Difference in shooting RAW and converting and just JPEG?

Didn't know where to put this so I thought I'd ask it here. About to get the 40D, just wondering if there'd be a noticeable difference between shooting in strictly RAW and converting to JPEG without doing any PP, and just shooting in RAW+L and using the JPEG files?

I do plan on doing some minor PP on some pictures but I'm still a beginner at doing PP. Most of the people that want pictures from me will be using the files to print 4x6 and at largest 8x10.

Will the RAW converted to JPEG (I have CS3 and Lightroom) be noticeably better then the straight JPEG? And up to what size would you say could be printed with decent quality without doing any PP?

TMaG82 wrote in post #5802024
Didn't know where to put this so I thought I'd ask it here. About to get the 40D, just wondering if there'd be a noticeable difference between shooting in strictly RAW and converting to JPEG without doing any PP, and just shooting in RAW+L and using the JPEG files?

I do plan on doing some minor PP on some pictures but I'm still a beginner at doing PP. Most of the people that want pictures from me will be using the files to print 4x6 and at largest 8x10.

Will the RAW converted to JPEG (I have CS3 and Lightroom) be noticeably better then the straight JPEG? And up to what size would you say could be printed with decent quality without doing any PP?

If you do a search, you'll find a load of threads on the topic.

Raw offers more leeway for correcting errors, and has the advantage of being 14bpc (with the 40D) over 8bpc for a jpg.

If you get exposure and WB right (and other in camera settings, like sharpening), there's not that big a difference, and both should offer good 8x12 prints.

There is no difference when converting a RAW to JPEG whether it’s done in camera or by post processing. The final image can be identical. It’s all about who chooses the settings for the conversion. When you shoot RAW+L the camera uses its defaults to convert the RAW file to a JPEG following the rules set in the camera. It will follow these rules for every picture until you change the in camera settings. When shooting RAW only, you can use the default camera setting to convert and create the same JPEG or you can choose other setting or make adjustments to get the most out of your image. Shooting RAW is all about flexibility and user customization.

gjl711 wrote in post #5802127
There is no difference when converting a RAW to JPEG whether it’s done in camera or by post processing. .

NOT quite true statement above!...

• Just as the choice of film developer would result in a difference in the appearance of the negative (same shot 4 times, processed in 4 different developers = 4 different prints!), the RAW processors each have a distinctive character in how each interprets the photo even with NO adjustment.
  
• And the camera itself, based upon the settings or sharpness, contrast, saturation, etc. could differ...one 40D adjusted to one picture style could produce a very different result than a second 40D adjusted to a different picture style.

Wilt wrote in post #5804328
NOT quite true statement above!...

Yeah...I really have to agree. DPP converts a raw to a jpg MUCH better than the camera does. Downside is that it takes longer and takes up more space but you do end up with a better picture.

Wilt wrote in post #5804328
NOT quite true statement above!...

• Just as the choice of film developer would result in a difference in the appearance of the negative (same shot 4 times, processed in 4 different developers = 4 different prints!), the RAW processors each have a distinctive character in how each interprets the photo even with NO adjustment.
  
• And the camera itself, based upon the settings or sharpness, contrast, saturation, etc. could differ...one 40D adjusted to one picture style could produce a very different result than a second 40D adjusted to a different picture style.

True that the raw converter can and does make a difference but the gist of my point was that you can use the raw converter set to the same settings as you camera and get the same (or close) jpeg, but with RAW you can get a lot more that you will have difficulty getting with a jpeg.

It's really quite simple (ho-ho!). Shoot in RAW- keep everything and play to your hearts-content later - or commit and live with your jpeg forever more. There is no reason for me to shoot jpeg - other than as a backup on my 1D- but certain for-press photogs will disagree.

RAW allows you to fix many mistakes in post processing. Like adjusting exposure to about a full stop, selecting a different white balance, sharpness, saturation etc. Unlike postprocessing on a JPEG, none of pp applied to RAW is final, i.e. it will be applied to the JPEG you save but you can always change these settings in the original RAW file without loss of quality. It's like wearing a green sweater (RAW) vs painting your body green (JPEG); you can always change the sweater !

Raw is for Pro's & people who like post processing.

Jpeg is for newbies & people that just arent really serious

There, that should REALLY get some flaming!!!

gjl711 wrote in post #5804536
True that the raw converter can and does make a difference but the gist of my point was that you can use the raw converter set to the same settings as you camera and get the same (or close) jpeg, but with RAW you can get a lot more that you will have difficulty getting with a jpeg.

No dispute to that statement. You can adjust RAW to extract more highlight detail, extract more shadow detail, than JPEG would ordinarily be able to capture via the in-camera processor.

Why not do both? With the 40d you can output RAW and JPEG with each shot. You'll have the RAW for archive purposes (and for when you learn how to PP) and you'll have a fully processed JPEG ready for printing.

And yes, there is a noticeable difference between post-processed RAW and in-camera JPEG. The difference(s) will range from minuscule to immense, depending on the situation.

homersapien wrote in post #5805560
Why not do both? With the 40d you can output RAW and JPEG with each shot. You'll have the RAW for archive purposes (and for when you learn how to PP) and you'll have a fully processed JPEG ready for printing.

And yes, there is a noticeable difference between post-processed RAW and in-camera JPEG. The difference(s) will range from minuscule to immense, depending on the situation.

why? cuz it kills your memory cards... on a 1dmkiii, an 8gb card can hold about 550 raw files, but only about 400 or 350 raw+jpg. 90% of raw converters have batch conversion to jpg, no need to shoot jpg, just have the program convert it if you are lazy. hell, make a preset and you can mimic in camera settings for raw. gives you the best of both worlds without the extra clutter on your cards.

oh, and forget about WB or contrast/hue/saturatio​n adjustments on a jpg unless you like banding and artifacting

Nick_C wrote in post #5805346
Raw is for Pro's & people who like post processing.

Jpeg is for newbies & people that just arent really serious

There, that should REALLY get some flaming!!!

Actually, I'd say it's opposite for me. I use RAW because it makes it easier to correct my mistakes. If I was a better photographer and didn't have as many exposure / WB mistakes I'd shoot JPEG and save some time.

Amamba wrote in post #5809638
Actually, I'd say it's opposite for me. I use RAW because it makes it easier to correct my mistakes. If I was a better photographer and didn't have as many exposure / WB mistakes I'd shoot JPEG and save some time.

Yes you can use Raw as a sort of safe guard, but its not a good idea, but if it helps people learn then what the heck!!