Raw -v- JPG - something Richard posted in another thread

[Devildog]

"I like the wide bit, but Raw has no appeal for me and I really wonder why compact shooters bother with it. I never shoot Raw with my D-SLR either. Maybe I'm lazy but in-camera JPEG processing is so good today I don't see the point. Everybody ends up with a JPEG as their final image file anyway." Hope you don't mind me quoting you Anyway, This is something that i've been mulling over recently as I've been doing some product type photography on the side and getting paid for it (which is nice). Not going to give up the day job, and to be honest I don't think I'm that good at it, but my "clients" have been happy and I guess that's what matters. There is no question, processing from RAW adds extra steps in the post processing than an in camera JPEG. However, and its a big however, I am now shooting exclusively raw for these type of shots. Not having to worry about white balance (much of the shots are indoors under "challengeing" lighting conditions), being able to recover the odd exposure problem and being able to be more creative with the final look of the image are well worth the extra time spent in post processing. On top of that, and here is the biggest gain, is the fact that all my zooms are now significantly sharper than I thought they were, and I was happy with them beforehand. Well, of course, the lenses haven't changed, but the ultimate output has. Sharpening the raw file before conversion means much less sharpening of the JPEG after conversion. Which for me has resulted in much crisper JPEGS, without the images looking oversharpened. And, here's the crux of it, my post processing times have now significantly reduced, as I find it easier and quicker to work with the raw files in DPP (with much reduced time in PS with the JPEGS) than I used to spend with the JPEGS exlusively in PS. Just sharing my experience, and hopefully answering Richard's question as to the point of it, from my perspective anyway. Cheers

[pwhittle]

I just shoot RAW now. The 5D does do very good jegs, but the WB is often not great, and hopeless in the studio.

Until I got my light meter I often had to try and recover highly under / over exposed images. I still do if I've taken an oportune shot before my rather lathargic lights have recycled.

At weddings I shoot RAW to make the most of the 5D's impressive dynamic range - it's difficult to keep details on a white dress and black suit at the same time. Shooting reportage-styleee outdoors I'd be happy with jpeg.

Whatever I shoot though, the 'keepers' end up as huge PSD files, and the RAWs relegated to the filing cabinet. I batch convert to jpeg to put them online, then for prints.

I've learnt some nice tricks in CS3 to spead up RAW processing too, like batch conversion and editing, so you can select say all the shots indoors, in similar lighting, correct the WB, set your preferred contrast (I like to increase the Black setting, and set contract to about 40), set it off and go put the kettle on.

If I were just shooting for myself, family shots, the odd landscape etc, I'd probably shoot jpeg, and maybe even change the default image settings in-camera, but I rarely shoot for myself these days.

[IWatkins]

I guess what Hoppy is getting at is "what's the point" for *everyday* snaps. And i agree with him.

But also agree with you, when I was doing studio product or model photography, output from RAWs was always better than a straight JPEG, just took a little longer (but not much once I got my workflow sorted).

I guess what we need to say is use whatever is most suitable for *your* current task.

I tend to stcik with JPEGs unless I know it is important to get the shot absolutely right, then I will consider switching to RAW (usually if money is involved or there will be no chance to reshoot, or both).

Cheers

Ian

[Hoppy]

No problem in quoting me DD, but I do reserve the right to talk bollox and change my mind And I have (very recently) modified my view on shooting Raw, as you might gather by reading between the lines of the "You've got to be kidding!" thread here where 19" prints from a Canon G10's Raw files stood comparison with similar prints from a $40k Hasselblad! That was just one of the things I gleaned from the very illuminating Luminous Landscape article - well worth a read.

I have to confess that my experience with Raw is limited, and needs reviewing (when my other 'imaging' PC is up and running again). Some time ago, I shot Raws and JPEGs, carefully processed them both and decided that the only difference between the two in A4 prints was that the Raw files had taken me ages to produce.

I take care in setting up my camera before shooting JPEGs. I would rather spend time getting exposure and white balance right before shooting, rather than relying on Raw files to bale me out later. I think this is just good craft. I have also spent a bit of time setting the in-camera processing of sharpness etc so that the JPEGs I get out of the camera are pretty much what I would get anyway after post-processing the Raws. I can still make minor adjustments to JPEG files of course. So I just let the camera do it for me.

