On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:24:39 -0500, "Gary Eickmeier"
wrote:


I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you have an
example?


Then you never shot with a Sony a100!!

It had wonderful RAW files to convert to beautiful jpegs, but the
camera-produced jpegs were total crap. I got tired of having to process every
single pic I took...

My Nikons on the other hand produce very good jpegs, and the only advantage to
using RAW is when you aren't taking a simple snapshot, and need to play with the
extra light range that RAW gives you.

The secret to that, BTW, is in the software. The software that comes with the
camera is barely adequate, you need Adobe Camera Raw or Raw Therapy or something
to take advantage of the extra bits. Jpegs are 8 bit (256 graduations) Raw can
be 14 bits (16,000 graduations).

Another thing you may need to know is that it seems to be better to over-expose
digital rather than under expose, because of the noise factor. But if you don't
shoot raw, you can't do either.