There are at least 3 topics that get debated ad-nauseam on UHH:
1) Should I buy Nikon or Canon or Sony or… ?
2) Should I use Mac or PC?
3) Should I shoot RAW or JPEG?
The first two really come down to personal preference, but surely we can get objective evidence to resolve number three.

I recently switched to shooting RAW+JPEG but do not consider myself expert enough to demonstrate the benefits. I am just getting familiar with a few programs that can work with RAW files, but as some folks have already pointed out the image on the monitor often looks much the same regardless of which file is used as the source. I think the problem for me is not really understanding when the JPEG SOOC is good enough as a starting point for minor adjustments, or when I really should dig into the RAW file to significantly improve a less-than-stellar image.

I would like to ask the PP experts out there to post examples that demonstrate unequivocally the benefits of working with the RAW file. I would like to see 3 separate versions of a single image:
a) the SOOC JPEG image;
b) the adjusted SOOC JPEG; and
c) the image derived from developing/processing the RAW file.

To do this fairly I think there should be a few ground rules as follows:
1) the image must have been shot as a single image that was stored in RAW+JPEG file format;
2) the JPEG must have been saved at the highest quality possible in the camera;
3) the JPEG SOOC should show clear signs of requiring adjustment to improve the image (e.g., white balance, dark shadows, blown highlights, etc);
4) both the JPEG and the RAW file should be post-processed using the same software program and the same adjustment tools to show that it is not the processing software, but rather the richness of the image information in the RAW file, that results in a better final image; and
5) the software being used and the “fixes” being applied should be described.

OK, one concession: if there is something extra special that can be done to the RAW file that cannot be done to the JPEG, then post that superior image along with notes on the processing.

So, have at it!!! Convince me – and a lot of hoggers contemplating a major change in workflow – that shooting RAW is the better way to go.

Thanks. JF

There are at least 3 topics that get debated ad-nauseam on UHH:
1) Should I buy Nikon or Canon or Sony or… ?
2) Should I use Mac or PC?
3) Should I shoot RAW or JPEG?
The first two really come down to personal preference, but surely we can get objective evidence to resolve number three.

I recently switched to shooting RAW+JPEG but do not consider myself expert enough to demonstrate the benefits. I am just getting familiar with a few programs that can work with RAW files, but as some folks have already pointed out the image on the monitor often looks much the same regardless of which file is used as the source. I think the problem for me is not really understanding when the JPEG SOOC is good enough as a starting point for minor adjustments, or when I really should dig into the RAW file to significantly improve a less-than-stellar image.

I would like to ask the PP experts out there to post examples that demonstrate unequivocally the benefits of working with the RAW file. I would like to see 3 separate versions of a single image:
a) the SOOC JPEG image;
b) the adjusted SOOC JPEG; and
c) the image derived from developing/processing the RAW file.

To do this fairly I think there should be a few ground rules as follows:
1) the image must have been shot as a single image that was stored in RAW+JPEG file format;
2) the JPEG must have been saved at the highest quality possible in the camera;
3) the JPEG SOOC should show clear signs of requiring adjustment to improve the image (e.g., white balance, dark shadows, blown highlights, etc);
4) both the JPEG and the RAW file should be post-processed using the same software program and the same adjustment tools to show that it is not the processing software, but rather the richness of the image information in the RAW file, that results in a better final image; and
5) the software being used and the “fixes” being applied should be described.

OK, one concession: if there is something extra special that can be done to the RAW file that cannot be done to the JPEG, then post that superior image along with notes on the processing.

So, have at it!!! Convince me – and a lot of hoggers contemplating a major change in workflow – that shooting RAW is the better way to go.

Thanks. JF

Nailed it. That is called rationalization. In this case since I cannot process a RAW file effectively I might as well give up since its not much more different than a plain JPG and just lower my standards of IQ. A lot of these folks also LOVE to shoot AUTO ISO since they can never fully understand the basics of exposure.

A RAW file has a LOT of more data and if you have some average ability to discriminate tonalities and subtle hues and saturations the difference should be evident. Thats if you have the eye for it.

Nailed it. That is called rationalization. In this case since I cannot process a RAW file effectively I might as well give up since its not much more different than a plain JPG and just lower my standards of IQ. A lot of these folks also LOVE to shoot AUTO ISO since they can never fully understand the basics of exposure.

A RAW file has a LOT of more data and if you have some average ability to discriminate tonalities and subtle hues and saturations the difference should be evident. Thats if you have the eye for it.