[Harald]

Originally Posted by stewart_photo

Next, you might understand this "thing" a little better by noting some RAW-only advocates continue to post misleading information to support this position. For example, you made the claim above that JPEG is more difficult to post process than RAW, which is clearly utter hogwash. Once a RAW file is converted into either JPEG or TIFF with the conversion software (a necessary step since no graphics editing software can edit a RAW file directly), there is absolutely no difference between the two images from that point on. Both can be saved in lossy or lossless format, with the exact same post processing tools used for each.

At that point, there is very little else remaining to debate about.

stewart

I do not agree at all what you jpeg advocats has here. You can do such operations to RAW file that cannot be done or are very difficult to do to jpegs.

Of course pictures are saved in the end to jepgs or tiffs or psd:s depending what you going to do to them in future. But: you cannot get 16 bit tiff traight out of camera, which is needed to achieve best results in color adjustments. Adjusting 8bit jpeg:s causes many cases in color shifts very visible steps and rifts.

WB adjustments in difficult situations is no go with jpeg but doable with RAW:s. You shoud try to adjust colors in picture taken in sports hall or school gym illuminated with non-continuous spectrum of fluorite lamps....

All in all I think you do not even know what you are talking about or never used those possibilities or encountered those situations and so this discussion is meaningless.

And I agree that we can continue this when you have encountered the limits of jpegs and/or print regularly to A+ size