the RAW settings if you want.

Most cameras do a pretty good job for average shots just setting them in auto everything so you may not need to do a lot of editing. Those challenging conditions where you can lose detail in highlights or shadows can't be recovered from a JPG because that data doesn't exist anymore. Many times it can be recovered from a RAW.

AlisonT Loc: Louisa, Virginia

:thumbup:

Blaster6 Loc: Central PA

I should add that as good as RAW is, not everyone actually needs it. If you are taking family snapshots in good light and you are happy with the JPGs straight out of the camera then you may be very well wasting your time with RAW.

RAW comes in very handy when parts of the same photo can be both over & under exposed. It also comes in handy when you realize you just took 100 photos in sepia or B&W and didn't realize the camera was set that way.

Mr PC Loc: Austin, TX

When I import a folder of images into Lightroom 5 and it contains both JPEG and NEF (Nikonese for their proprietary RAW format), it only brings the RAW images in, knowing that's what I will want to work with. JPEGs are compressed and therefore don't contain all the data the camera sensor picked up, but they do have the improvements to the shot that your camera may have made due to a particular Scene or other setting. The RAW image will usually look flat compared to the JPEG, but you have much more info in the file to work with and can make a greater degree of changes to every possible setting than you could with the JPEG. Best of all, the RAW image is not editable, so when you Export your image, the original is still the same and you can come back at a later date, with a different skill level or purpose and create something else from the same RAW file.

northmaple Loc: Englewood, FL

:thumbup:

photophool Loc: Grosse Pointe Park, MI

Some years ago, I was shooting RAW + JPG on my way to RAW only. I took some shots outside on a snowy winter day, but forgot to change the white balance from Incandescent to Daylight. The JPGs were horribly blue, and I could NOT correct the color (I was using LR3 at the time). However, it took less than 10 seconds to correct the RAW images. That made me a believer. Now I leave my WB in Auto and find the color is close to acceptable in most cases, but I know I have the latitude to go in any direction if necessary.

charles brown Loc: Tennesse

A lot of really good thoughtful answers that clearly explain the differences and usage of raw and JPEG. Thanks folks.

charles brown Loc: Tennesse

Now I leave my WB in Auto and find the color is close to acceptable in most cases, but I know I have the latitude to go in any direction if necessary.[/quote]

Great example. Because I shot in raw have been able to rescue photos that were taken many years ago.

Violameister Loc: michigan

The most common difference I see when I shoot both RAW and jpeg is that the jpeg often (when I am being not really careful) shows a few "blown out" areas not present in the sumultaneous RAW. The greater apparent dynamic range of the RAW file is why I always shoot RAW.