However, I think I should perhaps have another go at some Raws, just to double-check. I suspect that I will continue to shoot carefully pre-processed JPEGs (if you take my meaning) at least as far as my Canon D-SLRs are concerned. Most of the time anyway. I am very happy with them.

But that Luminous Landscape article was about Raws from a compact with a tiny sensor. I suspect the JPEGs produced by these camera are highly processed - much more so than those from a D-SLR, I'm thinking? - and therefore a bit of individual Raw processing with tlc might show more benefits. The only problem I have here is that neither my Canon G7 nor Lumix FX500 does Raw!

I would love to see some comparison Raw vs JPEG images from a modern trillion-pixel compact (hint Alwyn )

Cheers,

Richard.

[ChefDude]

personally, i think the differences in quality are moot... and we all end up with a jpeg for net viewing and alot of pros/agencies scoff at TIFF, preferring jpeg themselves.

I think RAW is a safety net for those of us who are not as experienced, know their kit inside out and, most importantly, can read lighting conditions.

If you're missing any one of those, shoot raw and get a second (ish) chance to get the image you were after.

my 2 penneth

[pwhittle]

Originally Posted by Hoppy

No problem in quoting me DD, but I do reserve the right to talk bollox and change my mind And I have (very recently) modified my view on shooting Raw, as you might gather by reading between the lines of the "You've got to be kidding!" thread here where 19" prints from a Canon G10's Raw files stood comparison with similar prints from a $40k Hasselblad! That was just one of the things I gleaned from the very illuminating Luminous Landscape article - well worth a read.

I have to confess that my experience with Raw is limited, and needs reviewing (when my other 'imaging' PC is up and running again). Some time ago, I shot Raws and JPEGs, carefully processed them both and decided that the only difference between the two in A4 prints was that the Raw files had taken me ages to produce.

I take care in setting up my camera before shooting JPEGs. I would rather spend time getting exposure and white balance right before shooting, rather than relying on Raw files to bale me out later. I think this is just good craft. I have also spent a bit of time setting the in-camera processing of sharpness etc so that the JPEGs I get out of the camera are pretty much what I would get anyway after post-processing the Raws. I can still make minor adjustments to JPEG files of course. So I just let the camera do it for me.

However, I think I should perhaps have another go at some Raws, just to double-check. I suspect that I will continue to shoot carefully pre-processed JPEGs (if you take my meaning) at least as far as my Canon D-SLRs are concerned. Most of the time anyway. I am very happy with them.

But that Luminous Landscape article was about Raws from a compact with a tiny sensor. I suspect the JPEGs produced by these camera are highly processed - much more so than those from a D-SLR, I'm thinking? - and therefore a bit of individual Raw processing with tlc might show more benefits. The only problem I have here is that neither my Canon G7 nor Lumix FX500 does Raw!

I would love to see some comparison Raw vs JPEG images from a modern trillion-pixel compact (hint Alwyn )

Cheers,

Richard.

in-camera settings are fine when you have time to select them, but when you're running backwards from a church to a garden, it's really not an option! Best to get shot and sort it out later.

doing A4 prints I doubt you'd see much difference, but if you shoot something at either end of the tonal range - especially if you have to tweak it afterwards, in my experience you see considerably more detail from a RAW converted to jpeg than shot as jpeg.
Again, getting the exposure right is fine when you have the luxury of more than a few seconds to take a shot. If not, you have to get as close as you can (expecially with back-lighting etc, where you can't fix it afterwards)

I bride won't thank you for getting a perfectly exposed shot 10 seconds after her buquet has been caught!

Horses for courses, as they say.
If I were to buy a compact, I wouldn't bother about RAWs, as I wouldn't dare use it at a wedding (I've heard of someone using a G9, but people are paying for your expertise, and you need to at least look the part )

[Hoppy]

Good point about wedings pw.

I guess if I was doing a wedding (and I have enormous respect for anybody who even dares think about such a mega-stressful task ) then I'd take out every form of insurance I possibly could. That would surely include shooting Raw. Absolutely.

In my very limited experience, the best wedding shots I've taken have indeed been back-lit and I well recall struggling to get as much detail as I could in the white dress and black suit. I was shooting colour neg film then, which is relatively forgiving in exposure latitude.

But I'd be shooting digital Raw today. No question. And praying hard to the goddess EOS

Richard.

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by ChefDude

personally, i think the differences in quality are moot... and we all end up with a jpeg for net viewing and alot of pros/agencies scoff at TIFF, preferring jpeg themselves.

