mdsiamese wrote:
The problem is that when you shoot jpeg, you are allowing the camera to make certain decisions for you about the coloring and lighting of the photo. Sometimes the camera makes good decisions, sometimes it makes so-so decisions, sometimes it makes downright awful decisions. By shooting raw and making those decisions yourself, you get a better photo.
I shoot both raw & jpg. For many candid shots, the jpg is just fine. But sometimes the lighting is complicated and the camera screws up the flesh tones, especially if any fluorescent lighting is involved. Then I pull up the raw image and adjust the white balance manually. Or, the jpg version might have some shadows or blown out areas. If I work with the raw, sometimes I can recover detail in those areas.
So yes, the camera is good enough to capture the data off the sensors, but once it has that data, it doesn't always make the best choices in converting that data into the most pleasing photo. The human eye can make better choices in post processing.
Ideally, the goal is to spend more time shooting and less time in post processing, and that's where getting the best quality camera comes in handy.
The problem is that when you shoot jpeg, you are a... (
show quote)
When shooting JPG the photogs can make all the decisions. When shooting RAW they can't - they have to wait to see what they got. The RAW will usually be flat and nasty before PP, but with skill a sow's ear can be turned into a silk purse. JPGs can also be PPd (all facets of). For several months I have been shooting and PPing both JPG and RAW. With most of my pics the differences are a close run thing. RAW wins when I blow the highlights (not often). So if you are in the habit of blowing highlights - shoot RAW.