Jpeg or Raw

[oldham]

I have always dowloaded images in JPEG format but have been told to use RAW as it is better Is this the case and is it easy to upload images in Raw format:thumbup:

 

[MissCream]

I would search the forum for the same topic, it's been discussed many of times

 

[unpopular]

I'd add that RAW is really an extension of exposure, and not a finished product. It is unlikely that you'll see much advantage in RAW if you just convert the images as if they were shot in JPEG. Some, perhaps, but nothing significant.

I tend to think of unprocessed raw files like exposed film, the RAW processor like the developer, the 16-bit tiff which they produce as the negative and the working file as printing in the darkroom.

 

[MLeeK]

If you are talking about UPLOADING as in to the web? no, raw images aren't really an image. They require processing or developing. You must have raw software to even see a raw file as an image and they look like crap in their raw form. HOWEVER Raw images are every bit of the information that hits your sensor, so what you can make from a raw image is infinitely more than you can make from a jpeg image.
Rebecca is right, you should search thru the forum for a Raw vs Jpeg thread or two. THere are many pieces of excellent information on raw here.

 

[SCraig]

I doubt that whatever service you are using to host your photos will accept RAW files. They are huge in comparison to JPEG files. If you aren't doing any post processing there is no need to use RAW.

 

[KmH]

Raw files are like film. They have to be developed, and then adjusted before they can be made into a print.

JPEG's are ready to print files, because they have already been developed and adjusted in the camera, kind of like a built-in 1-hour quick print lab.

Unfortunately, you have little input into that JPEG developing and adjusting.

JPEG stands for Joint Photographic Experts Group, the committee that decided how your photos would look after being developed and adjusted.