Interesting observation Michael, as we use the same body. But then, there are so many variables including subject matter - and of course you shoot mostly L primes which will give you the best possible starting point.

I think RAW is a safety net for those of us who are not as experienced, know their kit inside out and, most importantly, can read lighting conditions.

I disagree. I see it as providing more latitude (as one would have working from a negative rather than a scanned print) rather than being a safety net. Exposure is rarely an issue, but shooting indoors and outdoors with multiple light sources is something I defy anyone to find easy as far as WB is concerned, certainly within time constraints. (something I'm sure pw will agree with!)

And of course the sharpness - maybe I just get on better with the raw converter than PS.

Whatever it is, I am happier with the quality of the ultimate output.

If you're missing any one of those, shoot raw and get a second (ish) chance to get the image you were after.

I don't think so, although there is always room for improvement.

You still need to get the shot right in the first instance, framing, composition, exposure, an understanding of the light.

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by Hoppy

I take care in setting up my camera before shooting JPEGs. I would rather spend time getting exposure and white balance right before shooting, rather than relying on Raw files to bale me out later. I think this is just good craft. I have also spent a bit of time setting the in-camera processing of sharpness etc so that the JPEGs I get out of the camera are pretty much what I would get anyway after post-processing the Raws. I can still make minor adjustments to JPEG files of course. So I just let the camera do it for me.

.


Agreed, all good craft - but as PW has said, and I've echo'd above, its not always possible to do under challenging and greatly varying conditions.

Different bodies, of course, with differing software, will produce different results. I'm not mad on the in camera processing on the 1d2n (although Michael clearly is)

But that Luminous Landscape article was about Raws from a compact with a tiny sensor. I suspect the JPEGs produced by these camera are highly processed - much more so than those from a D-SLR, I'm thinking? - and therefore a bit of individual Raw processing with tlc might show more benefits. The only problem I have here is that neither my Canon G7 nor Lumix FX500 does Raw!

Yup, I would agree that the in camera JPEGs from the compact must be more highly processed. I have a chart somewhere that shows that the in camera processing changes significantly from 1 series bodies across the range to the old 300D, so it stands to reason that for technical (sensor) reasons and desired output (user expectations) reasons, compacts would be different again.

Fascinating article though, and it certainly demonstrates the advantage of a raw file, properly processed, in that application.

Here's an idea if we have some time.

Take a picture of a high contrast, colourful subject, email me the raw file and we'll post up my processed raw against your in camera JPEG and we can post up the results - say 100% crop of a selected area and a scoobynet sized whole image.

And then let the forum see if they can figure out which is which, or indeed even if they can tell the difference. Obviously one of us would have to post up both, or the answer may be easy to spot

[ChefDude]

lol, so you didn't agree with any thing i said DD?

First of all, I shoot raw - i process images 1 at a time and the additional first step is no bother to me and i never set white balance at the capture stage, so it's not a good time to start shooting jpeg for me ! I also happen to think the 1DIIn is not too strong on jpeg processing. I have heard the D3 is very good though.

I would have thought "flexibility of exposure" and "safety net" could be loosely interpreted as two sides of the same coin?

I have to admit, i rarely 'snap' images now, so raw just enables me to create the image I 'saw' if i didn't get the exposure quite right.

As for sharpness/contrast, i find lense quality makes that difference for me. after i resize an image to net size, i do a cursory LAB/USM of 50/0.8/4, which is just to give a little snap - but my 24L, 50L and 85L all produce lovely crisp images.

The fact that a lot of pros are quite happy to shoot jpeg does perplex me, but I stand by the fact that most of them will be better shooters than me (for their task) and, even under pressure of contract, will shoot an adequate jpeg for purpose out of the box.

maybe it is just latitude, but i remember having it when i shoot

[pwhittle]

Originally Posted by Hoppy

Good point about wedings pw.

I guess if I was doing a wedding (and I have enormous respect for anybody who even dares think about such a mega-stressful task ) then I'd take out every form of insurance I possibly could. That would surely include shooting Raw. Absolutely.

In my very limited experience, the best wedding shots I've taken have indeed been back-lit and I well recall struggling to get as much detail as I could in the white dress and black suit. I was shooting colour neg film then, which is relatively forgiving in exposure latitude.

