Home Forums Gear Photography raw vs jpeg

What is the difference between raw and jpeg in quality ? Is there a reason for the two, any advantages?

I would say RAW is the highest quality but the files are much, much larger. As I understand it, with RAW, you never actually make changes to the original, but rather store information about each change you've made. This means that image quality can be maintained no matter how much image manipulation is done.

Once you've got the image looking the way you want it, you will probably have to convert it to Jpeg, (or perhaps TIFF) to enable to be printed ect.

With Jpeg, the image quality is slightly worse, and the further degrades every time the image is altered and re saved. In a lot of situations, this is only slight and not really of any consequence for many applications.

That said, Jpeg's are easier to transmit, print ect.

These days some camera's allow you to take a photo simultaneously in both RAW and Jpeg which gives you the best of both worlds but uses a lot of memory..

Years back there was an advantage to shooting RAW for the average guy because in camera JPEG engines were so bad. Nowadays, with new cameras, the advantages to shooting a RAW are much fewer because cameras are more advanced in how they process files.

I shoot nothing but JPEGs now in my cameras that are less than a few years old. I only shoot RAW in my old Nikons, or where I know I am going to be doing heavy post processing involving several adjustment layers in a Photoshop.

You'll have to become very proficient at Photoshop or Lightroom to produce better JPEG conversions than what most recent cameras produce.

What kind of camera do you have? To what use will you be putting your pictures?

For me, a hobbiest heavily invested in canon gear...

I use both.

Raw - gives you the most data to manipulate on the cameras firmware, canon digital professional or Lightroom. The raw file must have a copy saved as a JPEG for most people who don't own a camera to use.

JPEG - gives a file that can be saved to any computer right out of the camera, but some limitations on what can be done in post processing. And, degrading of the image with each manipulation (I haven't been able to appreciate the degradation, but many experts agree that it does).

So, say your out at some Navhda event, and your shooting some dogs in the field. Your buddies brought their laptop and want some of your awesome pics for Facebook or whatever. If you shoot JPEG, you can fill their hard rive with your pics and they can make the images smaller with default computer programs for Facebook. If you are shooting raw, they need you to process the files and upload them to flickr, or save to thumb drive or a disk or something for them to get the pics.

Regardless of method, no post processing can save an out of focus pic...

Oh, also, the cameras buffer will be faster with smaller files...so your camera could take faster frames per second with smaller jpegs vs large jpegs/raws if you were doing some very long action shot. But, with most prosumer cameras, you can get really fast bursts with raw.

also...

With RAW you have some leniency to "fix" things in post. With JPEGS you need to get things, more often than not, right "in the camera". There are advantages to shooting wildlife in RAW and you may not always have the time to get it right "in the camera" before firing away.

Oregon 45 , I have a Nikon 3100. I am not doing a whole lot with my pictures except putting my kids and nephews on the computer. Nothing much . I hear a lot about Raw and Jpeg but have no idea the difference and there is an option in the camera. As for now I will stick to Jpeg cause it seems easier. Picture quality seems close according to most here, or not enough to have it matter for a guy like me. Thanks everyone. Other comments are still appreciated.

If I'm the conditions are bad or changing rapidly, or if the shots matter, I'll shoot RAW because I have more to work with in post.

I bet that if you start shooting RAW and then have a more advance post program.. you'll shoot RAW more than JPEG... ;-)

RAW is an uncompressed file which is filled with lots more information where as JPEG is a processed and compressed file with a lot of information but not as much as a RAW. You still have to get the exposure right as you make the photo but with RAW, if you have some highlights that are too bright, you can pull detail out of an area that seems to be void of detail up to about 3 stops. Same with shadows but only about 2 stops. I like to have the control over the image and the processing vs. the folks that just write the software that processes in camera. Either one is fine but you will notice substantially more "punch" in a photo that is processed from RAW.

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 . . .

Well said Tom.... spot on!

Well said, great example.

That certainly does "pop"!

One can always go from RAW to any other format. He can not reverse the process. RAW always for originals. The sole purpose of any compression format is smaller files. That will always result in a loss of data. With today's huge and cheap hard drives, it's not much of an issue.

