anotherview Loc: California

Yes, you have found from practice that you can dispense with the value of the RAW file format offering more latitude in later development.

Knowing your camera, its settings, and your expectation for a satisfactory photograph will allow you (and others who do the same) to shoot only in the JPEG file format.

I read a book by a studio photographer who so adjusts all camera settings and lighting that he can nail the exposure using the JPEG file format, bypassing any further development in the software. His photographs come straight out of the camera ready for use and for printing.

wteffey Loc: Ocala, FL USA

Can't hurt. Might help. After comparing my JPEG from RAW results, for most of my photos JPEG from the camera with a little PP would be fine. RAW does not take much time however, and I can fix exposure and color if necessary from one screen. I also like the ability to screen sharpening in RAW.

RickL Loc: Vail, Az

I only shoot raw. I have greater creative ability over my photography

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Not completely true. A raw file is limited to broad, rules-based edits. It's like creating a collection of custom settings in your camera for contrast, sharpening, saturation, color space, white balance and noise reduction. In a raw converter you can do that, but take it a little further with the ability to apply some adjustments to local areas of the image as well as globally to the entire image. This is all done at full capture resolution color and bit depth - usually 14 bit in the camera.

Editing a jpeg out of the camera is taking an image that has already been processed, reduced to 8 bit, and compressed to make the file smaller than the original. If you use a pixel based editor - like Corel or Photoshop, you can do considerably more editing - but the changes need to be kept fairly subtle. It's not easy, though it is possible, to change an incorrect white balance setting - but you may encounter clipping, out of gamut color and/or banding in the process. If an image has been overly de-noised in the camera - you cannot ever bring back the fine details lost in the process. Jpeg is probably the worst file format to use for editing.

The better solution is to use a 16 bit tiff or psd file. However converting from a jpeg to either format is not going to give you back anything discarded when the camera created the jpeg. But it will keep you from losing more data.

The one excepting to being able to edit a jpeg like a raw file comes with those raw converters that will open and edit a jpeg, or a pixel editor like Photoshop that has the ability to open a jpeg image as a raw file, or better yet, a camera raw filter - that allows you to use the same tools and sliders available in Adobe Camera Raw without really leaving the Photoshop editing space.

But spending a short time with a raw file in a raw editor, then taking the same image as a jpeg and editing that - the difference in editing capability becomes immediately apparent - there is a bi difference between editing a jpeg and a raw file.

A jpeg image - which is 8 bits by definition, can only properly display 8 stops of dynamic range -a 14 bit raw file can record up to 14 stops of dynamic range - theoretically speaking. Most display devices and media can only display on average 5-8 stops of dynamic range. So, regardless of what you capture, it will be tonally compressed down to 5-8 stops in the process. However, if the camera only produces an 8 stop image, without paying any special attention to selective tone mapping - you will lose detail and information at the extremes - and that is what will eventually be compressed for output. But when you start with a 14 bit raw file - you have considerably more dynamic range, and less clipping at the extremes, which can generate a more tonally "complete" image at the end of the process.

Unless the industry finalizes a standard for a 16 bit jpeg (Jpeg XT or Jpeg XL) - you are not likely to see this happening for a while. And the argument of which is better will be finally put to rest - a 16 bit jpeg will likely be close in size to a lossless compressed raw file. I think that getting the industry to re-tool itself for 16 bit jpegs will be a huge undertaking - though not out of the realm of possibility.

This is a great article explaining dynamic range

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dynamic-range.htm

RickL Loc: Vail, Az

In the film days, I had my own complete photo lab. I spent hours in post processing. As a result my photography was very well received in the states and Europe

I only shot in black and white.

I look at post processing as my digital lab and I work solely in Raw.

Rick

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

I only photograph in Rawbecaue I want the most information possible. Except when I goof and accidentally change my settings to JPEG and don't check my camera

drklrd Loc: Cincinnati Ohio

I came from the film era too. I shoot professionally in jpeg like you. Why? Because it all ends up in the year book and that is what the studio wants.
I retired when the wedding studios went digital as I just did not want to spend 10 G and the next year spend 10 G again. I was trained as an electronics expert spent that time buying my pro gear (both 35mm and 2 1/4 square). I find I can do most everything in jpeg using Adobe. On important shots I might go to RAW other than when you save after editing a jpeg it looses some small amount of data due to compression in jpeg saves I just save it as a PSD and make it a jpeg when I need to. As far as being a geek, I was on stage playing guitar and dancing too much to be a true geek. I think the format should match the job needed just like using film, (chromes, polaroids and negatives) each had their places in film days.

drklrd Loc: Cincinnati Ohio

Did that once. Shot the assignment in raw and when I was uploading I saw my error. So I batched into jpeg and turned it in that way.

WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

Wish I could do that.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

A reason to shoot RAW even if you aren't comfortable with post processing is that you might become comfortable some time in the future, and you could go back and improve favorite images you shot in the past.

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

I shoot RAW for exposure and WB flexibility and other PP benefits, JPG for expediency (journalists may be better with JPG for tight deadlines)...but being I hardly use the JPG I may switch to RAW+RAW (card 1+ backup 2). JPG may apply some unwanted compression or artifacts, while RAW is like getting an undeveloped, unprocessed, re-exportable roll of film with same images as many times as needed.

Note if using some in-camera effects or editing JPG may be the only option.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Yes!

anotherview Loc: California

Not wholly true anymore, with the introduction of the new graduated filter in ACR: "A raw file is limited to broad, rules-based edits."

This ACR filter can isolate the sky area with a mask for limiting edits to it. This filter obviates a physical filter for most conditions.

Regarding photo-editing, Scott Kelby says: Fix it in ACR, and finish it in Photoshop.

I've found his approach as valid from my experience.

WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

Bought my D7200 from Craigs list, don't know what to use for shooting RAW . You seem to be the most knowledgeable person on here about the subject. Don't have a lot of room on my computer. Like to give it a try. Where do I start. Thanks.

erickter Loc: Dallas,TX

Agree. Exclusive raw usage for me is overkill and time wasted. At times, yes. But Jpg goes far when conditions are right, which is most of the time.