#5. "RE: RAW or JPEG?" In response to In response to 0 Mon 31-Jan-11 08:14 PM by dclarhorn
Berwyn Heights, US
When answering this question, most people only consider the quality/processing issue and not the application/project issue.
RAW gives you greater latitude for post-processing adjustments and doesn't degrade the image. I shoot exclusively RAW images for my fine art print business. However, as your involvement and experience grows you may run into situations where JPEG is better. For example, I shoot conventions for my company and need to send back images the same day for posting on our website. The good folks that I'm sending it to--the webmaster and perhaps my graphic designers--do not know how to process RAW images--in fact, don't have the software to do it. So, which is better in that case? They need to get the images posted right away. I simply optimize my in-camera settings for the best possible out-of-the-box result and send in my JPEGs.
So, at the end of the day, it really does depend on the situation. But, if the situation gives you a choice and time is not an issue, AND you don't mind the extra work, RAW does offer more flexibility.
Added: You can manipulate JPEGs in post-processing. You just want to be careful and not try to adjust too much. You do degrade the image and it can be apparent when viewing. Btw, I have displayed enlarged prints that that started out as JPEGs in galleries.