View Single Post
Posts: 221 | Thanked: 51 times | Joined on Nov 2009 @ Germany
#475
Originally Posted by danramos View Post
JPEG doesn't "bake those in" any more than TIFF, DNG or RAW. Once you have the image and you begin to process the image, ALL the data is just as malleable and useful as anything RAW gives you. Hell, JPEG even borrows a page out of TIFF and records a lot of that in the EXIF metadata. RAW isn't a format. It's just a proprietary aperture dump. Putting it into a 100% quality JPEG with EXIF metadata would record most of the same information (ALL of the info, if you use the MakerNote tag in the EXIF metadata) with pretty decent quality and it would at least work everywhere. To that end, unless I'm still missing something, I don't see the utility of the RAW dump. Mind you, we're also still only talking about a 5MP cell phone camera, too.
...i.E. "white balance" is "baked" into the JPEG file - and there is no way to change it afterwards without losing quality once a certain white balance has been applied (“once the RAW dump has been converted into JPEG file format applying a certain white balance algorithm”). But I agree - there is no strict "RAW is better than JPEG". Shooting RAW normally gives you more control in order to maximize the image quality potential - even with a 5MP cell phone cam with a plastic lens - during post process without losing quality (and no camera does store the JPEG files with lossless "100%" quality). But this comes with a trade-off of speed, ease of use and storage place needed for the RAW files.
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to HugoSon For This Useful Post: