Having a husband in the field of digital image compression does have its advantages. I am able to get clear answers on the differences of various compression schemes and what is lost in each one. He has written a great article, To Shoot in Camera Raw or JPEG Format, on the subject for scrapbookers.
Once again, the question came up on a scrapbook message board - should I shot in JPEG or RAW? I am in the very small group that shots JPEG.
Feeling I might be missing something, I ran an experiment today. I took several photos of the same object on our hike. According to my camera’s histogram they were good images in terms of lighting. I took a high quality JPEG image then a RAW image of the exact same thing with my digital SLR camera.
I uploaded them to iPhoto, then opened them in Adobe Photoshop. These are the images Straight Out of The Camera:


One is RAW and one is JPEG. The RAW image in 7.3 MB while the JPEG is 3.2 MB. That’s quite a bit of memory differential.
In the top image the sky is bluer than IRL. The bottom one is more accurate in the yellow but a little washed out in the green. Both needed editing. For both I darkened things a bit and added some contrast in the midtones. It took about 1 minute to edit each one. The one on the bottom though - the RAW one - is more true to what we really saw with our eyes.


Two photographs of a bridge with bright sunshine and shade. The top one has correct color and great sharpness. The bottom one is washed out and dull. The top one (JPEG) needed no corrections. The bottom one (RAW) needed the blackest areas to be more black and lightened in the midtones. It also needed sharpening. Again the RAW image is almost twice as large as the JPEG.


Same as above. The bottom image (RAW) is washed out and needs the same correction. The contrast in the JPEG is outstanding.
I understand that RAW images do need to be edited. They are not meant to be taken straight out of the camera without any editing. I did edit the RAW photos in Adobe Photoshop. But what I found is that the quality of the edited JPEG did not exceed what I got straight out of the camera from the JPEG image.
I decided I needed to take some really bad photos (bad lighting) and see which made a better improvement. To be honest, it didn’t matter. A bad photo is a bad photo.
From my experiment with seeing what came straight out of the camera and what I got from editing the RAW files I can feel fine taking my photos in JPEG. The advantages of good high quality images, the time saved for not having to edit every file, the smaller file size and a format (JPEG) that I know will be around longer than probably my camera’s RAW format convinces me to go with JPEG.
This is my camera, my software and my results. I would suggest trying a similar experiment with your own camera and software.
Regardless of your choice to shot in RAW or JPEG, I would highly recommend saving a copy of your image in JPEG. Your camera’s RAW format may not be around in 5 or 10 years. JPEG will. Or maybe your future computer or operating system won’t support your RAW program. But it will support JPEG. I’d hate to see you lose your precious memories.