If you don't do alot of post processing then JPEG would be fine. I shoot both as I'm learning Photoshop Elements and like to play around with the pics a bit. The thing I like with RAW is it gives me a chance to play with settings afterwards without loosing image quality. With a JPEG compression each time you make a change and save the file some IQ is lost, Raw files stay that way and you save an edited image. I guess the jury is still out though. I may go back to just JPEG for a while but shots I relly don't want to miss I'll shoot both just to be safe. Just curious what others are doing also. I may print the occasional shot and was curious on how large you can go with the A200 and keep it sharp.

RAW is like having a digital negative of your shot. It's the raw image captured by the image sensor with no processing applied to it. You'll have far more post processing leeway with a RAW file than with a JPEG. I don't know about the A200, but many cameras capture a slightly higher quality image using RAW. If you don't intend to PP, then there is little point in shooting with RAW.

I'm not at all sure I see the point in RAW, either. There is a theoretical mathematical advantage to working in a 12 or 16 bit space as opposed to the 8 bit jpg. I'm not sure how much of that is seen on what rolls off the printer. But to each their own view.

I am convinced, however, that there is less difference between a raw conversion and an in camera jpg than there once was. When you pick up your Sony dslr a significant part of what you've paid for is in the camera processing. I'm also convinced that the jpg files from my A700 are better than my A100. I think the sensor is only part of that . . . a large part is due the in camera processing. It's an area being constantly improved by Sony and others.

The ability to post process, though, is still important. The good news is you don't need Adobe Creative Suite. Elements replicates the vast majority of functions, except for "curves". It's my understanding Elements 6 adds a curves function (in name) but that it is vastly different from the CS3 process. I haven't used the 6 package, though. I'm still on Elements 4. Elements is less than 100 bucks and even available at Wally World, for Pete's sake.

If you save RAW+jpeg you will sometimes not need the RAW at all. In images where you have lost some detail due to over/under exposure more detail is recoverable with RAW. White balance is more easily corrected. I only shoot with Auto WB but sometimes this needs serious correction. One less thing to worry about when taking the image.

Hi Zach

A lot of the benefits of RAW will be wasted unless the photographer takes the time to 'work' the image. If you are careful and make subtle and sensible adjustments then you can get some really amazing results from RAW.

Practical Photography (a UK mag) has a test this month on RAW converters, and Aperture (MAC only) steals the show. If you get the chance I would recommend that a) you read their review- it's very informative, and b) give Aperture a go- there is a 30 day free trail!
One of the biggest advantages of RAW is being able to rescue highlights and shadows that have 'clipped'- you cannot perform miracles, but Aperture is pretty adept in this regard (again have a peak at the PP review- the detail they got from an overexposed animal photo was stunning)

RAW is obviously not for everyone, and to a certain extent I can see why (it takes longer to process etc), however I work from the theory why throw away valuable info if you don't need to? If you are using the 300 or 350 then the exposure argument is mute as you have a live histogram and can judge it on the screen.

HTH

Andrew

Here are a couple examples for you Zach
JPEG file unprocessed

RAW file un processed

As you can see the lighting was awful so I wont do much with theese but some highlights are recoverable from the RAW image JPEG they are gone forever. PS Elements works fine with RAW files for tweaks etc not sure about stuff foe Mac as I'm still in the PC world for now.

Al

Clearly it depends on how and for what purpose one intends to use his or her photographs, as well as on one's personal desire to achieve perfection. It also depends on how much time one has available to sit around post processing on the computer. I know some couples that have been waiting over six months for their wedding photos while their photographers struggle to find time to edit the hundreds of wedding photos they take every weekend. The ability of digital cameras to crank out huge numbers of "free" images (compared to film) can sometimes be a two-edged sword.

Personally, although I do use PS Elements for cropping and quick fixes, I almost exclusively shoot JPEGs at either fine, superfine or extra fine (depending on what the particular camera allows). I always make copies of the JPEGSs before I edit them, and only edit the copies to avoid further compression loss in the originals. Without a doubt, it can be satisfying and fun to rescue or improve an image through post processing, although there clearly is no substitute for good composition and lighting--and a little luck--in taking the photos. Good camera equipment--and knowing how to use it--also helps, of course.

Like most things in life, it's a matter of degree and one's perceptual threshold of differentiation. I'm sure there are individuals who can perceive and appreciate the differences between post-processed RAW images versus in-camera processed JPEGS more than I generally can, just as there are individuals who are more able to differentiate between expensive unblended Scotches and popular-priced brands, or who can better hear the difference between $1,000 stereo speakers and $200 speakers. Meanwhile, I take solace in the fact that my photos usually look much better than those my friends and relatives send me--except, of course, for the ones my wife and daughter take on their ultra-compact digital point-and-shoots set on auto. At least when I used a film camera, I could blame the latter phenomenon on my local film processor. Now I'm sure they will be asking "How much did you pay for that Sony A700 and that bag full of lenses?"

Besides all the true and good points made already...
If you shoot a good photo, no need for adjustments, Jpeg is ok.

On that frame with the turtles . . . I see the point you are making. I agree that the raw conversion holds more detail than the jpg.

But . . . isn't that precisely the task DRO was designed to handle?

Good comments by the others on raw and software here, first of all.

Secondly, my perspective is that when you need raw, you will start shooting in raw. Always comes down to that I think. Why you need photo shop and to shoot in raw depends on what you need out of your photography.

Its much like a camera body or lens purchase. If you don't need extra features, you don't need them. If you do, you will know it and get them :).

When you add up all the advantages (and some say they are big advantages) of being able to post process your images and have more control of the outcome, it helps. And I think that stems from photographers who earn money from what they do, or photographers that really just want more control over the images they produce, they want/need every little bit of an advantage they can get.

Carl

Everyone,

Thank you for all the insight. I shot a bunch of RAW last night and I'm using the 30 day trial of Apple's Aperture and have to admit I'm impressed. There is a lot of power in the software and you're right, it can even bring an almost dead photo to "reasonable".

Thanks again everyone.

The site is great!

Zach

Zach

Carl is right. When you need RAW, you'll shoot RAW.

Also, since you're trying RAW - try a couple of HDR treatments - even pseudo HDR images.
If you like it, then you might start using RAW more often - but you don't have too. I like it because I can use just one RAW shot and develop multiple exposures in post processing - then blend them (I use tufuse to blend - http://www.tawbaware.com/tufuse.htm).

Here is another thing - if you don't want to spend a lot of time in front of the computer - you may want to avoid RAW, unless you are willing to pony up for some good work flow software - I think Aperture is supposed to be pretty good - Are you finding that it's is automatic enough that you can set some parameters and walk away?

In the short time, I really like aperture actually (I have zero history with other imaging sw though). It has "canned" settings for the Alpha cameras that I think look better than the in camera processing. I also really like the monocrome converter with the differant color filter pre-sets. This is something I really missed when I moved to digital because I shoot B+W 70% of the time and didn't think the in camera setting was all that great (compared with good B+W film and a good filter). I'll post some stuff once I'm able to really get out and shoot.

One thing I cannot figure out on Aperture is that it will not bring in both the RAW and JPEG images, only RAW when I set the camera on both. Probably user error but my only negitive so far.

Thank you all again for all the advice, we do not have a good photo shot here in Sacramento (IMHO) so it is really nice to chat with people.

Zach

A tidbit from Apple on Raw+JPEG. Hope it helps.

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=304868