0 Why JPEG look better than RAW images?

JPEG or RAW
Computational photography

I know what you’re thinking, “I’ve always heard it’s better to shoot in RAW!” It may be
(more on that in a moment), but I thought you should know why, right out of the camera,
JPEG images look better than RAW images.

 It’s because when you shoot in JPEG mode,
your camera applies sharpening, contrast, color saturation, and all sorts of little tweaks
to create a fully processed, good-looking final image. However, when you switch your
camera to shoot in RAW mode, you’re telling the camera, “Turn off the sharpening, turn
off the contrast, turn off the color saturation, and turn off all those tweaks you do to
make the image look really good, and instead just give me the raw, untouched photo
and I’ll add all those things myself in Photoshop or Lightroom” (or whatever software you
choose). So, while RAW files have more data, which is better, the look of the RAW file
is not better (it’s not as sharp, or vibrant, or contrasty), so it’s up to you to add all those
things in post-processing.

Now, if you’re pretty good in Photoshop, Lightroom, etc., the
good news is you can probably do a better job tweaking your photo than your camera
does when it creates a JPEG, so the final result is photos processed just the way you like
them (with the amount of sharpening you want added, the amount of color vibrance you
want, etc.). If you just read this and thought, “Man, I don’t even use Photoshop…” or
“I don’t really understand Photoshop,” then you’ll probably get better-looking images by
shooting in JPEG and letting the camera do the work. I know this goes against every-
thing you’ve read in online forums full of strangers who sound very convincing, but I’ll
also bet nobody told you that shooting in RAW strips away all the sharpening, vibrance,
and contrast either. Hey, at least now you know.