Lightroom - any need for RAW?

I think I'm correct in saying that Lightroom will do everything with jpegs (eg white balance, exposure etc) that it will do with RAW files. What's the advantage(s) of using RAW then?

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=476369

Roy Mathers wrote in post #5204434
I think I'm correct in saying that Lightroom will do everything with jpegs (eg white balance, exposure etc) that it will do with RAW files. What's the advantage(s) of using RAW then?

FedkaTheConvict wrote in post #5204451
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=476369

Sorry Fedka, I didn't see that when I searched!

Roy Mathers wrote in post #5204434
I think I'm correct in saying that Lightroom will do everything with jpegs (eg white balance, exposure etc) that it will do with RAW files. What's the advantage(s) of using RAW then?

Think of it this way: Once you have converted a picture to JPEG, all the finer details are lost. For example, a blackish area with originally hundreds of nuances could be reduced to something with just a handful.

If you photos you take are perfect straight out of the camera, that would be great...

On the other hand, say that you accidentally underexposed a frame -- what then? Well, with a RAW picture you could convert all those nuances from blackish into, say, the perfect face shot. With a JPEG, on the other hand, the end result would be terrible since most of the information would have been lost.

Going back to the photos I took some years ago, I regret not switching to RAW earlier -- if I had I could probably have saved a lot more of the borderline cases. (I just realized I admitted that all my shots don't come out perfectly...)

Jpeg is just the Cliff Notes of a RAW. Sure you get the piont, But youll never get the whole story. Back in college, you get assigned a book to read, you all but memorize the Cliff Notes, but cant answer all the questions on the quiz. By now, its to late to go back and read the real book. Same for Photo. You can shoot in jpeg, and grab the image, but when the test comes and you dont have all the info in the capture to manipulate the image... well its to late. There is no excuse NOT to shoot in RAW. I shoot even snapshots in RAW. Pictures of stuff for insurance records... everything!

I find RAW is more noisy/grainy, even after applying NR through DPP. Can't compare to the smoothness of JPGs. The only way I've been able to get RAW results similar to JPG smoothness is by using the Despeckle feature in Photoshop

smorter wrote in post #5206027
I find RAW is more noisy/grainy, even after applying NR through DPP. Can't compare to the smoothness of JPGs. The only way I've been able to get RAW results similar to JPG smoothness is by using the Despeckle feature in Photoshop

Are you sure it's not your ISO settings that is making the noise occur? All things being equal, RAW captures more detail (more data) than jpeg. I don't think RAW has anything to do with how much "noise" your photo has.

While in camer JPG processors can do better than the average post processor with software, we that come to these forums can equal that, we are above average.

Haveing said that, it depends on where you want to spend your time, for most print jobs one wouldn't be able to tell the diff, but there is always that one shot that CAN be saved or enhanced. If you are in a position to take that shot again, no prob.

I've found I can push the RAW just a bit more in LR and WB is easier.

smorter wrote in post #5206027
I find RAW is more noisy/grainy, even after applying NR through DPP. Can't compare to the smoothness of JPGs. The only way I've been able to get RAW results similar to JPG smoothness is by using the Despeckle feature in Photoshop

It seems that I've been wasting my time shooting nothing but RAW.

It has to be the ISO. or a faulty camera. I dont have any problems with grain in either Jpeg or RAW files. Actualy the image looks the same to the eye. Its just that raws can be pushed a lot farther in processing than jpeg. Jpeg is basically a finished product. but raws can hold info something like 2 stops in both directions.

smorter wrote in post #5206027
I find RAW is more noisy/grainy, even after applying NR through DPP. Can't compare to the smoothness of JPGs. The only way I've been able to get RAW results similar to JPG smoothness is by using the Despeckle feature in Photoshop

The difference in noise is simply down to in-camera noise reduction, which is fairly effective. I find it can soften the image too much, however, and would prefer to post-process myself and choose the level of noise reduction. You can actually get the same processing as the in-camera JPEG by starting a RAW conversion from Zoombrowser, if that's what you want.

By the way - if you're processing high-ISO RAW files on a 400D, here's something I've found useful. The noise is generally not too bad, especially with just a little colour noise reduction, but it can have these bright spots or 'speckles' which are very distracting. I've found that a great tool for treating that kind of noise is (oddly enough!) the Photoshop 'Dust and Scratches' filter. Set it to radius=1 and threshold anywhere fron 20-50 (depending on the image). It seems to remove all the speckles without affecting sharpness

Interesting thread. I was just looking at one of my converted RAW files and noticed it looked grainy in jpeg form compared to the original RAW file, but then it was taken at ISO 800.

What software do you guys typically use to convert a RAW to jpeg, and is anything lost in this conversion?

primalcarl wrote in post #5213081
Interesting thread. I was just looking at one of my converted RAW files and noticed it looked grainy in jpeg form compared to the original RAW file, but then it was taken at ISO 800.

What software do you guys typically use to convert a RAW to jpeg, and is anything lost in this conversion?

Many programs will do it.

I use Lightroom and Photoshop Elements 6.0

DPP (comes with your camera) will do it too I believe.

As for losing data - there is no question that a JPEG doesn't have the range of data that a RAW file has. There are many threads on this - unfortunately they can be hard to find with the search function. There is also a current thread on this topic.

smorter wrote in post #5206027
I find RAW is more noisy/grainy, even after applying NR through DPP. Can't compare to the smoothness of JPGs. The only way I've been able to get RAW results similar to JPG smoothness is by using the Despeckle feature in Photoshop

Watch out! You may be beaten down for such views on this forum!

Actually, the DPP software does a pretty good job with the noise. You just have to get use to the idea that there will be some noise present (compared to jpg in camera), but you will have more detail. If you want more noise reduction, try noise ninja.

Glenn NK wrote in post #5213210
As for losing data - there is no question that a JPEG doesn't have the range of data that a RAW file has.

Yeah I've tried searching for this but with mixed results.

I don't think I made my point clear enough. When you edit a RAW file to correct exposure/levels etc and then export to jpeg, how different does the exported picture look from the original RAW you've just edited? Jpeg is the format for most websites/applications I use so this is the format I convert to