RAW vs JPG

Like I said, I didn't want to start a war.. that is why I haven't posted a pic comparison yet either....

In2Photos wrote in post #5732769
No, I said that up to a certain point a larger JPEG will have a higher image quality. I did not make a blanket statement that ALL larger JPEGs will have a higher image quality.

Is that not what I said? At some point the difference in file size is unjustified. I even said I didn't know where that point is. And who says I output JPEGs? If I print from LR I don't output to JPEG, I print directly from RAW. Most of the labs I use also accept TIFFs. Now, do I always use TIFFs? NO! Why? File size mostly. I don't see the need to send a 40MB TIFF when a 3MB JPEG will work for the 4x6s, 5x7s and 8x10s my clients order (young kids playing sports).

Of course all this assumes that we are dealing with a perfect shot captured. If I could do that every time I would likely use JPEG, simply because of the speed increase in workflow. But I prefer to have the latitude associated with RAW and the larger files that RAW file produces.

Then it seems we're mostly on the same page I simply don't understand why you always quote the larger JPEG size (57% better!) as evidence when discussing the superiority of RAW capture...

gcogger wrote in post #5733455
Then it seems we're mostly on the same page I simply don't understand why you always quote the larger JPEG size (57% better!) as evidence when discussing the superiority of RAW capture...

I don't ALWAYS quote the larger JPEG size as eveidence that it is better. I use RAW for more valid reasons than that. But yes my first post in THIS thread was about how I could distinguish between an in-camera JPEG vs a RAW converted JPEG and that was by file size. If you read any of the other "war" threads my posts are always in regards to its "forgiveness" if you will when things don't go quite as planned.

Get CS3 and you don't have to worry about WB in jpeg...just process your jpegs in the CS3 raw editor...you can process jpegs the very same way as you can raw in the same program. So now shooters should have no fear of shooting jpeg..I shot raw for 2 years and gave it up gladly. Plus, what are you going to do with in a few years in the future if your raw files you make today is no longer read by the software or supported..if you didn't convert to jpegs as backup then you are really down and out. The early Nikon raw files are no longer read or supported by todays software,like DOS documents and Windows now..unless you converted them to text files you may as well forget it..same with raw, too proprietary and no industry standard exists. Jpeg is universal and with CS3 (ahhhhh the wonders of technology)

Shooting wrote in post #5733621
... Plus, what are you going to do with in a few years in the future if your raw files you make today is no longer read by the software or supported..if you didn't convert to jpegs as backup then you are really down and out. The early Nikon raw files are no longer read or supported by todays software,like DOS documents and Windows now..unless you converted them to text files you may as well forget it..same with raw, too proprietary and no industry standard exists. Jpeg is universal and with CS3 (ahhhhh the wonders of technology)

Yep, as well as someone said memory is cheap, ya, but time isn't. My JPG workflow is much faster because I don't have to do the mass conversion from RAW at the very end.

One can simply not tell that a print started as a RAW or JPG.

Shooting wrote in post #5733621
Get CS3 and you don't have to worry about WB in jpeg...just process your jpegs in the CS3 raw editor...you can process jpegs the very same way as you can raw in the same program.

You're still editing an 8bpc file instead of 12bpc...

Not only that, but "changing" WB on a JPEG is a destructive process. Changing the WB on a RAW file isn't, that's exactly how the camera does it as well.

Yep but the camera has already processed my image the way I like it which means all that stuff you do in raw has already been done for me. You can save a jpeg up to 10 times with no showing of any artifacts or problems if you save it as 12 (the maximum) so changing the white balance and saving it does significantly no damage whatsoever. If it is destructive you cannot tell it..that is a very small price to pay for all the major pluses you get when you let your camera do what you are trying to do yourself. As far as editing the 8bpc that is fine..my camera has done all the work for me so I don't have to. Me and my clients are satisfied and as I said, save it as 12 quality, no problem.

Shooting, the point is that adjusting WB (and sharpness and exposure etc) in JPG is a lossy way of doing things.

If I need to change a picture shot into JPG at 2800K to 3400K, it will not look the same as if I edited it in RAW from 2800K to 3400K.

Shooting wrote in post #5741199
Yep but the camera has already processed my image the way I like it which means all that stuff you do in raw has already been done for me. You can save a jpeg up to 10 times with no showing of any artifacts or problems if you save it as 12 (the maximum) so changing the white balance and saving it does significantly no damage whatsoever. If it is destructive you cannot tell it..that is a very small price to pay for all the major pluses you get when you let your camera do what you are trying to do yourself. As far as editing the 8bpc that is fine..my camera has done all the work for me so I don't have to. Me and my clients are satisfied and as I said, save it as 12 quality, no problem.

I'm in 100% agreement, but, we are a rare breed. In fact, I only recently gave up the RAW process. Never realized a big enough return on investment.