What I would really like to share is the initial reason why the JPEG vs. Raw debate got started years ago.:

(Mike - Sorry about going into the technological aspect of photography, but it’s the reason some people would rather spend an extra grand on a camera that is only “slightly” better than the prosumer versions.)

A long, long, time ago. In a limited storage galaxy far far away… people started to worry that every time they moved an image from one backup source to another (yes - there was a time when storage was unreliable, and worse yet, people used magnetic media for long term storage) image quality was lost. Just opening and re-saving an image lowers the quality of a jpeg image. It’s the built in mathematical algorithm in the JPEG format, which guarantees that loss of information happens each time the algorithm is applied (and it is applied each time you save that image)

Therefore: if you trust that you will be working off the same source image, over and over, and that each re-touched shot will be disposable, then you’re all set.

BUT.. if you find yourself working on an image (i.e., cropping, remapping, filtering, etc.) then RAW would be the best format for archiving. Yes, newer software may not be designed for the oldest equipment, but designers know that the legacy market is a huge, one and chances are you will have converted your archived RAW files into another lossless RAW format, before someone comes up with a compression method that compresses without compromise.

1) Firstly, remember that ALL pictures are RAW. Yes, even Jpegs. All images START OUT as RAW, always. When your camera is set to JPEG, it takes a RAW picture, then AUTOMATICALLY makes a JPEG with default, auto settings, and then just SAVES the JPEG. Since this process essentially happens beneath the radar, people think their camera either takes RAW pictures or JPEGS. This is not the case whatsoever. Your camera can ONLY shoot RAW, the only choice is whether you SAVE that original RAW image, of if your camera throws it away, converts it to a JPEG and then just saves the JPEG.

2)Because of point #1, RAW is always, (yes always!), a superior original format (at least in terms of image quality, less so for convenience). JPEG is essentially a second generation format, akin to a copy or a photocopy. Yes, often a very good copy, but a copy nevertheless. So, why is the original RAW always superior to the copy? The reasons are very simple. Firstly, as noted above, its more versatile, in that you can change and/or correct many things at the RAW stage that have already been processed for, sometimes wrongly, if its a JPEG. But, and more importantly, its just simply:

3) the HUMAN factor. A RAW image can be processed later by a human being. A JPEG cant. Its already BEEN processed by your camera. It’s all done AUTOMATICALLY, much like a TV dinner. RAW is like a home cooked meal, you can change the recipe to suit the meal, whereas a TV dinner is always the same. If you shoot only JPEG, then you must convince yourself that every single image you shoot somehow only requires the EXACT same processing settings (highly naive), or , that somehow your unintelligent camera, can, in the blink of an eye, and more expertly, PROCESS your (originally RAW) files than a human being ever could. Neither of which is true. If you think your JPEGS look just as good or better than your processed RAWS, that just means that you, the human operator, hasnt learned how to properly develop those RAWS better than your camera (yet). And trust me, we’re not dealing with Skynet here. Processing RAWS is an art. Now if you dont want to bother to learn that art, then fine, just shoot JPEG, and make your life easier. But dont be intellectually dishonest; admit to yourself that you are saving only photocopies of the RAW pictures you’re actually taking. Admit that you are sacrificing quality for convenience.

People who say they shoot JPEG for convenience I respect. Those who say they do so for quality dont know what they’re talking about, or why. Most people wrongly think that its the “lossy” aspect of JPEG thats the problem, when its really more the fact that its a “photocopy” thats more the real issue. In fact, there is even a “lossy” form of RAW, called compressed RAW. But its still superior to JPEG, because at least its a lossy original, not a lossy copy, like JPEG.

Another option that might provide a bit of insurance against RAW format obsolescence is to save your photos as a 16 bit .tiff file. .tiff is an old and well establisned format, which should be around for a long time. This format will allow you the same latitude for adjustments as a RAW file. Most if not all film scanners including the very top of the line drum scanners save their files in a 16 bit .tiff format. .tiff is generally saved as a non compressed file.

Anyway, I shoot nothing but RAW with my Canon G9, except for those times when I need to shoot a fast moving object, or when I’m moving fast; it is a P&S after all, and really slow.

And 90% of the time when I shoot RAW, I’m using manual settings because it is just that much more beneficial. One of the main reasons I got a G9 is because it shoots RAW. RAW is awesome (RAWsome? hmm.. :-P).

