2006-11-28 10:43:11 · 3 answers · asked by honfire 2 in Consumer Electronics ➔ Cameras
It has been coined as "a digital negative". It retains all information caught by the imaging chip with no in camera processing. White balance, exposure compensation, or any other setting your camera is set to will not affect the image. You decide the processing with the raw software of your choice. It gives you more control but requires more work and storage space. I've heard some say that if newer software comes out, that offers more control, with a raw image you still have all the data the chip was able to capture.
I've heard others say if you get the exposure right jpg suffices.
2006-11-28 11:11:18 · answer #1 · answered by Bob 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For most people, there is no advantage at all. RAW files only come in handy if you regulary edit pictures in Photoshop (or similar software). They contain a bit more information for doing precision retouching, or for salvaging a picture if you screwed up the exposure.
Even most wedding photographers shoot exclusively in jpg however. It saves space on the memory card and computer, and 99.9% of the time it's simply good enough.
2006-11-28 10:54:49 · answer #2 · answered by OMG, I ♥ PONIES!!1 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
RAW format is uncompressed format. So if you take and save the picture in RAW format, that means you can edit it and save in RAW format without losing any information due to compression.
On the other side, if you save it in JPEG/JPG format, you'll lose the some information when you edit and save it again. If you want to test it out, save a JPEG/JPG format 20 times and then compare it with the original picture, and you'll see the difference.
RAW file is generally bigger than JPEG/JPG, but it's needed to store all the necessary information.
2006-11-28 10:56:10 · answer #3 · answered by Curiosilly 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