burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Many photographers at the very high end do print from RAW files, so they can convert from a wide gamut color space to the ICC profile of the paper/printer combination with the least loss/most accuracy. Think: car ads for point of purchase display or trade show booths...

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Which brings up a question of mine which I've never heard answered well. If RAW has scads and scads of colors available, where do they all go when the photo is turned into a jpeg? What's the real use of having all those colors available if, in the end, you wind up with the colors only available in jpeg?

Kuzano

YES!!!!!!!!!! and I said that in my post.

For Cripe Sakes!!! Read the posts with comprehension. Don't start banging keys before you finish reading the posts.

Is the contest here to see who can belittle who the most!

Either read the posts and use proper interpretation, or GTFOH...

Blimey!

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

It seems to me that those of you touting the PP of RAW images seem to overlook the fact that JPEG images can also be PP'd; and you don't need a RAW converter to do so; and I'll go so far as to say that you can PP a JPEG in ANY program that will process an image; and JPEG can be imported to and imbedded in other programs, such as Excel, Word and I imagine Office; and to reference another's question - what happens to all of those colors that RAW accesses when you convert to JPEG?

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Great question! RAW files are 10, 12, 14, or 16 bits per color channel, so they slice and dice reality into far more shades. Conversion to an 8-bit JPEG assigns all "high bit" file values to the nearest possible 8-bit values. This is further complicated by JPEG compression, and by the display issues of RGB monitors vs. CMY silver halide photo paper or CMYK printing or one of the high def printing schemes.

In reality, all display methods process and discard data. The range reflected off plain old silver halide papers is actually less than in an 8-bit, sRGB JPEG, but few purists understand how important that is.

Net result? You've gotta toss data someplace. You just have to decide where it makes the most sense to do so.

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

So, would it be correct to say that a processed RAW converted to JPEG will have the same gamut of colors as a JPEG Fine?

Iron Mike Loc: Phoenix, Arizona Metro Area

Yes indeed. I still have my Canon AT-1 35mm Manual Focus, Match Needle camera. Anyone want it?

SteveR Loc: Michigan

???

dtparker Loc: Small Town, NC

Why have a D800 if you want to shoot JPEG? You can get better conversions out of the latest Nikon DX cameras.

wlgoode Loc: Globe, AZ

If the reason for using JPEG is that post processing freaks you out a bit or is a "Pain in the Neck" please realize you are not alone. If this is so, I encourage you to download LIGHTZONE. It is now OpenSource, multiplatform and free of cost. I think you'll find it very intuitive and you'll find it easier to learn than other apps and very powerful. It was made strictly for photo post processing so it is not a huge graphics program. There are good tutorials on You Tube, have at it.

Wallbanger Loc: Madison, WI

All your statement says is that you don't understand what a RAW file is.

RAW is not a final product, just like exposed film, before being developed, and then printed is not the final product.

There is a reason that the second tab at the top of Lightroom is called "Develop".

I truly don't understand why people get so defensive about shooting JPEG. If you want to shoot JPEG, just keep shooting JPEG.

Just realize, just like the film days, some people had their own dark rooms (some still do) or used pro labs, and some people just shot Polaroid or took their film to the drug store to get prints. Were the results better from a pro lab or darkroom? Usually.

Vinyl or MP3? Vinyl is the pure, uncompressed analog audio (in the old days). I'm sure people debate that too.

There simply isn't any way to dispute that a RAW file out of the camera has more information to work with, and if you know what you're doing, will produce a better final image.

In the case of my camera (Pentax K-5iis)

DNG straight from camera - 12-15 MB
JPG strait from camera - 1.5 MB

Yes, there's something missing from the JPG.

TheDman Loc: USA

please copy and paste for me where you said that.

Iron Mike Loc: Phoenix, Arizona Metro Area

All-in-all this thread, all 9 pages so far, has been a really big help to me in trying to decipher what the actual differences between RAW and JPEG are. Mainly because of the wide variety of responses covering such a widespread range. A great help was reading burke's post on "...bits per color channel...' and 8-bit JPEG values. So now I am convinced that even I can begin to understand what all the bother about RAW is.
Although I am not the OP - Thanks everyone.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

RAW v JPG again - all good fun.
I usually prefer to PP my JPGs, and used RAWs as a dispensable back up - once I happy with my JPGs (saved as TIFs) I will discard the RAWs.
I am surprised how often the RAW pundits exaggerate the difference in PP capability between RAW and JPG. Provided WB is ok then surely other editing is not much different. I understand shadow and highlight info is better preserved in the RAWS, but can still be improved in JPGs, as can WB. But exposure, gamma, sharpening not much difference.
Possibly Adobe can do more than some other good, less expensive and far more intuitive editors. But that is not the issue here.

Wallbanger Loc: Madison, WI

Why would you save a JPEG original to a TIFF? That's like taking a picture of a Polaroid laying on the table with 120 to make a copy.

Saving a compressed format to a "lossless" format does nothing but output a larger (potentially) file.

It's worth mentioning that before camera manufacturers stating using their own RAW file formats, they used TIFF as the RAW option...

This shows some great examples what you can and can't accomplish: http://youtu.be/N0j8QMmglvw?t=3m5s or http://youtu.be/N0j8QMmglvw to watch from the beginning.

Here is another (non video): http://photographylife.com/raw-vs-jpeg

Or: http://www.martinbaileyphotography.com/2014/06/23/why-switch-from-jpeg-to-raw-podcast-427/