I can’t wait to get an XSi

Jeff: I like what you mentioned about the batch processing of RAW images with auto exposure. This ensures that you have images similar to the JPEG processing with very little work - and you are able to retain the flexibility of fine-tuning your images in the future.

I understand that, I’m just stuck with a crappy camera right now. Haha!

Keep up the good work!

Also, RAW doesn’t let the camera’s processor (or whatever it’s called) process the picture, but lets your computer do the heavy lifting, which obviously will lead to better-quality images.

Unfortunately, this is not entirely true for all Raw formats. Some Raw’s give you the option for lossless or even lossy (supposedly outside the range of human perception) post-processing in the camera - in fact, some Raw formats (like the NEF from the Nikon D70 I think) give you lossy compression with no option for lossless.

People often make the mistake of thinking that Raw is a format: it’s not, and not all Raw’s are created equal. A Raw format from one manufacturer’s camera may be worse than JPEG from someone else’s, because (of course) not all JPEG is created equally either.

Another mistake is to assume that Raw makes a great archive format. It doesn’t: because there is no standard Raw format (ignoring things like Adobe DNG) it is highly unlikely that all currently-available Raw formats will be supported by future software. Today’s Lightroom might support your format - but will the equivalent software do so in ten or twenty year’s time? JPEG is likely to be supported because of its ubiquity, but various Raw formats won’t be. So even if you’re committed to shooting Raw, make sure you have archives of JPEG as well.

The key thing is that there’s no simple answer to the JPEG versus Raw debate. It depends on the qualities of your camera, your needs (if you do little or no post-processing, Raw is a waste of time) and, to be honest, your own visual acuity. Saying one is always better than the other for everyone is simplifying a very complex issue to the point of absurdity.

@thattalldude

“In essence, RAW and JPEG photos look pretty similar coming off the camera. In some cases, RAW photos can actually look worse as they are not as sharp and contrasty by default, creating the appearance that they are washed out.” This is an incorrect statement! RAW files are just that, the RAW data that came off of your CCD or CMOS sensor. It is a file full of Red, Green, & Blue pixels of varying intensity from black to white. There is no de-mozaicing or any other processing of the image in the camera. A .jpg file has been completely processed by in the camera. The color temperature, exposure, brightness, contrast, tone curve and sharpening have all been baked into the file and it has been reduced from 12 or 14 bits per pixel of data down to 8 and then compressed. None of this processing can be un-done once baked in by the camera. Only minor adjustments can be made to a .jpg file once out of the camera without destroying the image, i.e. blowing out highlights or shadows for instance.
When you view a RAW file in a program such as Adobe Camera RAW, Lightroom or Aperture, the program is using some default settings to process the image so that you can see it. Comparing the default view of a RAW file to an out of camera .jpg has little if no merit. All RAW file processing programs have an auto exposure button that will process the RAW file to look very similar to the out of camera .jpg. The software reads the EXIF tag in your image file to determine what camera shot the image and can then apply processing that mimics what the camera manufacturer does in the camera. This can be done in bulk if desired and takes very little time to do. If you wish to shoot RAW in order to capture and save all of the available image data, but also want the convenience of (little or no post processing), shooting RAW .jpg if your camera will do so or just shooting RAW and applying the auto exposure setting in your software is an optimal solution. It allows you to later go back and re-process the RAW file to achieve a different look, correct a poorly exposed image or to take advantage of better RAW processing tool as they are developed.

The rest of your article is very well written and gives a great explanation of why you want to shoot RAW and what the benefits are. Your example photos are great illustrations. I also like that you disagree with Ken Rockwell His arguments for shooting .jpg vs RAW do not hold water.

@connor bevans: Lightroom does support the K110D. It uses the same back end as camera raw, so if Camera RAW supports it, so does Lightroom. Aperture is generally slower to get new RAW updates, but Lightroom generally supports most new cameras within a few weeks.

I really don’t agree with anything Ken Rockwell says. I’d have to disagree with you Michael, I really dislike his analogy. It’s a pretty poor one. Newspapers take up physical space. RAW files take up more hard drive space. With modern HD’s being so cheap, that’s not a factor for me or most people. The bigger issue is processor usage. The first paragraph of the analogy you quoted is reasonable. Not my favorite, but not wrong. The second is just bad.

You did do a pretty good job on the examples. Just be careful about quoting Ken Rockwell. Quoting Ken Rockwell’s opinion about anything related to photography is similar to quoting George Bush’s opinion about almost anything. The second you say who said it, half your audience is either no longer listening or will disagree with whatever you say.