RAW vs JPEG Debate

Just a few notes on sharpening:

All images need sharpening. The fact that the images are comming from an interlaced sensor means that some averaging of colors has occured. In RGB mode, color and lightness are linked, so averaging color means averaging detail. This will be most noticable in the high contrast edges of an image.

Further, if you print the image, than at some point it will be converted from square pixels to round dots of ink. This will soften the image. Sharpening for output is neccesary.

- Joe U.

P.S. Very nice image bejikan. I Like!

Having just skimmed through most of the comments so far (way too technical for me), and speaking as someone who mostly takes 'snapshots' (albeit good snapshots, I must say), who is fairly new to the digital age of cameras and still learning that there is even a difference between jpg, tiff, RAW, etc . . . .

I've been shooting RAW for a year now. Didn't like it at first, as my laptop couldn't 'see' them without special Nikon software which ran extremely slow and workflow was cumbersome, to say the least. Then last August we bought an iMAC. WOW! This computer can see my Nikon RAW files!! Woohoo!! :D

So, that's what I'be been shooting, learning more and more about post processing, etc. as I go along. Well a few weeks ago I was taking pictures of our neighborhood dive team with the sole purpose of being able to show the kids the pictures, which they get a real kick out of. I shot in jpeg to make transfer that much easier. Hated it. I lost ALL chances of recovering badly exposed shots - which was common since I also shoot fully manual and with constantly changing light conditions and/or full sun being the norm for diving. :mad2: Yuk. I'll take RAW any day. In the end, I was embarrassed with what I shot, since I couldn't recover bad ones.

Now I have to find a class or something (I'm horrible reading on my own to learn) on different formats, and how each one works, so to speak. :p

Someday I may be able to read this thread and actually understand all of it . . . :p

ill just add a couple things to this debate

RAW, like photoshop, is not the ultimate save-all. There is no substitute for correct exposure. Sure RAW gives you a little more degree of freedom, but you'll still have to sacrifice a bit. The best way is just to hit the nail on the head right off the bat.

Secondly, I have seen one specific case where an image was post processed by a pro who was used to working with RAWs. He recorded a jpeg and RAW together, and in the end the jpeg was the one that ended up looking better, processed almost the same way. Strange, but it happens.

As i've said before, it really all depends on what you are doing. if you are working with something you need to obtain all the possible detail, then yes by all means shoot RAW. if you are dealing with thousands of images that need to be printed for parents who just care about their kid being in the picture, why bother? it slows down the process and is unnecessary. My personal opinion.

I totally agree, Brent and for people new to digital photgraphy using windows, there is a thumbnail viewer in powertoys that will let you see the thumbnails and preview photos shot in raw.
I know I hated having to open an icon to see what the heck pic was there.

I've gone back & forth shooting raw/jpeg. To me it just boils down to what the situation is.

Shooting a sporting event? I'll shoot jpeg.

At work doing product photography, I shoot jpeg since its all going to the web anyway, I'm not too concerned about keeping a 16bit image around.

When I do landscape, nature, or anything like that I prefer to shoot RAW to have that digital negative.

No matter what though, you've screwed yourself over and caused yourself extra (sometimes lots!) if you don't get your exposure right in the first place.