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

I would agree to a very limited extent Peter. For the average person, especially someone who will just post and share with friends, JPEG can be done similarly but with no where near the detail from a RAW saved as a JPEG. If someone is going to make a print, especially anything larger then 11x14, working off of a RAW and saving as a TIFF is the way to go. Opening a JPEG as a pseudo RAW file in Photoshop in order to save it as a TIFF is pretty different. With the price of a hard drive I would still shoot in RAW even if you do a JPEG copy or simple auto conversion to save as a JPEG. One day someone may decide to get more involved in photography and wish they had the ability to do more with an image than they could with the JPEG.
But again, I do agree, for the most part a simple JPEG can be great quality with the processing done in camera. I prefer to have the control as to how the photo turns out though in the end.

If you plan on much digital manipulation of the image in Photoshop, then shoot RAW. For just sharing images, with minor adjustments, shoot jpeg.

I thought this would be illustrative of how much you can pull out of a RAW image...(like when you miss the settings like I do more than I like to admit).

This all very hilarious.

Thanks!...............

Chris, that can easily be done with jpegs. I shoot jpegs and sometimes have to salvage photos that are much worse, using Photoshop Elements.

Very easy to [bleep] on the fly,if only for starters and everything that these Bozo's think is "neat" with the RAW's shown,could easily be duped ala JPEG.

Hint.................

Tis no secret jpegs can be manipulated in various forms. However, RAW is simply the way to get the most data for said manipulation. In comparison cards are cheap and so is storage. If'n you're at all serious RAW is simply the way to fly. Jus' makes mo sense. If you're the sensible type.

Tell yourself whatever works for you...just don't expect everyone to be as stupid as you.

Hint...............

I'll stick with the fact I have the luxury of not guessing.

The children's table is in some of the other forums, case yooz wonderin'

You are at the mercy of what you THINK you "know",which is ALWAYS very separate from what you actually know...thus the perpetual humor inherent in your doing your "best" and trying to talk about it.

Hint.................

If that makes you feel good, go with that. 'Cause as always you wrote the book long before it was written.

Hint...

I'm not much fun to try and keep pace with,but the attempts do humor me more than a little. Hint.

Your haste to reliably schlep Stupidity to places it's never been before,is as funny as it gets...if only because you are oblivious and doing your "best".

Congratulations?!?................

Yep, you're right. 'cept your reputation of having the ability to wake yourself from your own wet dream to run to a board to boast about how yours is the best wet dream 'cause you're the best to only realize you've yet again phooked it up, yet again... but you're doing "your" best... congratulations.

hint, much to that...

read it again, then read it again... it'll sink in. Good Luck.

You are at the mercy of your "means" ,"abilities" and "comprehension"...I know,I know...the bee's are going to ruin the World.(again)

You AMAZINGLY stupid boob................(wow)

The evidence that steered me away from JPG's came from past refereed journal publication experiences. My graphics drafting programs (Harvard Graphics:dates me, and SigmaPlot) could generate graphs with horizonatal and vertical lines that were razor sharp to the pixel. Regardless of the resolution viewed all the way down to 1 pixel per screen, they were dead straight edges.

The files were huge when saved as tif's less so but still large with bmp's, and uploading to publishers often over ran time limits. Jpg conversions reduced file size, but when brought back up all lines exhibited some bleeding (i.e. a thin band of gray along what used to be razor sharp black/white transitions). With large images and production reduction procedures, the end product was OK from jpg's, but not quite up to perfection. No amount of editing, short of erasing individual pixels could undo the jpg bleeding. I took to submitting CD's or DVD's to get around the upload issue.

In another note Cookie offered up some images to a state agency and a couple were choosen along with about 15 other submissions to enlage to poster size and decorate a big rig trailer. She saved her RAWS as TIF's (no file size reduction at all). The company doing the printing made special mention on delivery that her two images required absolutely no prep work or manipulations to get them up to specs. Every other image in a variety of formats cost them several hours of processing.

On the jpg's: I lost it in a unit crash a couple years ago, but a buddy gave me some software that could undo the building block effect often surfacing in over expanded (zoomed in) jpg images. The downside was it took my work station about 20 minutes to clean up a single 2,400 x 3,800 pixel image. It did a wonderful job, so jpg polishing can be done. In a production line, however, one could not afford the time.

Funny stuff!

Extoll some of this amazing RAWtitude.................

