Digital cameras forum: Raw or JPEG

It is true that JPEG is a compressed fomrat and thus original "raw" data is lost. But a high-resolution JPEG saves you valuable fliespace and the images, if initially captured at >5 megapix, are suitable for considerable enlargement. I print 11x14 and 13x19 shots strictly from JPEGS. Even looked at closely no-one can believe they are digital images I printed myself. I also publish scientific photography and JPEGs are often the standard.

So, if you invest in a high-resolution camera and keep it on the best quality image setting all the time you'll have pixels to spare-- as long as you are not making prints the size of a billboard.

Thre are those people for who the photography part of their digital camera is unimportant and who like to tinker with their shots.

It is like those guys who like to tear their car engines apart to get 1% greater horsepower. It isn't for everybody and, from what I have seen, rarely yields results any better than what would have come out of the camera in any case, especially considering the time spent. But...for those people tinkering IS their hobby not taking pictures.

So, if you are the kind of person who changes their sparkplugs every week and knows the plug gap by heart, RAW might allow you to tinker to your heart's content...personally I would rather be out taking pictures while my car is being tuned up by the technicians in the shop!