As far as the raw file itself, it makes no difference at all what you have the say contrast set for. the file itself is unchanged no matter what you put the contrast settig at. but in photoshop there is an AUTO setting. that picks up the cameras settings that you shot with and if you leave the auto setting on the pic will appear with all camera settings a you shot them. for white balance there is aselection called as shot which works the same way, only if left to as shot will pick up the WB setting that was in the camera when the pic was shot..

So when the raw file comes to the pc. the file has the image in raw but also carries with it the camera settings when the pic was shot. this if the setting were what they should be makes the starting point of converting the raw files simpler when you have a good starting shot to work from..

Or said another way it is alot eisier to shot the pic correct and work from that than shoot it bad and try later to fix it. also, if working with many raw files and you are doing a raw batch conversion it helps if they are close to each other and shot correctly..

I am including the following which wrote some time ago in one of these forums for your information. it is simply my opinion based on my 37yrs of shooting pics..

First I shoot jpeg all the time. I use a pentax *istD dslr. have tried raw and got no improvement in my pics, though before my little jpeg vs raw test I thought that there would be a difference. there wasn't FOR ME. the reason I concluded was that my pics as shot in the field require almost zero processing. the great rpt great rpt great advantage of raw is the amount and type of post processing the picture taker does in the pc.

I am currently pp about 5% of all jpegs I shoot. also, I currently crop in the pc 0% of what I shoot. I do it in the camera, it's called composition..

The two great areas that raw absolutely shine in is when you have no time to properly set up the shot. the other is when the lighting is so odd or undetermined that you have no idea what it is and you have to rely on pp to give you the proper color and white balance adjustments. a possible third necessity for post-processing would be that if the camera or scene has something that you have to correct for on virtually every picture..

In other words, it all depends on the quality of pictures you are delivering to the pc. if you consistedly shoot pics and they are such that the pc is used for sorting storage and printing, like me, then you can go to the convieniece of jpeg..

But, if you find yourself adjusting correcting or fixing the iso, exposure, white balance, color, and cropping THEN you should be using raw. only you know your photographic abilities and what type of pics you are taking. for this reason, the decision to shoot raw or jpegs is yours alone based on your needs..

For me jpegs work, BUT that might not work for others. raw for others could be the way to go..

The ONLY rpt only rpt only time the shot is a jpeg is when it is brought to the computer. it is either discarded or changed(i tend to have small tweaks) on the pc in some way, then it "save as" a tiff. the jpeg is never "save" or "save as" a jpeg ever. the original jpeg is stored in a jpeg folder that is a holdall..

This keeps the as shot quality intact..

With a raw file you have to convert the file to jpeg or tiff to use it for any other purpose. you cannot print a raw file, for example. with jpegs they can be used immediately as soon as they are downloaded into the pc. as far.

As batch processing is concerned, yes it speeds up the raw conversion process, but it eliminates one of the advantages of the raw process. this is the individual care and effort an individual raw pic gets when it is not batch processed. the individual raw file gets the maxium care it needs to give it's best picture. with batch processing this is gone, you are not achieving the max from each shot. and this is the reason you are shooting raw in the first place. to me if you are batch processing, you might as well go with jpeg..

Yes, I have pe3 and cs2 and can use both..

My view. gary..

Hi Gary.

Thanks for your detailed reply, although it was informative ... I still do not understand why shooting with sharpening at say level 3 or 5 would make a difference to the final outcome of the file, when one can immediately turn this off or set it to 0 when opening up the pic in ACR.... unless... the file gets permanently "damaged" by the sharpening somehow with having it "on" in the first place..

Cheers.

Don..

When the raw file comes to acr; it comes with file and camera tags which the auto in acr picks up. if left alone the file would be converted as it came with the camera's settings..

When dealing with jpegs, depending on who to talk to it can be a different matter. some people prefer to set the camera sharpening to zero and let the bigger pc processor with the bigger software do the sharpening..

For myself, my pentax *istD at neutral has a soft look. I prefer to run my sharpening in the camera in the up not neutral position. this gives me the sharpening look I want. usually the only additional sharpening I do to my jpegs is auto sharpening in pe 5 or cs2. the exception is my shots of the moon which I use USM. I shoot all jpeg by the way...

Having read questions, and answers I think perhaps there may be some misunderstanding here relating to the original question..

Is the original poster asking why JPEGs are permanently affected even when they shoot RAW, or does he think RAW files are permanently changed ? .

OR.

If they are asking Does It Make a Difference ? No. Your settings do not affect the RAW file - ever. They ONLY affect the JPEG, and possibly the initial settings used by you software ( but you can undo that software change )..

Just in case I've a brief note on RAW files and JPEG's below - I don't know the original posters level of knowledge on this..

JPEGs are processed RAW files. The JPEG does not contain all the information the camera had when it made the shot. The RAW file is the complete data set available from the sensor..

If you shoot JPEG ( or JPEG+RAW ) the camera does post processing for you, according to your settings. The RAW file is unchanged and never will be, either by camera or software, even if you shoot ( JPEG+RAW )..

You may be unclear that sharpening, unsharp-mask and almost all other operations permanently loose information ( alter the image ). This ONLY affects the saved JPEG, not the RAW, or files you are working on ( Adobe and most software can undo changes it made itself )..

In addition note that JPEG's are a compressed image format, and that JPEG's are lossy. This means the image you saved is not guaranteed be EXACTLY reproduced. This is why saving as a JPEG should be the very last thing you do to an image..

StephenG.

Fuji S9600Fuji S5200Fuji F30Fuji E900Canon A710ISPCLinuxOS..

Hi Steven.

Thank you this part helped answer my original question-.

" Is the original poster asking why JPEGs are permanently affected even when they shoot RAW, or does he think RAW files are permanently changed ? .

OR.

If they are asking Does It Make a Difference ? No. Your settings do not affect the RAW file - ever. They ONLY affect the JPEG, and possibly the initial settings used by you software ( but you can undo that software change ).".

I always shoot in RAW mode unless heaven forbid I find myself with only two more possible shots (mem prob) then might switch to JPEG to get an extra few shots for the day..

I like to think of RAW as a" liquid state" which can be altered but due to the continuous " do not use in-camera sharpening threads I presumed this was because it might irrevocably damage the RAW file..

Obviously not..

Thanks..