Ok after reading all the replys, 150 of them the limit for posting I post it here.
Now I've giving this much thought, it seems silly that people are of the mind. That war is so much better then jpeg, and I'll give some of my thoughts on this after much thought.
First the raw file has all data bits in it, some of them are junk bits that are of no use. Other bits are very useful to get a better image, now recovery of all the data bits is another story. First and for most is the cam makers built in program, to make the most of the raw bits. When you use jpeg the built in program, uses the raw file to make the image.
The built in program dos in fact use a raw file info to make the jpeg, it converts it in cam then let the raw file drop. And saves the jpeg image made from it, now cam makers got a pretty good program to do this. They know what info is good and what info is needed, and leave out the junk bits that not really needed.
There for the key word here is leaving out the junk bits, I'm sure makers don't really leave out good info. That is needed to make the best image for the jpeg, after all that would be pretty silly and self defeating in the end. They want the cam to get the best shot they can, jpeg is a compression not a program to make use of the bits of data.
Now as I said I'm pretty sure, the only bits the in cam program drops. Is ones that are of no use to the image, after it convert the info left it compress that info into a jpeg. With a raw file you use what ever software you want, and it has set default in most cases. To use the raw file bits to convert it to a image, like photoshop and other programs.
Now lets take photoshop, it gives you a interface to make setting changes using the bits. Even raw files have some compression, but it made to not lose any of the bits. I'm sure very little is lost using the in cam jpeg compression, but yes it does have some lose. Now I'm sure even the raw files, have the in cam program drop bits that are not useful at all.
There for I'm sure the jpeg and raw files, wind up having the same info less the jpeg compression of course. What photoshop does for you, is give you direct comtrol interface for war files. Once you take default setting for a raw file, or make some adjustment to it directly. It then opens in under photoshops indirect interface, that is the interface is such that if you change a setting.
It will also indirectly change some other setting with it, this is not the case with the raw direct interface part. There you change one setting at a time, this also make it look like, you got more power over the image then next interface. What it does mean, is that you can lets say push the exposure make easier. Because it's not change any other settings, where as the next interface changes other setting with the exposure.
Making it header to push the exposure, till it becomes a problem because of the other settings. That make it look like raw is way more powerful, then it really is one could do the same thing. If you work at it inside the other interface, but you need to know what you are doing. With raw you can work in 16 bits, under the 2nd interface and the help just a little. You can change a jpeg to 16 bit as well, and gain much of the same thing back.
Now photoshop is using the same info, from jpeg or raw files with just a tiny bit lost with jpeg compression. And just a little bit from being 8 bit instead of 16 bit, but you can still get mos of that back by changing to 16 bit. But really it's not that much info bits lost, the biggest difference is in the interfaces. And how it handles the changes you make, not as much how much more info bits are being used. If you can recover stuff in the raw interface, you can recover most it in the 2nd interface.
But really you would be shocked, how much some one that knows how to use photoshop. Can recover using a jpeg and the 2nd interface, yes it's much easier wit hthe raw interface. But that does not mean raw files have so much more info, because that not the case at all, it has very little more info over a jpeg. Raw and jpegs, are simply a compression that is used to handle the same files is all. It's not that jepgs, throw out all the good info at all it loses only a little bit to the compression is all.
So a jpeg uses a raw file bits, to make the jpeg and compresses it as it converts it. And the in cam settings, are the direct interface just like photoshops raw interface. When you looks at it like this, you can under stand why some people like jpeg over raw. So it's more or less like this, they feel it's better to make direct settings in cam. And that the space and time saved is worth it, and if need be can do some work in photoshop. To fix some problems with the jpegs, so very little real data is really lost using jpegs.
I'm pretty sure I got this stuff right, but of course I could be wrong on some of it. So if I'm wrong on some thing, I'm sure some one will be nice and correct it for us.
