RAW Images Question?

[RobbieG]

Just a quick question folks to try and get my head around RAW vs JPG.

Do all RAW images need to be processed? Is just opening the RAW file the same as what a JPG image would look like if it was processed in camera? It would seem like a lot or effort to process every shot otherwise?
I am using Adobe Camera Raw 5.6 with Photoshop Elements 7.

Thanks in advance

[LeeR]

JPEG images are processed according to a computer algorithim and then compressed. The algorithims are pretty good, based on a great deal of research and development and the compression saves space on your memory card.
By contrast RAW images are just that; the RAW information from your camera's sensor without benefit of any processing. I suppose it is theoretically possible that you could take a picture in RAW that did not need processing, but I have not seen one yet. The difference is that you do the processing rather than relying on the knowledge and instincts of the camera's programmers.
You will often here people say that there RAW images don't turn out any better than there JPEGs. If that is the case I would suggest that those people stay with JPEG, there is certainly no shame in that. Millions of photographers do that all the time and a good percentage of them are successful pros. The learning curve is significant but if you are patient and learn it well you can do some amazing things in RAW. Now that ACR will open JPEGs I have even gone back and salvaged some images that were orignially shot before I started shooting RAW. So for me, I will not shoot anything important in any other format, but that's because I took the time to master it.

[RobbieG]

Thanks Lee.
Theoretically speaking then, does selecting Auto White Balance and Auto Tone in ACR produce the same or similar result as the in camera processing?
The reason I ask is that it would appear that until I can master RAW processing I may be not producing images as good as if I just let the camera process as a JPG.
That said, I do understand the advantages of RAW in the long run.

[dbevisjr]

This is my take on RAW vs JPG. If I am out looking for something creative or artistic to work on I shoot RAW. Company party, company picnic, family reunion and any function that requires getting at least 1 photo of everybody in attendance (and a large group) then I shoot JPG. I want to learn RAW but I also don't want to work on 150 or 200 photos that must be processed from RAW to JPG between Saturday evening and 8AM Monday morning. So I shoot those in JPG. I went out Wednesday since I took 3 days off work this week. I shot 82 shots RAW. I picked 5 that I want to work on now and another half dozen that might work out when I learn some more techniques. But the only time constraints on those are what I impose on myself.

[teaking]

The main advantage in RAW is simply colours its linnear meaning each pixel captures so many brightness levels all pixels have the same range so when it comes to editing you can push and pull those pixels further. Most of the same editing techniques can be done with jpeg how ever there are limitations with exposure as there's less brightness levels per pixel. But if you get the correct white balance and exposure then your half way there and that means less editing lol. Choose the best format for your workflow.

[LeeR]

There is so much to learn in photography that I suspect a lot of people new to the craft cheat themselves by jumping into RAW too soon. Mastering the ability to "see photographically" is the most important thing you can do, mastering your camera's controls would be second and mastering a good PP program would be thrid. Somewhere down the line, around sixth or seventh place, would be learning RAW.