Another reason to shoot raw, is that after you learn more about post processing - and I am learning all the time - you may revisit your old pics and reprocesses them better than the original in camera or minimal post processed JPEG.

Still awaiting pics of the "splendors".

Again...VERY easy to [bleep] on the fly,knock it out of the park at inception and then of course still do as you please after the fact.

Hint..................

After you learn more about photography, you'll need less post-processing.

Every shot is a tracer,if you wish...................(grin)

I can say little that hasn't already been said about RAW but, I call it a "lossless" format in that it's like a 35mm negative that you always have regardless of how much it's been printed, color corrected, etc. I use to shoot just jpegs till I saw how terrible the final product was for printing after I did a bit of post processing. The image was not only less sharp but displayed artifacts and for me destroyed the reason for shooting jpegs...more shots per card.

When I got my Nikon D200 some years back I started using their Capture NX2 exclusively and never looked back. I'd make my changes in the RAW file, crop, color correct if necessary, sharpen, remove sticks or whatever from the background, etc. and then when I was happy with it would "Save As" a jpeg file which was usually between 1.5-5mb size rather than the 15.5mb RAW file, which I still had unmolested. With a 4Gig card I can still get 240 RAW images from this camera...more than I'd ever need.

That D200 is still quite a good camera. Bought mine, used, and it accepts all my Nikon film camera lenses.

I didn't know Raw took 3x the memory. I might try it though. Would it be a good idea to take the megapixels from 14.4 to 4? I have shot 4 mp. on my Nikon d3100 and thought it was ok.

Just depends on ones expected print size. Much like everything else I do in life, more is better. Never wished for a smaller truck, chain saw, or stereo.

ihookem,
At the beginning to see if RAW will benefit what you do, and I believe it will if you are doing post processing, I would leave it at full resolution. I shoot a RAW file with a JPEG copy in camera and I will look at the photo on the computer before I transfer them to make sure it is what I want. That way you won't fill up a hard drive so fast. RAW does take more memory since it is uncompressed where JPEGs are compressed files. Again, to me, they are worth it.

Hang some pics,it'll be funny...............

I'm not wearing chest waders as I type this...though I likely own some. Hint.

Hang some pics,it will be funny...............

This one is hilarious...

Shooting RAW opens many possibilities.

Certainly is.

Tough to trump the humor of botched white balance and a sensor being out of square to the World...but as per always,you remain at the mercy of your "abilities" and "comprehension".

Wow..............

Aww common there lil' guy. Seems that a rating of 99.4 and 8000 views would tend to tell you you're a fool..but you know that as you have the luxury of not guessing. Effects that can change affects are so cool with RAW processing. You're so steadfast to your rules you've no room to think or grow. Which explains your anger.

So common weeble throw some of your stuff up for schits and giggles...if nothing less than to drive our muse and aspirations, we all know you live in AK and should have photo's that are bar none better than anything world wide or in the universe. Cause I'm sure you've gained global status as the best wildlife photog on the cause we see your name everywhere. It's Larry what...? Plus you've boasted how you've spent more on photo gear than most make on an annual salary. Seems you've no excuse's.

Obama got the Popular Vote and BSA sells alotta scopes.

Your insecurities are EXCEPTIONALLY well founded.

Hang another schit pic and a "vote".

Laughing!.................

As an aside,PLEASE copy/paste anything you "think" I'm "mistaken" about and I'll happily rub your nose in your own Stupidity.

Perhaps muse Cellphones and Bees,regarding the "end" of the World,again.

Laughing!................

Nice pic..just as I thought...

Vision and creativity jus don't suit you do they.

How ironic you mention insecurities, please have another wet dream for us.

laughin'... you're above and beyond your best already.

Is this where your Imagination and it's Pretend,precludes your "remembering" the "harrowing" Tales you espoused in regards to Bees and Cellphones,causing Global demise? Now THAT would be funny,if you could dupe yourself into believing those facts did not transpire,at your trembling finger tips.

Laughing!

It is a curious constant,that you Window Lickers go right to Homo Erotic Fantasy,just as soon as you feel your Pretend starting to crumble.

I'll feign my "surprise",that you are unable to cite my being "mistaken". What were the "odds"?!?

How's about a INSTANT Classic?

JPEG SOOC,as it fell off of the sensor.



PLEASE find a better pic of one,anywhere on the Planet and be SURE to sort through Votes first.

