Originally Posted by tomturner
Hands down RAW is a better way to go, but there's a learning curve and an extra expense involved in investing in a good post-processing program such as Adobe Lightroom.

Once you master RAW there's really no need to waste file space by having your DSLR make identical copies at the same time in both jpg and RAW.

Basically jpg assembles a shot automatically and makes all sorts of compromises to try to get you an acceptable image. RAW, on the other hand, records just computer data about the image and one assembles that image later without all the compromises.

Of course, one must be willing to learn post processing in RAW to enjoy all the benefits of a superior image, and many only want to point and shoot. For that market, the jpg will probably never go away.

Here's a jpg image of an unaltered, original shot, followed by what one can do to make it really "pop" using the RAW file of the same image in Lightroom after post processing . . .


Tom,

I agree with what you say to a large degree, but in fairness, a JPEG photo can similarly be enhanced using Photoshop or similar.

For a serious photography enthusiast, I think RAW is probably the way to go, but for the average guy, and for certain specialist applications, JPEG's do a very decent job..

And with regards the pics you posted, while one may have started as RAW, I noticed they both ended up as JPEG's to be posted on here which high lights one of the many applications of JPEG..

Regards,

Peter

Last edited by Pete E; 08/09/14.

Men of Harlech[Linked Image]