But I'd be shooting digital Raw today. No question. And praying hard to the goddess EOS

Richard.

i've never shot film, though I understand it has a wider dynamic range. Backlighting is certainly challenging, and I'm not experienced enough yet to get it right without experimenting. I had to shoot a group shot at my last wedding, from a 2nd floor window, to the crown below, with strong sunlight from about 45deg behind them. Could really have done with flash, but I was too far away. I bumped the exposure comp a bit, then later in PS, I darkened the background (largely grass) a bit. Results were pretty good (and they ordered it). Maybe the results would have been the same with jpegs, but I was happier knowing I had RAWs to fiddle with.

[pwhittle]

Originally Posted by Devildog

.


Agreed, all good craft - but as PW has said, and I've echo'd above, its not always possible to do under challenging and greatly varying conditions.

Different bodies, of course, with differing software, will produce different results. I'm not mad on the in camera processing on the 1d2n (although Michael clearly is)




Yup, I would agree that the in camera JPEGs from the compact must be more highly processed. I have a chart somewhere that shows that the in camera processing changes significantly from 1 series bodies across the range to the old 300D, so it stands to reason that for technical (sensor) reasons and desired output (user expectations) reasons, compacts would be different again.

Fascinating article though, and it certainly demonstrates the advantage of a raw file, properly processed, in that application.

Here's an idea if we have some time.

Take a picture of a high contrast, colourful subject, email me the raw file and we'll post up my processed raw against your in camera JPEG and we can post up the results - say 100% crop of a selected area and a scoobynet sized whole image.

And then let the forum see if they can figure out which is which, or indeed even if they can tell the difference. Obviously one of us would have to post up both, or the answer may be easy to spot

I'll see if I've got anything suitable and send it on. Maybe a bride / groom shot, though for the last couple I've done I shot RAW only to save on cards.

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by pwhittle

I'll see if I've got anything suitable and send it on. Maybe a bride / groom shot, though for the last couple I've done I shot RAW only to save on cards.

Hi Mate -

The point was aimed at Richard - to compare a processed raw directly with his out of camera JPEG (following carefully getting the settings right)

If you get what I mean?

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by ChefDude

lol, so you didn't agree with any thing i said DD?

First of all, I shoot raw - i process images 1 at a time and the additional first step is no bother to me and i never set white balance at the capture stage, so it's not a good time to start shooting jpeg for me ! I also happen to think the 1DIIn is not too strong on jpeg processing. I have heard the D3 is very good though.

I would have thought "flexibility of exposure" and "safety net" could be loosely interpreted as two sides of the same coin?

I have to admit, i rarely 'snap' images now, so raw just enables me to create the image I 'saw' if i didn't get the exposure quite right.

As for sharpness/contrast, i find lense quality makes that difference for me. after i resize an image to net size, i do a cursory LAB/USM of 50/0.8/4, which is just to give a little snap - but my 24L, 50L and 85L all produce lovely crisp images.

The fact that a lot of pros are quite happy to shoot jpeg does perplex me, but I stand by the fact that most of them will be better shooters than me (for their task) and, even under pressure of contract, will shoot an adequate jpeg for purpose out of the box.

maybe it is just latitude, but i remember having it when i shoot

LOL

I think we actually do agree, albeit in a roundabout way

And yes, the 1d2n JPEGS are perhaps not as well processed as perhaps some of the other bodies.

Lost of pros shoot JPEG for speed and simplicity. News and sportsdesks, for example, don't need the best quality image, they just need something decent to work with.

[Pumpkin]

I do a lot of my work in Aperture so you hardly notice the extra work involved in processing a RAW file.

[HankScorpio]

I tried raw in my early days but combination of not having decent enough spec PC and generally not getting on with the apps (and I tried them all!), didn't bother.

When I was doing trackdays, the emphasis was on volume so jpegs shot with high sharpen on a vibrant profile were ideal and quickly processed with more often than not, just a quick crop. When memory was expensive, I was even shooting normal jpegs rather than fine and absolutely nothing wrong with them. Enabled speedy processing too.

Different story now tho, thanks to cheaper and faster cards, better PCs but most of all - Lightroom.

What a tool, speeds up bulk processing and infinite feckaboutability (new word) for the arty jobs. I'll never shoot a jpeg again.

[ademid]

I would tend to agree, when i learned how to convert RAW's reasonably well (all debateable as I'm sure some would look at mine and laugh ), but the difference over the very same image but jpeg (with in camera processing) is like literally a different picture.

