Quote:
Originally Posted by MacCool
Editing a RAW image for exposure etc, then re-rezzing and/or resizing as a JPEG for an online photo album or something will result in a superior image to just shooting the thing in JPEG. There's nothing magic or esoteric about RAW. Rather than reserving this very basic concept for some super important event, it's more accurate to say RAW photo editing should be used anytime you have images that you care about. It's true however, if you're just doing snapshots, or if you don't understand basic photography, editing in JPEG is probably "good enough" and letting the camera make all the imaging decisions is reasonable.
|
Some truth in that, I'll grant you, but each one that can produce equally great results.
RAW:
Pro's
-uncompressed/lossless data from your camera's sensor
-higher dynamic range
Con's
-requires post processing 100% of the time
-can't print without post processing
-larger files size (around 8mb's for an 8 mp image)
-not as sharp & lower in contrast (without post processing)
JPEG:
Pro's
-image standard format
-sharper
-can print without post
-no correction needed most of the time (if shot correctly)
-low file size (1-3mb for an 8mp image)
Con's
-lower dynamic range
-compressed file (opposite of lossless. You could lose data when you manipulate) Basically, data the human eye can't percieve is thrown away much like an mp3 file is to music.
The good news is that most DSLR's in-camera software process jpeg's pretty well as oppose to inexpensive point & shoots. Shooting RAW is great because it lets you edit white balance, exposure all with lossless data. It means fixing a mistake made in the field is easier to correct. I personally shoot in jpeg+RAW 50% of the time.
A perfectly shot image will not need post processing. If you have to
heavily edit every single image you shoot in post, you're doing something wrong in the field.