Digital Photo Format

[Photog Rob]

Margus,
I cannot agree with you, at least all the way. While I agree that most of the time jpeg fine is enough, when doing significant post-processing to the image, or archiving a master file from which new versions at different resolutions can be obtained, RAW is definitely superior. And that is not an opinion, it's life. Believe me, as a pro photographer shooting 90%+ on digital and with a need to archive thousands of high-quality images, nothing would please me more than going full jpeg. For your info, our studio uses a mix of PC and Mac machines (G4 dual processors with 2GB ram each, mated to hardware-calibrated LaCie ElectronBlue IV 21" CRT's, although none of this info really matters for this.

Bear in mind that postprocessing is not photoshop trickery, it is standard procedure from the dawn of photography - dodging and burning-in, white and black-point adjustment, post-shot white balance, colour correction, everything. Any "digital professional" that shoots EVERYTHING in jpeg and claims no different quality is either misleading you or does not have very deep understanding of the technology. Stating that RAW output from a high-bit depth sensor is no better than a compressed 8-bit per channel jpeg for every real life use is ludicrous and shows very little understanding of the issues at hand. Please don't let others mislead you.

As I have often said, don't trust me, experiment! take the same picture in RAW and jpeg, do the proper postprocessing to its max achievable quality, and decide for yourself which one held better. Of course, if you don't do any postprocessing work, it is a completely different story whatsoever, but RAW workflows are not a marketing gimmick, they are a valuable tool.

Best regards,

Rob.