Gene51 wrote:
Five years from now you may find yourself coming to the following conclusions:
Raw is easier and faster to edit, requiring only modest skills.
JPEG is convenient, but results can vary widely, and they are harder to edit.
You can shoot Jpeg and get most of the tonal range you saw, if you are lucky, but you can be much more precise with raw, and you'll be able to take better advantage of your camera's full dynamic range.
Raw records more fine detail.
When you have to make broad adjustments, raw files are more "pliable."
An edited raw file is essentially incomplete - you still need a pixel editor to finish the majority of images.
In high contrast situations, settings that can produce an ok Jpeg will produce a similarly mediocre raw file. But properly exposing for the highlights, often resulting in darker looking images out of the camera, can produce stunningly beautiful images, that will always look better than the out of camera jpegs.
There is no real difference between an amateur and a pro with respect to image quality. Each is capable of both. The better distinction to make is between someone who takes his/her art seriously and a hack. Those who care and seek to make the best images they can will take the time to fully exploit the capabilites of their camera, and their images reflect the effort. This totally applies to both amateurs and pros alike.
Five years from now you may find yourself coming t... (
show quote)