daytonabeach
Veteran
Location: Oslo, Norway
| Howdy! 
Regarding RAW,
If the photograph is captured in good lighting and the contrast is not excessive then it is possible to capture good JPEG images. RAW is particularly advantageous for difficult lighting and in particular high contrast. You can only obtain any significant benefit from RAW if you use the RAW editor to improve the tonal range and there is much more flexibility to do so with RAW.
If you want to work on a picture and/or resave it several times, save it in TIFF as this format is lossless, jpg format tend to get degraded after 2-3 resavings.
Yes, you will ALWAYS see a huge difference between a compact and a DSLR, when making side by side comparisons, due to the fact that the sensors are quite different in sizes, smaller sensors are more sensitive to light cause the same amount of pixels are squeezed in to a smaller space... this is noticeable on most compacts from 200 iso and above, so, size DOES matter 
But, if we are looking at RAW for AP work, which in the end 99% of the cases will be saved in jpg for customers ease and use for web etc, you will hardly see any difference between a jpg of the camera, and a post processed RAW out of the camera when the final file will be jpg after all, and thats if were shooting in broad daylight, as most of us will do.
Bottom line; RAW is more post work, gaining microscopic improvements over jpg. (if saved in jpg after all)
Do a test for your self outdoor a sunny day (with the same camera) one pic in jpg, and same one in RAW, edit the two pics in the same way, and save them both in jpg, you will find it hard to tell the difference, even side by side, and all that work for so little 
Never argue with an idiot, he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience... |
, some time no see.
