Raw Vs. JPG

[Ronnoco]

A very good, thorough book on the subject is: Adobe Camera Raw For Digital Photographers Only.

Basically, if you tend to do all your work in setting up your shot with your camera, tripod, lighting, angles etc before you take the photo and tend not to be keen on much post-processing then jpeg is probably the format for you. Depending on the nature of the work, you may not have the time to spend on a lot of post-processing, either.

Raw is appropriate for those who use to like to spend a lot of time in the darkroom, or who like playing with photos on the computer. Top pros tend to use both, depending on the nature of the shot. Studio work tends to be in raw and most journalistic shots tend to be in jpeg. Shooting for web use would probably be in jpeg. For very important shots one might shoot both raw and jpeg.

The caveat with raw is that you really have to have an excellent eye for technical detail and know a heck of a lot about handling the format. It has always been said for example that there is more exposure latitude when you are using RAW. Well, yes and no. Yes there is, but changing exposure in raw also negatively affects colour, tone and noise. Adding saturation to counteract original over-exposure further adds to picture noise and further reduces the gradations of colour and therefore detail and tone.

If you have a very good eye and are aware of every change that you are making in raw and its overall effect in the photo and you are therfore quite careful in your adjustments, then you can be quite successful using raw. However, if your eye and technical understanding are "limited", then you can badly mess up the quality of your original photo using the raw format.

Ronnoco