Laughing!.................

you've done that...

odds are everyone eventually gets something close to almost.

chuckle..

I've not enough fingers and toes...

C'ya...keep trying you're almost close to almost.

Is this where I feign my "surprise",that the JPEG SOOC image is without peer...despite your Estrogen Levels swooning moot votes?

Knock it out of the Park. Laughing! Might I add APS-H 8MP sensor and that it prints FABULOUSLY on metal,to really pop the innate iridescence.

If only again:

"Is this where your Imagination and it's Pretend,precludes your "remembering" the "harrowing" Tales you espoused in regards to Bees and Cellphones,causing Global demise? Now THAT would be funny,if you could dupe yourself into believing those facts did not transpire,at your trembling finger tips."

Do tell and PLEASE don't let the cat get your tongue.

Laughing!................

Post another...you're bound to have at least one more.

The BEST in the World,will reliably more than suffice.

Perhaps take a Vote?

Laughing!...............

'member that instant classic thing you mentioned and insecurities. yeah, this post of yours purdy much nailed it.

As I said you're well above your best today... good job.

A herd of black horses, one looks to have a reflection across the back, sun *is* bright.

I know you can't refrain Cluelessness and that just might be one of many points. Hint.

It's hardly a "secret" that I'm more than a whole bunch good,with a whole buncha things. Hell...even someone as Stupid as you,knows that. Which do of course add to the humor. Just saying. Funnier than schit,that you Imagined to Pretend the botched Pony Show pic,was a Trump Card of some kind! Wow!!!

Here I was expecting you to do the RAW Vote "Pro" Thing and really knock it out of the Park,but alas it's just another WyoWhimper Whine Fest poignantly punctuated with Excuses.

In case you "forgot" the query:


"Is this where your Imagination and it's Pretend,precludes your "remembering" the "harrowing" Tales you espoused in regards to Bees and Cellphones,causing Global demise? Now THAT would be funny,if you could dupe yourself into believing those facts did not transpire,at your trembling finger tips."

Laughing!.............

RDW,

Is that a hanging chad Vote of confidence?

Laughing.............

RDW,
Suns are *bright* they kinda work that way...anatomy of a horse given angles of light do play tricks. But the feed back is appreciated and noted. Thanks.

Twiggy,

Pony pics are easy to be had and hardly my trump card. And as for botched pics, sheeesh, there is a laundry list of things with your bird in a a zoo photo. Only you would wet dream this into the best in the world. Go with what you're know for and drive it hard so I can believe it. You're almost close to almost believing it yourself.

Seems your the queen of self proclaimed superiority excuses which hold water like a sieve. But seeing as you have the luxury of not guessing you're savvy to that and lies are easily believed when you make em yourself. Again, your almost close to almost there.

Cheers,

PS, Again, you're on your best game today..well done.

Best I've seen.

WyoWhimper,

I wonder why it is,you never elaborated on the "dreaded" Bee and Cellphone "End Of The World" pearls dispersed,via your quivering lips?

Please find me "mistaken",it will be FUNNY.

Bless your heart...you are quite a photographer.

Laughing!..................

Looks metered off the sun rather than the horse.

[bleep] ain't hard.

But Bees and Cellphones are scary.

Laughing!................

Everyone has their own opinions as to why to shoot RAW or why to shoot JPEG. Be your own judge. This is a shot from a sequence I did for an HDR picture. When a shot is over or especially under exposed and you correct for the details you get noise and lose color. The chairs in the final shots are completely hidden in shadow in the original shot. I developed the shot in Lightroom 5 using the RAW file, then copied the develop settings and used them to process the JPEG. Even a blind man can see the difference in the details of the shot. There is much more detail in the shadow area with less contrast and if you notice the color to the left of the chair, the JPEG file completely falls apart.
Again a JPEG is an image that the processor in the camera makes development decisions, RAW allows the photographer to choose what it will look like. Any file will look pretty good in flat bright even light. When there is high contrast in the image a JPEG can not handle it anywhere nearly as nicely as the RAW file.

Original JPEG shot SSOC



JPEG processed to the same settings as the RAW file



RAW file processed and saved as a JPEG

Here is the full frame of the processed RAW file.

