Introduction

"Should I use raw or JPG?" seems to have become the eternal question for digicam owners. With the arrival of the 300D, I thought I would try to summarise some of the pros and cons for newcomers to digital photography. As far as I know, there isn't a definitive answer. There are a number of factors mitigating against of resolution in this argument (a contention clearly borne out by the bandwidth consumed by forum discussions on the topic ):

• There doesn't seem to be any objective assessment of technical image quality that can be applied to determine that one image is, indeed, better than another.

• Posting comparisons images on the web is going to reduce differences. The variability of the quality and calibration of monitors of viewers will introduce further problems.

• Even if sample files are exchanged, variations in presentation, printer, ink, paper, etc. could potentially invalidate results.

The argument often becomes reduced, therefore, to one person's opinion against another. The world is split into three distinct groups:

• "If you are interested in the best quality images, you must shoot raw."

• "There's no point in shooting raw, I can get just as good results from shooting JPG."

• "If the subject is important, I'll shoot raw otherwise I use JPG."

Personally, I shoot raw and never touch JPG except as a final output format for the web or local PC albums, but there plenty of excellent photographers who are perfectly satisfied with JPG. This is my overview of some of the factors you should consider when you decide which camp you are going to join (and a certain amount of opinionated commentary ).