JPEG or RAW ? How many times I heard this question!! Who is the winner? And the Oscar goes to …. the answer is: it depends! There is not a winner. Both of them have pro and cons… I don’t want to publish a bare standard table with pro&cons but I want to speak about real-life samples. Generally speaking RAW has a lot of pro…but..
I.e. I’m a professional sport photographer and during a race I shot hundreds of pictures and I have to choose and send them to a newspaper as soon as possible. So I have not time to convert/edit them from RAW to JPEG (remember that a RAW file is very-very large )…so I use JPEG but I set my camera to give me a good JPG: i.e. adjust contrast/saturation/white balance/size. Some year ago I attended to a workshop held by Ivo Saglietti and he said us to use only JPEG: the reason was that we have to concentrate only on the composition of the image and not on the editing. Here my reportage in JPEG.
On the opposite I have time to edit the RAW…so I want to work in photoshop with the most quality of my pictures. Here the advantage of RAW is that I can edit/correct the file without big reduction in quality. Remember that everytime you save a JPEG file the software , that you used for editing, reduces it! Yes! It’s the definition of a JPEG file: a compressed file with loss of quality ( also a ZIP file is a compressed file…but the compression is lossles: we can restore the original file). In the case you are using a JPEG file, my suggestion is to to save it in the default format of the software you are using: i.e PSD for Photoshop. So the next time you edit and save it, you will not have quality reduction.
This is not an advertising! I have a Sony RX100M3 and if I want a good JPEG picture I can set on of the Default Scene ( i.e. Sport,Landscape,Sunset …. ) or the Superior / Intelligent Auto mode. In my next post I’ll show some pictures in those settings ( versus and edited RAW).