Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 420944" data-attributes="member: 12496">Raw editors like Lightroom are better JPG editors than photo editors.Lightroom has lossless editing for JPG too, no accumulated JPG artifacts. Plus the Raw tools are simply better, like white balance and exposure, much easier and better than photo editors.Of course, if doing that, you might as shoot Raw too, to get full advantage.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />Adobe Raw is my choice for my wifes little compact camera images.&nbsp; She thinks it takes great pictures.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; But it can't do Raw.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 420944, member: 12496"] Raw editors like Lightroom are better JPG editors than photo editors. Lightroom has lossless editing for JPG too, no accumulated JPG artifacts. Plus the Raw tools are simply better, like white balance and exposure, much easier and better than photo editors. Of course, if doing that, you might as shoot Raw too, to get full advantage. :) Adobe Raw is my choice for my wifes little compact camera images. She thinks it takes great pictures. :) But it can't do Raw. [/QUOTE]

Verification