I generally shoot RAW with a medium jpeg copy (jpeg to give family etc if they want a copy there and then).

I started getting the missus to look and compare the same image, one jpeg straight out of camera and then the post processed RAW, and she will say there is a big difference aswell, colours, sharpness etc.

And lets face it if my, totally bored with anything photography, wife says there's a difference it must be bloody obvious!!

[Hoppy]

Originally Posted by Devildog

Here's an idea if we have some time.

Take a picture of a high contrast, colourful subject, email me the raw file and we'll post up my processed raw against your in camera JPEG and we can post up the results - say 100% crop of a selected area and a scoobynet sized whole image.

Thanks for the offer DD, but I'm not sure it will prove anything to me. That's because I'm agreeing with you in that Raw does have something to offer which I've previously dismissed a bit lightly. And as has been said, memory is so cheap now that there's really little reason not to shoot Raw alongside JPEGs - just delete them later if not needed.

But by all means, go ahead with something of yours. I'd be particularly interested to see some different Raw treatments of the same image, just to show what can be done. And with a few different kinds of image. Now I'm already making it complicated!

I'm also aware that the JPEG processing parameters are different for different cameras, eg the same settings for my Canons 350D and 40D yield subtle but significant differences. Also, we'd be comparing screen images where we need good sized prints to really see what's what. Prints are where it's at for me; I'm not interested in screen images.

Finally, all this has come about for me after reading that Luminous Landscape article where the starting point is Raw files. There's no mention of in-camera JPEGs, but I can't help thinking that maybe the camera-generated JPEGs would not perform as well, being shot with a compact an' all.

What I'd really like to have a go at is processing Raw files from my Panasonic P&S, to see what it can really do but sadly, it doesn't do Raw. It produces great snaps, sharp and vivid, which is great. People like them. However, sometimes they do look over-processed to me, but I'm stuck with them.

Richard.

[Hoppy]

Right. I'm embarking on a journey of Raw Conversion and have ordered a CD of Canon's latest Raw converter, Digital Photo Professional v3.5. I don't think it is available by any other reliable means yet, unless you already have it with your new 50D. DPP v3.5 is interesting for several reasons.

I need to revisit Raw post-processing because I think I might be missing out on something and my current knowledge is probably out of date, and I have certainly not fully explored what a good Raw converter can do beyond the creation of basic JPEG files. I already know that this Raw converter is one of the best and offers some slight sharpness benefits over other leading packages (according to Digital Camera Reviews and News: Digital Photography Review: Forums, Glossary, FAQ and their Canon 50D review) which is a good start.

Secondly, DPP v3.5 does things that, as far as I know, are not available elsewhere - at least not in such an efficient package. For example, it is enriched with data for a lot of Canon lenses and, I think, will correct CA, distortion and vignetting to a significant extent. I'm thinking that it knows what lens has been used, at what focal length and aperture according to Exif data; either that, or if you tell it what has been used it will search its algorythms and come up with a pre-programmed one-click solution. I guess it also has some tricks to optimise dynamic range, reduce noise and other stuff? We'll see.

These are all very positive benefits which, on top of good basic Raw processing, will improve my pictures. I'm thinking particularly about stuff shot with my old EF-S 17-85mm lens, which I replaced with an EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 mainly because at short focal lengths and wide apertures, it had a lot of CA, plenty of distortion and a fair dose of vignetting. Like every other budget wide-zoom then. If the software works, it will make a huge difference to the ultimate image delivery of this lens (which was always pretty sharp) and makes super zooms like the new EF-S 18-200mm even more appealing.

I think you can only get DPP v3.5 on CD at the moment. I can't find an official download upgrade. Canon doesn't even list it yet, even though there are rumours of v3.5.1 floating around. V3.5 comes with the new Canon 50D of course, and surely with the 5DMkII also. I've just ordered mine from Robert Scott Associates who handle this sort of stuff for Canon. The full suite of Canon software costs £14 but if you give them £20 you also get a year's subscription to EOS Magazine. Call 01869 331 741.

I'll post my findings in due course, but I am short of a decent PC at the mo, so don't wait up. I'd be really interested if anyone has already had a go with DPP v3.5

Richard.

[kbsub]

Here you go .... dpp3500.rar - Canon DPP 3.5.0.0 - www.mike.idv.tw - BADONGO

That's the link for the DPP v3.5 knocking about on the Dpreview site

I haven't tried though ...

