Raw vs jpeg. I know this has been brought up before but amuse me if you will

[jnsuffolk]

I started out shooting jpegs with my 300d. Then when I got my 40d I went to raw. I heard all these phenomenal things about how much better the pp is.

2 things. ive noticed first when I load a raw or a jpeg the raw converter comes on for both of them. This never used to happen. I don't know why but this is how it is for me. So with that I have the same process for both. second thing is that I don't see any difference in changing the exposure in a raw file compared to lightening up a jpeg. or changing the contrast between the two. I really don't see any difference at all between the two types of pp

Am I missing something

[swampler]

With RAW, you have more leeway on exposure. If exposure is good, you won't see a difference, but if you're off a stop or two, then the RAW will be more easily recovered.

White balance is a huge difference too. With Jpeg, you have custom, auto, and camera. With RAW, you can still select daylight, tungsten, etc. All the options for WB are still there, which makes adjusting WB on RAW files much easier.

[jnsuffolk]

I guess I don't use the white balance too much but I can see that as for the exposure thats the thing I don't see too much difference in. Anyway thanx

[ohenry]

Possibly the biggest advantage of shooting raw is that one has a 16 bit image (post raw conversion) to work with. This means that the file has 65,536 levels to work with. This is opposed to a JPG file's 8 bit space with just 256 brightness levels available. This is important when editing an image, particularly if one is trying to open up shadows or alter brightness in any significant way.

Assuming one takes proper methods to get the best image possible in their camera, which everyone should strive for, the major difference is whether you want the camera's built in program to convert the data to a finished product or you want to control that output with a more capable and advanced program to tweak the output to your intent and alter that intent later, if one wishes.

[jfrancho]

I know this has been brought up before but amuse me if you will

Then amuse yourself with the search button.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by jfrancho

Then amuse yourself with the search button.

What John said.

This has been covered ad nauseum in countless threads, both here on PC and other places. I seriously doubt anyone is going to bring up some new & improved revelation that changes the course of the RAW vs JPG debate.

[Mr. Pickles]

RAW vs JPG is simple. If you have no idea how to understand and work the RAW converter of choice, JPG is the way to go. JPG out of the camera will get more of them "close" than a goof behind the controls of a converter will. And if you know how to use the camera, your JPG hit rate goes up too.

End of story really.

[jnsuffolk]

I have no problem with the ps raw converter. I just wanted to see if I was missing something thats all. next time I'll just keep it to my self.

[hotrod4x5]

You don't tell us what software or what version you are using, but it sounds like ACR in CS3, since you said both JPEG and RAW open in the raw converter. This is a setting you can change, if yuo don't want to open your JPEGs in ACR. I prefer to use ACR for JPEGs myself.

It's not exactly the same, when you lighten vs changing exposure in a raw.

[PetersenPhotography]

Originally Posted by jfrancho

Then amuse yourself with the search button.

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

RAW vs JPG is simple. If you have no idea how to understand and work the RAW converter of choice, JPG is the way to go. JPG out of the camera will get more of them "close" than a goof behind the controls of a converter will. And if you know how to use the camera, your JPG hit rate goes up too.

End of story really.

Doesn't the logo at the top of every page say "We Are Your Friendly Photo Community"?

[Mr. Pickles]

Yes it does. What exactly is the problem with what I posted? If you can't work or don't understand the RAW world, then use JPG until you get more comfortable. If I take a RAW file and let my 9 year old "fix" it, I'd think a JPG from the camera would be better.

[PetersenPhotography]

What you posted came across as to me (and I'm guessing by the OP's reaction - to him) as very sarcastic, and not a humorous sarcasm. You're entitled to express your opinion just as much as any of us are, but please be aware of the tone in your writing and how it's perceived by others.

[Mr. Pickles]

That can't be done. I think making a post about something that he knows is a over-worked topic, and saying so with an "amuse me" tone, is asking for a lot worse that he could have read into my simple explanation of the difference.

[ohenry]

Actually, given the amount of information the OP gave and the broad question he asked, the best answer simply would have been "yes, you're missing something".

[John Tee]

I suppose you could use the "Film" analogy - in those days, the majority of people sent their films off to the photo lab for processing. They were quite happy with the resulting "prints" or transparencies - sometimes even ordering enlargements. The enthusiasts used to process their own films and print from the resulting negatives.

Nowadays, the majority shoot JPEG (with possibly a little PP) and are quite happy with the results. The enthusiasts use RAW.

In the days of film, enthusiasts didn't really "look down" on those who didn't process their own films. However, nowadays, in my opinion, it seems a pity that some "enthusiasts" give the impression of looking at the "non-RAW" fraternity with a certain amount of distain!