RAW vs. JPG
- Thread starter 4Father
- Start date
hvp05
Methodically disorganized
Several of those points are important, but this is really at the top of the list.
This is why a RAW file is referred to as the closest thing to a "digital negative", containing every bit of information the camera saw. In turn, this is what allows such extensive editing control, namely over elements like the exposure, color temperature, highlights/shadows, and color accuracy.
In short, JPEGs are fine if you simply want to take snapshots; RAW is preferred if you want the power to capture and process high-quality images.
Personally, I shoot everything in RAW because it provides a bit of a 'safety net' when editing, something that would be considerably more difficult if working with JPEGs.
F
forceofnature
Guest
Picasa can adjust Raw files as well and it is free.
Joe'smom
Member
Photoshop elements does great for less $$---edits RAW no problem but does save as .dng file --you can compress to JPEG but then comes the quality issue again.
I just recently have gotten use with RAW format and the difference in a good photo that -with a little pp tweak--looks much better.
hvp05
Methodically disorganized
I guess I wouldn't be a good respondent on this because I use Ps CS3 and am not familiar with the other editors.
But I can tell you that RAW can be a pain because of all its different 'flavors'. Each manufacturer has their own code, and they usually change that with each new camera release, which in turn means you will need to keep your software updated. JPEG may be a weaker format but it hasn't changed in 15 or 20 years.
