Another RAW question?

[Hardrock]

So I have been debating myself about shooting in raw. From what I've googled and read other than the ability to change WB the images will actually be sharper? Is that a true statement? If so I think I will begin to shoot in raw. I don't shoot raw now because of the extra hassle but maybe it will be worth it? What do you guys think?

 

[Josh66]

They will not be shaper if you don't sharpen them. The JPGs will have in-camera sharpening applied to them, with RAW - you have to do that.

RAW is still better, IMO. There are very few cases where JPG will be better than RAW.

It just takes a few extra minutes in whatever RAW processing software you use.

 

[NateWagner]

meh, I wouldn't think so.

Inherently a raw would be less sharp, because with a jpeg they are being sharpened in camera. That being said it is probably possible to use a better sharpening method with PS that will result in it being sharper than with a jpeg out of camera. But, I don't think a RAW is inherently sharper.

 

[NateWagner]

lol, just beat me.

 

[Hardrock]

Thanks guys, I guess I really just need to try it out and compare a raw and jpeg for myself.

 

[Garbz]

One thing to remember is that RAW will come with some pretty average defaults for a lot of the software. I spent many weeks fine tuning and tweaking Lightroom and now really the photos *do* look better than the JPEGs from my camera.

 

[Big Mike]

There is definitely more to a RAW workflow, than there is to a simple JPEG workflow. But the many people who consider it an extra hassle, probably don't have a good idea about the workflow.

For example, using Photoshop or just the camera's included software, can sometimes make your RAW workflow, slow and tedious. But a program like Lightroom can make it so, so much easier.