I think you are confusing the issue with misinformation. There is absolutely NO reason to require a RAW file in order to correct a bad exposure. It can be easily done to a jpeg file using something like PS Elements.

I had no idea "The View" had moved to this station.

The list of things you don't know,is in fact rather impressive. That being said,it pales to the list of things you "think" you know...but assuredly do not.

I suggest you take notes and apply same................

It ALL flew over your head...............

Bingo................

pal,
I totally understand that JPEG and RAW are not the difference when dealing with bad exposure, instead it is the way it handles details in the areas. The dynamic range of a sensor can only do so much, the quality of the information you are working with when stretching that range beyond the amount capable in the sensor is the key. Can you stretch a JPEG? Yes, easily. Can you maintain the sharpness, detail and keep noise down as well in the image? No. Because the camera processing engine has already made changes to the exposure and produced a second generation of the image, you can only work with what the file contains at that point.

With RAW, nothing has been done and all the information is there. Part of what I do in my business is reworking images for other photographers when a shot is muffed. Opening a JPEG as a RAW file in PS gives you some added opportunities, but it will never match a RAW file.

I sell prints, mainly 24x36 and larger. Working off a file that was originally a JPEG vs. a RAW converted to a TIFF or even a JPEG is painfully obvious in prints that big. The breakdown in the individual pixels is noticeable. I work with just JPEGs often when I am shooting in flat light and low contrast.

1minute, it is a pretty cool place to sit and unwind. My nearest neighbor is about a 1/4 mile away as the crow flies.

BS,
I have nothing for you. You will argue the color of sky given the opportunity. You truly may be the smartest man alive so it does me no good to even discuss it with you.

Somewhere I did a Post on HDR,with numerous subjects and 6-stop swings in extrapolation,as to how a tough scene could stretch a camera's meter and dynamic range. Though I guess the Whiners here,will cite that all cameras are the "same". They ain't. Hint.(grin)

JPEG of course and but a slice of the pie. Where this image sets in the exposure swing,I do not recall,but obviously the light was exceptionally harsh and shadows
etched in stone. In a single [bleep] exposure,that swing was beyond the DR of the system and both ends of the spectrum were clipped.



Lotsa different ways to look at HDR and some really like things over-cooked and strive to do same,which is of course a subjective determination. My stance is,that I like to replicate what's actually there and massage a sensor's inability to gather it all in a single poke. More of an artsy-fartsy Play Toy for me,rather than a mainstay crutch.



Good talk.................

You are in well over your head,if only obviously................

I must have missed it,what body(ies) and glass are you shooting,as per your discussion(s)?

Thanks.................

BS, you obviously understand exposure and dynamic range, no question. Do me and you a favor and crop down to an extremely small section of the image and look at the breakdown.

I am asking this as a serious question, have you shot RAW? I am sure you have. I am curious as to why you don't anymore. I know it is much more convenient to shoot JPEG but there had to be distinct disadvantages to not continuing to shoot it.

My point was, and is, it will differ for everyone who shoots. I have shot both and there is no comparison for my finished product as to what gives me better results. If JPEGs work for you great. I respect people's choices and decisions as to what they do. I think it is fair to the original question though to show choices and options with pictures to show the differences. Why argue the point with other posters on the thread? I just find there are way too many things in life to keep me busy and enjoy vs. arguing with you on the forum.

Never even heard of RAW until you "told" me about it. Laughing!

I asked what camera body(ies) and glass.

Thee's nothing to argue,simply hang some pics...it'll be funny...............(hint)

Perhaps that was an awkward question,due the requisite awkward answer?..................

I hadn't seen your question about bodies and glass. I will have to look for sure but I believe that was shot with the Sony RX-100 M3 point and shoot camera. Which is a great camera with a fantastic dynamic range.

The camera body and type aren't going to dictate JPEG vs RAW benefits. Again, you just like to argue. I have other things to do honestly. I see from your 36,705(and counting) posts you probably don't.

Seriously shoot what you want, I will shoot what I want. You see your benefits, I see mine. Enjoy.

I will venture to say that most, here, will not be selling 24x36 prints. And few will be offering to fix others' botched photos, for money.

Some photographers get off on heavy post processing, thinking they are "improving" an image. Mostly that look offends me. Still, it is good advice to buy a camera which has RAW capability.

I agree completely.

I wasn't curious about the crappy pictured you posted,but was curious about what body/glass you are shooting now.