[Hoppy]

Originally Posted by kbsub

Here you go .... dpp3500.rar - Canon DPP 3.5.0.0 - www.mike.idv.tw - BADONGO

That's the link for the DPP v3.5 knocking about on the Dpreview site

I haven't tried though ...

Thanks kbsub. I've seen this, but not tried it. Some that have tried it have had trouble, apparently, so I've steered clear. I think it's a private punter trying to help out who has linked up to an Australian version? Not sure, but well worth a try for somebody braver and more computer-savvy than me And maybe you need an earlier version of DPP for the upgrade to work?

Richard.

[kbsub]

Well I downloaded it ,scanned it with NOD32 (its OK ) Unzipped it then installed it and had a quick look .. Doesn't seem to do much that I can see although I only played about with it for a few minuets .

Wish Raw Shooter Essentials was still available

[Hoppy]

Originally Posted by kbsub

Doesn't seem to do much that I can see although I only played about with it for a few minuets .

Wish Raw Shooter Essentials was still available

What doesn't it do Let us know what you think when you've had time for a play.

I believe RSE is/was one of the better Raw packages. How does DPP compare? I'm sure someone on here will have a copy of RSE knocking about.

Richard.

[CharlieWhiskey]

Raw Shooter Premium was even better.

But thanks to Adobe that's been killed off No support for the 40D so I'm stuffed. I've tried various other ones including Lightroom (1.4 and 2 beta) and Capture One 4

I just can't get a decent throughput with Lightroom, it's nowhere near as easy to use as RSE/RSP I've a got at least a 6 month backlog of pics to get sorted

I've not even bothered to try DPP since I had the 300D, when it was dreadful, but I might give v3.3 a try and see if I can get on with that.

[HankScorpio]

Originally Posted by CharlieWhiskey

I just can't get a decent throughput with Lightroom,

I stuck with it for a couple of weeks and things started to click, won't use anything else now.
I even let it do the initial import, copy and rename now which I'd always done myself before.

[CharlieWhiskey]

I've just tried DPP v 3.4 and that Oceanic v 3.5 and I can't see any difference in features

It does seem to be very easy to use, if not as blindingly obvious as RSE/RSP were. I got a much better picture very quickly, which is always nice

[Hoppy]

I've had a look at what Canon's new DPP v3.5 does (although not tried it for real yet). It sounds very promising

In addition to all the usual Raw post-processing stuff that other packages do, DPP v3.5 has some unique features for Canon users. Using Canon's terminology, it can correct for: Peripheral illumination (vignetting); Distortion; Chromatic aberration (color fringing at periphery); and Color blur (blue or red at edges of highlights).

This new package is loaded with data for 14 Canon EOS D-SLRs, and no less than 84 different lenses (Canon only, of course). The lens list looks pretty comprehensive, covering lots of old as well as current lenses. The only major ommision on the camera front is the 20D, and although the new 5DMkII is also missing I'm guessing this will be shipped with the rumoured DPP v3.5.1.

Okay, I've yet to see how this software actually performs but given the unique information it's loaded with, and a bit of feedback from the web, I'm sure it will work very effectively, very quickly and easily

And if my expectations are fulfilled, the implications for lens design are major. I'm already thinking that I might want my EF-S 17-85mm back, or that I could find new love in the ultimate walkabout EF-S 18-200mm. Both these lenses are quite sharp enough for most purposes, but suffer from a generous helping of CA, distortion and vignetting. Until now. And I'm already wondering how third-party lens makers are going to compete.

Furthermore, it can't be long before this kind of data is built in to the JPEG-ing of compact cameras, again with lots of implications for cheaper, better quality imaging

Richard.

[Ian Cook]

Hmm, i have DPP 3.5.0 and havent even touched it lol i use Lightroom 2.1 and Photoshop CS4 perhaps i should have a look lol

[Saxo Boy]

As a complete noob I've recently found shooting in RAW to be a big advantage given that I can compensate post-shooting for errors in my photography. I also think it ultimately saves time. Sure I spend more time adjusting each photograph post-shooting but I spend less time fannying around trying to shoot the perfect picture in the first place.

[HankScorpio]

Another of my thoughts is that my PC and expensive software (with my sausage fingered input) will do a better job of taking sensor info, interpreting it, applying sensible adjustments and outputing than the small prog on the chip in the camera.