This old cherry has been going on ever since digital hit the streets. For those who are new to photography it is hard enough to get to know one's camera without worrying about processing RAW in the electronic darkroom. And then there is RAW conversion which means more software to buy and to learn. OK then, is it really necessary to shoot RAW? The answer of course is yes, and no!
Today's cameras and their sensors have moved on a bit since those early digital cameras and sensors. Even computers are incredibly powerful nowadays compared to those first MS- DOS PC machines we longed to own but couldn't afford. Most of us remember well the IBM computer, code named 'Acorn' when hit the market back in 1981. Boy was it expensive for what it did! Anyway, I'm digressing a little bit (I have a tendency to wander off track sometimes).
So why shoot RAW when JPEGS can be so good? Of course, there is nothing wrong with shooting JPEGS, I must make that point clear. If there was, then camera manufacturers wouldn't give us the option to use them. Shooting RAW depends entirely on one's needs. If you need a good snapshot, and JPEGS fit the bill, then with the 'Fine' quality from a decent camera you may actually get that wow factor. If you want to create something akin to the quality of a silver halide fine art print then you will need all quality that you can muster from the camera you are using and so might choose RAW and process the file to your own bespoke liking. Yes, of course you can tweak your JPEGS, but it's not quite as easy as all that. JPEGS record 256 levels of brightness whilst RAW records 16,384 levels of brightness. JPEGS record 8 bit colour depth, RAW records 12 or 14 bit colour depth. These numbers can have a big effect on the way your image looks. RAW also gives a much finer tonal gradation and thus better prints and less chance of banding. There are many more reasons why shooting RAW is worth considering over JPEG, not forgetting that adjustments can be made without degradation of quality.
Within the space I have here I have only touched on this subject lightly. I always shoot RAW myself. It's my preferred method. But at the end of the day it is a matter of choice and no way is RAW the only way to go. You will just have to consider what it is you want from your file and what you will be doing with your prints when you make them. If JPEGS suit your need then all is well, but if you are looking for that extra bit of magic/oomph then RAW may well be the way to go. Your choice of course! RAW or JPEG is a very much suck it and see thing to do. If it doesn't suit you that's fine. If it convinces you that it is the way to go in future, that's fine too. There is no right or wrong way, only the way that suits you best.
Today's cameras and their sensors have moved on a bit since those early digital cameras and sensors. Even computers are incredibly powerful nowadays compared to those first MS- DOS PC machines we longed to own but couldn't afford. Most of us remember well the IBM computer, code named 'Acorn' when hit the market back in 1981. Boy was it expensive for what it did! Anyway, I'm digressing a little bit (I have a tendency to wander off track sometimes).
So why shoot RAW when JPEGS can be so good? Of course, there is nothing wrong with shooting JPEGS, I must make that point clear. If there was, then camera manufacturers wouldn't give us the option to use them. Shooting RAW depends entirely on one's needs. If you need a good snapshot, and JPEGS fit the bill, then with the 'Fine' quality from a decent camera you may actually get that wow factor. If you want to create something akin to the quality of a silver halide fine art print then you will need all quality that you can muster from the camera you are using and so might choose RAW and process the file to your own bespoke liking. Yes, of course you can tweak your JPEGS, but it's not quite as easy as all that. JPEGS record 256 levels of brightness whilst RAW records 16,384 levels of brightness. JPEGS record 8 bit colour depth, RAW records 12 or 14 bit colour depth. These numbers can have a big effect on the way your image looks. RAW also gives a much finer tonal gradation and thus better prints and less chance of banding. There are many more reasons why shooting RAW is worth considering over JPEG, not forgetting that adjustments can be made without degradation of quality.
Within the space I have here I have only touched on this subject lightly. I always shoot RAW myself. It's my preferred method. But at the end of the day it is a matter of choice and no way is RAW the only way to go. You will just have to consider what it is you want from your file and what you will be doing with your prints when you make them. If JPEGS suit your need then all is well, but if you are looking for that extra bit of magic/oomph then RAW may well be the way to go. Your choice of course! RAW or JPEG is a very much suck it and see thing to do. If it doesn't suit you that's fine. If it convinces you that it is the way to go in future, that's fine too. There is no right or wrong way, only the way that suits you best.