Can anyone explain why RAW is better than JPEG?

Started Jan 9, 2013 | Discussions thread
IceShot
Regular MemberPosts: 135
Like?
Re: JPEG for the practical, RAW for the exceptional
In reply to Cy Cheze, Jan 15, 2013

Cy Cheze wrote:

RAW uses lots of memory space and hard to share. Use it only for HQ portraits or work that you intend to edit meticulously. IMHO this is something for commercial photographers, or some latter-day Vermeer. Most other people end up, after editing or compression, with a shot that is more or less the same as what they'd get shooting in JPEG from the get-go.

JPEG is compact and easy to share or use. It can also be edited, although not with quite the same finesse. If you are shooting in difficult conditions, you can obtain some of the advantage of RAW simply by using bracket mode, or by taking lots of shots and keeping the best.

RAW may be good for rescuing poor or botched photos, but you don't have time or need to fix dozens of mediocre or bad shots, so long as you have at least a few others that are OK. RAW won't compensate for bad composition or content.

I'll wager that people fond of using RAW for everything end up with hard drives crammed with files they'll never have time to edit or share. On the other hand, many commercial photographers don't get sufficient pay to warrant complex editing either, so many will simply shoot JPEG.

Gosh, this is the era of phone cameras and Instagram. Viewers (who might give a pic a 5 second glance) aren't going to know or care if the result required 15 seconds or 15 hours to shoot, edit, and upload.

No way. I use raw for everything. Post processing is the fun part for me but it's been made simple by great programs like lightroom and alien skin exposure. I don't care if it takes a lot of hard drive space it's totally worth it

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
????New
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow