I totally realize this is a audio forum, but I have gotten the greatest, most accurate and reliable information here..... so, my question.

Does anyone know of a good, accurate page that discusses RAW vs JPEG? I am definitely only interested in pragmatics, meaning I don't care if a raw file has twice as much info, can it do anything extra for me that is worth that extra space (ie is the cost vs benefit ratio good). To use an audiophile term, are good jpegs considered "transparent" in many instances when compared to raw files.

Any help with good reliable links or your knowledge appreciated.

You can find several books discussing this. Think of a RAW image as an analogue to a „negative” in classical photography. It is useful if you need (or want to be able to) to use extensive processing on your image. RAW's are basically an unmodified signal straight from a sensor. You use a RAW processor then which convert (and modify, if you want) it into bitmap (of any format).

You can't really compare the two, raw files aren't just uncompressed files with higher bit depth (that would be 16bit tifs, and compared to those jpeg is often transparent as long as you don't want to do further processing).

The benefit depends a lot on the quality of in-camera jpeg processing, eg. with my cheap Fuji it's almost indispensable since the camera uses much too strong (and not very sophisticated) noise reduction and offers no control over contrast or saturation, with other cameras you may only gain some flexibility.

I guess an analogy to audio wuld be:
RAW = digital hirez PCM straight ut of the A/D-converters

jpg = equalised, normalised mp3 suitable for your iPod.

RAW does have extra information, and if you want to do much to your image, it may be worthwhile.

The information that is lot in the conversion of raw->jpg is normally unimportant to a human viewer. But if you want to do things like sharpening or gain then those assumptions may break.

If you are pleased with automatic settings, jpg may be good for you. There are a number of pro and/or dedicated photographers who think that jpg suffice.

-k

get a decent software for raw development, photoshop or lightroom maybe and download some NEF or similar RAW files, the difference should be pretty obvious, it is almost like taking a photo a 2nd time.

From a techical point of view, imagine that sensor is linear device (basically a photon counter) and this data will have to be converted into a human feasable curve - in most cases it is better to do it in post that let the machine do it....,

like gaekwad2 allready mentioned, the difference will be smaller on high-end machines.

edit: i was bothered enough to upload two examples;
http://somestuff.org/downloads/raw/
(one is taken with older sony V3 and the other with nikon D80)
p.s. possible render of 1st example;
http://somestuff.org/8mm_web.jpg

the name of the game would be (less talk, more action): do your own development and post small jpg, will be interesting to see the artistic touch imho.

well, here is your answer: 'iam to lazy for raw...".

Just change the hue of a JPEG file by 180° and you will notice how artifacts become apparent that were invisible before. JPEG is just a poor source for further image processing. It should only be used for final results.