RAW? Or Not??

My point is, you get great images from both raw and jpeg. If you can't tell the difference, then what's the big deal?

My point is, neither is (technically) a great edit IMO. Both are clipping. Second not even recoverable if shot Raw. (First would have been recoverable in Raw, not in jpg)

I know that I can get a better conversion from a Raw then from a jpg, even if the image is perfectly exposed and white balanced. If only because the Raw is 14 bit, and the jpg a compressed 8 bit and I do better sharpening then the camera.

Will it be visible to me: Likely. Will it be visible to the customer: Maybe.
Then again, I tend to set my standards higher then the average customer does.

Do you need to shoot Raw for a good image (in controlled circumstances)? Of course not.
Does Raw give the opportunity to get a better end result: Definitely.

smooth3000 wrote in post #12527270
My point is, you get great images from both raw and jpeg. If you can't tell the difference, then what's the big deal?

I'm sorry, but you're being ridiculous. Read the posts in this thread, you might find them enlightening. Suppose a 'client' liked the second image, but wanted more detail in the white shirt. What then if you're shooting in JPEG?

Here is an photo that I took recently.

smooth3000 wrote in post #12527270
My point is, you get great images from both raw and jpeg. If you can't tell the difference, then what's the big deal?

Making a point about a 15 MP image with a 0.7 MP downsize is like reporting on conditions in China without leaving New York.

Most, maybe all, jpg shooters don't even fully exploit the meager control available to them over the camera's processing. They may think about the Picture Style when they start learning the camera and they might even switch from Standard to Landscape occasionally, but within each P.S. you can change contrast, saturation, hue and sharpening. Does anybody give any thought to what settings would be most appropriate for the subject before him and then dig into the menu to change them? Yet these are the first things I think about when I sit down to edit a RAW. The jpg shooter might bracket his exposures, but how many bracket WB (yes, you can do that)? You can edit the jpg later - although excessive sharpening is impossible to reverse and excessive contrast will have destroyed detail, but that does rather sink the claim that jpg shooting is faster.

jasongraaf wrote in post #12527364
I'm sorry, but you're being ridiculous. Read the posts in this thread, you might find them enlightening. Suppose a 'client' liked the second image, but wanted more detail in the white shirt. What then if you're shooting in JPEG?

You're saying raw would somehow miraculously recreate blown highlights then?

René Damkot wrote in post #12527336
My point is, neither is (technically) a great edit IMO. Both are clipping. Second not even recoverable if shot Raw. (First would have been recoverable in Raw, not in jpg)

The first shot does not show in clipping for me in LR, and the 2nd shot barely has any clipping showing in LR, enough to recover between CS5 and LR. Do you think a customer would know if their image is clipping or not? Black and white clipping probably would not matter if it was going to be printed because you wouldn't be able to tell.

Wouldn't you know? You would be ok with that?

And paper white is so attractive.

frenchconnector wrote in post #12527650
You're saying raw would somehow miraculously recreate blown highlights then?

Raw files, with their greater bit depth and the fact that data has not been discarded, do retain more highlight detail. That is a fact that may or may not have great meaining to you, but to some of us and the photography we do it does...

smooth3000 wrote in post #12527670
The first shot does not show in clipping for me in LR, and the 2nd shot barely has any clipping showing in LR

Clipping indicator in LR is based on ProPhotoRGB, the image is sRGB. It's clipping alright:
Screenshot in PSCS4:

IMAGE LINK: https://skitch.com/ren​edamkot/fn45u/photosho​p

smooth3000 wrote in post #12527748
Do whatever will work best for what goals you're trying to accomplish.

Agree

tonylong wrote in post #12527758

frenchconnector wrote in post #12527650
You're saying raw would somehow miraculously recreate blown highlights then?

Raw files, with their greater bit depth and the fact that data has not been discarded, do retain more highlight detail. That is a fact that may or may not have great meaining to you, but to some of us and the photography we do it does...

Well fact of the matter is that if you blow a channel, the data IS discarded. It doesn't matter if you use an 8bit jpeg or a 16bit raw. There will be nothing there.

Jpgs from the camera have roughly a stop less DR than is actually captured because Canon processing (including DPP) clips the top in order to prevent false colors. The intelligent use of third party converters can retain all the DR. With greater DR headroom the chance of clipping is reduced. Moreover, when the clipping is not on all three channels the converters can interpolate data from the unclipped channel in order to recover highlights. Granted, the Recovery function is not successful if too much is demanded of it, but in moderation it does at a minimum maintain the full DR.

frenchconnector wrote in post #12528134
Well fact of the matter is that if you blow a channel, the data IS discarded. It doesn't matter if you use an 8bit jpeg or a 16bit raw. There will be nothing there.

In addition to what Elie says: It's entirely possible to blow a channel (in a jpg) due to the whitebalance being used, where the Raw data is not (yet) blown

I have no probs in shooting RAW.

BUT...............They sure take up some hard disk space. This is an issue as I like keeping my shots and only dumping the really bad ones.

For the next month I am going to study what gets touched up in Photoshop and I may resort back to JPeg and shoot RAW for really important events where PP is essential in getting the result.

Hell I went out and shot some birds today all in RAW. 8gb of birds!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Will throw them out after I choose the best.


My feelings are that if I shoot Jpeg, I feel that I am missing out on something. Its reassuring knowing that RAW gives you a better second chance on making it right.


Just adding another thing. To date I haven't altered WB on any shot as I leave it on Auto.

When I edit I really only adjust, sharpness, saturation, brightness and contrast. Will add special effects as I learn them.

snapshot2011 wrote in post #12528517
Just adding another thing. To date I haven't altered WB on any shot as I leave it on Auto.

I did the auto WB in the past. I gave up because of some extreme inconsistency. I shoot stickily daylight now and adjust to taste. I'll even use auto in PPing RAW in DPP or ACR if it looks good.