… just for testing purposes juxtaposed …
JPEG format is what we nearly always use,
RAW is what comes out of a camera before it is a JPEG
… and all cameras do this conversion for you …
Then why do it yourself …?
To be in control when it goes wrong with automatic conversion.
How often will that be …?
When photographing a clear blue sky, JPG only knows 16 million colours and about 500 shades of sky-blue, while raw could offer 4 trillion colours and at least 100 times more shades of sky-blue.
When paying close attention we’d notice the linings of 500 shades of sky-blue, but not when there’s 50000 of them.
BTW: GIMP only works with 500 shades of blue while doing the processing, so one has to do preprocessing with a RAW plugin like UFraw … You’ll have to wait 1 more year for the next stable milestone version of GIMP, 2.10, to be ‘in control’.
Besides, whenever you export to JPEG, you’ll go back to 500 shades of blue, and the internet always does.
So whatever we do, it will be barely noticeable …
And that’s why I wanted to do this test:
2 GIMP processed JPGs of the same picture (4632), but on the left one using the already preprocessed version of the CAMERA, while on the right the RAW input and manually controlled result (costs a lot more time) … I immediately noticed the difference in colour temperature, and the loss of the EXIF information.
But of course, I like the picture that I present here, with very strange light, coming from a near horizontal source of light, just before sunset.