--
My psig photos
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=169695
Free Fun Arcade Games
http://www.arcadegamester.net
Now I've giving this much thought, it seems silly that people are of the mind. That war is so much better then jpeg, and I'll give some of my thoughts on this after much thought.
First the raw file has all data bits in it, some of them are junk bits that are of no use. Other bits are very useful to get a better image, now recovery of all the data bits is another story. First and for most is the cam makers built in program, to make the most of the raw bits. When you use jpeg the built in program, uses the raw file to make the image.
The built in program dos in fact use a raw file info to make the jpeg, it converts it in cam then let the raw file drop. And saves the jpeg image made from it, now cam makers got a pretty good program to do this. They know what info is good and what info is needed, and leave out the junk bits that not really needed.
There for the key word here is leaving out the junk bits, I'm sure makers don't really leave out good info. That is needed to make the best image for the jpeg, after all that would be pretty silly and self defeating in the end. They want the cam to get the best shot they can, jpeg is a compression not a program to make use of the bits of data.
Now as I said I'm pretty sure, the only bits the in cam program drops. Is ones that are of no use to the image, after it convert the info left it compress that info into a jpeg. With a raw file you use what ever software you want, and it has set default in most cases. To use the raw file bits to convert it to a image, like photoshop and other programs.
Now lets take photoshop, it gives you a interface to make setting changes using the bits. Even raw files have some compression, but it made to not lose any of the bits. I'm sure very little is lost using the in cam jpeg compression, but yes it does have some lose. Now I'm sure even the raw files, have the in cam program drop bits that are not useful at all.
There for I'm sure the jpeg and raw files, wind up having the same info less the jpeg compression of course. What photoshop does for you, is give you direct comtrol interface for war files. Once you take default setting for a raw file, or make some adjustment to it directly. It then opens in under photoshops indirect interface, that is the interface is such that if you change a setting.
It will also indirectly change some other setting with it, this is not the case with the raw direct interface part. There you change one setting at a time, this also make it look like, you got more power over the image then next interface. What it does mean, is that you can lets say push the exposure make easier. Because it's not change any other settings, where as the next interface changes other setting with the exposure.
Making it header to push the exposure, till it becomes a problem because of the other settings. That make it look like raw is way more powerful, then it really is one could do the same thing. If you work at it inside the other interface, but you need to know what you are doing. With raw you can work in 16 bits, under the 2nd interface and the help just a little. You can change a jpeg to 16 bit as well, and gain much of the same thing back.
Now photoshop is using the same info, from jpeg or raw files with just a tiny bit lost with jpeg compression. And just a little bit from being 8 bit instead of 16 bit, but you can still get mos of that back by changing to 16 bit. But really it's not that much info bits lost, the biggest difference is in the interfaces. And how it handles the changes you make, not as much how much more info bits are being used. If you can recover stuff in the raw interface, you can recover most it in the 2nd interface.
But really you would be shocked, how much some one that knows how to use photoshop. Can recover using a jpeg and the 2nd interface, yes it's much easier wit hthe raw interface. But that does not mean raw files have so much more info, because that not the case at all, it has very little more info over a jpeg. Raw and jpegs, are simply a compression that is used to handle the same files is all. It's not that jepgs, throw out all the good info at all it loses only a little bit to the compression is all.
So a jpeg uses a raw file bits, to make the jpeg and compresses it as it converts it. And the in cam settings, are the direct interface just like photoshops raw interface. When you looks at it like this, you can under stand why some people like jpeg over raw. So it's more or less like this, they feel it's better to make direct settings in cam. And that the space and time saved is worth it, and if need be can do some work in photoshop. To fix some problems with the jpegs, so very little real data is really lost using jpegs.
I'm pretty sure I got this stuff right, but of course I could be wrong on some of it. So if I'm wrong on some thing, I'm sure some one will be nice and correct it for us.
--
My psig photos
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=169695
Free Fun Arcade Games
http://www.arcadegamester.net
yes we do bend over for our clients. And I insist on lead photographer keeping all used cards at all time, at weddings.