OS 10.12.6

Does it make a difference editing a raw file and then converting it to a jpeg as opposed to converting the raw file to a jpeg and then editing it?

Also is there any tips before or after converting jpegs to B/W images so as to get that 'snap' that gets ones attention?

jaybass

There are many more options to editing in RAW than in JPG, so that's the way to go.

My son and I have finally decided to use Adobe's Darktable to edit raw files which happens to be free...a good incentive.

Also, something we didn't know was that setting your camera to monochromatic will actually result in inferior black & white images because it excludes all the colour information resulting in much less data to work with.

Take care Jon,

jaybass

Yes. It makes a HUGE difference.

JPEG is "lossy." Every time you save a JPEG, the file is compressed in a way that permanently and irrevocably degrades the quality of the image.

RAW files allow more editing. You can change the exposure, the color balance, and more. JPEG, you get what you get. The JPEG file has less information than the RAW file, and you sacrifice editing options.

JPEG degradation is cumulative. If you open a JPEG, edit it, and save it, you get additional degradation. Open it, edit it, save it again, you get still more degradation.

Generally speaking: The JPEG standard was deliberately created for situations where file size on disk is critically important but the quality of the image is not important. If you understand that, you can adjust your workflow accordingly.

tacit,

I understand what you're saying. That's why I will shoot in raw from now on. I have found out that having PSE 10 allowed me to download a free version of camera raw.

That is what I will use to edit my raw files henceforth.

Thanks,

jaybass