RAW or JPEG?

same here, have used Noiseware for years, am completely happy with it. Ironically, yesterday I shot the Blue Angels/Thunderbirds flyover here in Atlanta, both in jpeg and raw. I chose an image of each and processed both from RAW and compared them to the in-camera-generated jpegs. The ones from RAW won that was iso 640 from a bright sunny day.

Here is a cropped ISO at 32000 on the 5D4, and then a further cropped version. The OOC JPEG was pretty good, but with the raw, I was able to improve the DR further during post, and do NR that the in-camera JPG engine cannot do, while also performing a couple different USM steps again not available in the picture styles, even if I design my own picture style and upload it to the camera.

Again though, parents have been paying for the OOC Jpeg results (which I do post process, just not as more detailed as the raw), so why waste my time doing raw -> JPG -> post processing?

awesome images! no wonder I can't find the right sauce here, it's in your kitchen!
Seriously, the football image at iso32,000--most of us would be hard pressed to deliver an image of that quality at iso 8000. Very nice.

I've found that on many of the newer cameras the bit depth is still rather deep with the new jpegs and very editable. I prefer raw, but have become very content with JPEGs as well.

Is there any difference in shooting RAW vs. JPEG in regards to crop? Does one handle crop better than another?

You don't crop raw, so no there isn't a difference to talk about. Sure raw editors allow a "crop" but all it does is create the jpeg and before saving it out, it crops it for you so you don't have to do it in post processing.

Ahh, that makes sense. Thank you.

duckster wrote in post #19060132
Is there any difference in shooting RAW vs. JPEG in regards to crop? Does one handle crop better than another?

A well processed raw file will usually have less noise - or I should say used to. Because of that, it allowed for slightly more flexibility in cropping. But new JPEPs are pretty dang good - spewing soles for Sony. I assume the other brands are the same too.

Again, generally speaking, Raw contains more detail than jpeg... though it may be only 5 to 10 percent better, where in the real world it really doesn't matter. RAW files are bigger though, and could be slower to work on, depending on size, etc. The files are just bigger. For sports, I now shoot jpeg a lot more than I used to.

very true the JPEG engines have improved a lot in nikon and canon and sony now at least for me it is hard to differentiate between raw and jpeg though i can shoot both with my canon T6 the processing is so good in camera i feel few minor adjustments does it and save tons of space all my pics on the forum are only pure jpegs with very slight editing of brightness conttrast saturation and sharpness and i am done. si gave up raw and happily stuck to jpeg did some initial comparisons did not find too much of difference to my eyes.

all jpeg shots not a single raw conversion so far at least

https://www.flickr.com​/photos/lakshmant/

laksh