[cat]

sorry, ich sehr da keinen eklatanten unterschied.

ich bleibe bei jpg

auch dieser herr wohl nicht:

If you shoot hundreds or thousands of images in a day shoot JPG and don't worry. The quality is the same for almost all intents and purposes as raw, and the raw files would take gigabytes or tens of gigabytes and resultant hours to download, convert, catalog and burn to backup CDs. In fact, if you shoot this much then JPG can give better quality since attempting to shoot this much raw will constipate your workflow and you could miss making some images entirely as your cards fill up. You'd always be running out of memory cards or time waiting for the acess light to stop blinking.

If you love to tweak your images one-by one and shoot less than about a hundred shots at a time than raw could be for you. In fact, if you prefer the look you can get from raw (it may be different from JPG in some cases depending on software) you can let your computer batch process images and save the results as JPGs, too. I almost never shoot anything in raw, and when I do I never see any difference for all the effort I wasted anyway. (I can see differences if I blow things up to 100% or bigger on my computer, but not in prints.)

That's about all there is to it. It's sad that some people actually get so excited by all this they put up hate websites like this here. It's sad because I completely agree with Petteri's Pontifications. One's preference for JPG or raw depends on what you're trying to do. Each format has no absolute goodness; it's all how in how appropriate they are to your particular work. Everyone's need vary and I just happen to prefer JPG.

quelle: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm



auch dieser herr sieht das anders:
http://www.toddwalker.net/articles/rawvsjpg.html