The body and it's type,will VERY much dictate possibilities in both RAW and JPEG. Hint.

Admittedly,I am not much fun to try and keep pace with. That being said,I'll happily use smaller words for you,if only to grease the skids for you to try..............

I'd submit,that millions of large prints have been sold that were gunned with modest systems.

The original Canon 1D and 1Ds spring immediately to mind.

No matter the platform,if you understand light,exposure and DR...you can do exceptionally nice things SOOC (straight out of camera) and of course JPEG's will happily be coaxed along in Post. It is a constant "Trump Card" of those less a clue,that RAW is a "magic" salve for Turd Polishing.

It assuredly is not.............

Hmmm...

This brings me back to the old slide vs. photo film argument.


BTW stick - you can't expect everyone to have access to 10k plus lenses - and possibly high end software... That's not all that fair now is it.

Still can't figure out why you shoot those cheap ass remy actions

Currently I am shooting a Nikon D-800, D-300s, Sony a7R, Canon 7D, Canon 70D, Sony NEX-7, and an Olympus EM-5. For glass mostly Tamron glass and a couple of Zeiss prime lenses. Depends on what I am shooting that day as to which one I grab.

The slide vs photo film is a great comparison. One is first generation the other is second generation. Slide film has more punch at first but less information to work with, print film has b much wider latitude because of the post processing.

I've never cited equipment,other than Dinosaurs (1D/1Ds).

It's the Indian,not the arrow...but beware the best Indian with the best arrows..............

A bit off topic but my transparency films produce far superior prints than my color print film.

No wonder Post Production consumes your every thought.

It would be refreshing to see some sound pics for a change...............

BS, you asked me what I am shooting, I answered your question. I do very little post production.

pal, IMO very little will ever compete with a good Cibachrome.

Dude unless you were holding some else's gear in the pictures I saw, well - I call BS.
Yes I'm talking lenses, not the body of the rig, they were 2 foot long plus.

You don't do much of anything,but guess....................

Good glass comes in all shapes/sizes and splendors can be found in places some would never believe.

Bodies have come along faster than glass and AF/IQ and DR along with buffer depth and frame rate,have made amazing gains.

It's all about connecting dots and it ain't tough to cypher who do and who don't..................

Got pretty quiet,pretty fast...I guess those Bees and cellphones are even scarier than they sound! Laughing.

Touching on that which matters and JPEG's in obviously rapid succession.







[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v136/BigStick/Stuff/North%20Slope%20Work%20And%20Play/DAD_2818.jpg[/img]
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v136/BigStick/Stuff/North%20Slope%20Work%20And%20Play/DAD_2817.jpg[/img]
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v136/BigStick/Stuff/North%20Slope%20Work%20And%20Play/DAD_2816.jpg[/img]
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v136/BigStick/Stuff/North%20Slope%20Work%20And%20Play/DAD_2815.jpg[/img]

'Course the burst was longer than that,but one can only load (10) frames per Post and I reckon it only fair to hang that number gunned in a row,less a dropped shot...if only for alotta reasons.(grin)

Good talk!....................

Like the first one with the eyes open.

So much splendor,is sensory overload.

Ain't even "fair"................(grin)

Number 5 ("The SuperYawn") has just become my desktop background. Big Stick, thanks for posting at a nice high resolution!

One thing not raised on this thread (and that may be important to some folks), is that RAW is not a single format, but dozens of them (some specific to a SINGLE camera). These are proprietary formats, unlike jpeg.

Think about what has already happened to many proprietary computer file formats.

Any of you have early Wordstar or WordPerfect files they have tried to work with lately?

In 25 years, I am confident that programs will be able to read our current jpegs (today nearly as universal a format as text) but I am much less confident that Photoshop Version 157.45 (or whatever we are using then!) will be able to open the RAW format of say, a Nikon 200 (which Nikon introduced in 2005 and has already partially orphaned in their software today).

John

a very valid point - and one most never consider.

there has been noise about trying to adopt DNG or TIFF as a default lossless file format but results have been more like herding cats....

if you are shooting RAW, you'd be nuts if you didn't export your photos as large JPGs as a backup somewhere....

Dots is getting connected...while not so "curiously",the Clueless bow out.

Funny how it works and I mean FUNNY!.............