RAW or JPEG? Which one when?

So, for every single image you will adjust:

• white balance
• photo style
• digital fill (i.dynamic or equivalent)
• sharpness
• contrast
• saturation
• NR

Because with RAW you can tweak each of these any time you need to.

So you (a) never make mistakes and (b) rarely make large changes to the final image.

That cuts both ways. You cannot make an argument that presumes incompetence. We are not discussing what mom and pop will do ... we are discussing enthussiasts ... the people who inhabit forums like this.

Many JPEG engines oversharpen as a matter of course. In RAW, a competent person can adjust sharpness without battling pre-existing halos and get sharpness to be perfect, assuming the capture was competent and the lens was sharp in the first place.

Too right ... if a person cannot handle even one of the sliders, and does not want to acquire a decent (IPS) panel and calibrate it, then by all means shoot JPEG. Of course, with all those issues, the person will not be able to get the camera settings right either. And with such a trashy monitor, will not know what has been shot since the display is more ore less random anyway.

See my point?

So ... let's take it this way ...

(a) If we presume competence ...

(b) Then RAW wins outright in every category.

And if you choose otherwise, make it an informed decision. But don't pretend you have a good argument. The only pro-JPEG arguments are time and convenience.

Technically, RAW is the start, and the end all. How can it be otherwise? JPEG is the compromise under all circumstances. So long as you inform yourself, shooting JPEG is simply a choice. No big deal ...

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. No one should ever blame the camera for a photographer's screw up. Choosing to shoot JPEG is not a crime. But it is a decision that an informed person must ponder against the possibility of getting non-optimal results.

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com