Curve_in Loc: Virginia

I made a big mistake shooting some macro yesterday. I was in a hurry and didn't do a test shot. I needed to use a 200 iso, but I had the camera on 1250 iso! Gary Poole was able to get a little something from the RAW file that I don't think would have been possible if I shot it as a jpg.

Lightroom 5
Camera Profile: Camera Standard
Enable Lens Profile
Remove Chromatic Aberation
Exposure -2.14
Black Clipping -64
Shadows -69
Highlights -10
Clarity 50

Straight conversion with no adjustments

(Download)

Cropped after adjustments

(Download)

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Modern JPEGs are pretty good and when it comes to editing they have lots of flexibility also. In my book, when you have to fix exposure with software things do not usually turn out like they should.
I use both files and I admit that RAW has a wider dynamic range. Shadows can be opened with software although noise could be bothersome.
Learn your lesson. Check camera first, shoot one exposure and make sure everything is working right..RAW or JPEG.

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Indeed. Anyone who can't a least justify shooting both should reconsider and think of RAW as an insurance policy. Stuff happens even to the best and most thoughtful photographers. ;)

amehta Loc: Boston

Yes, it happens to any of us. I was shooting at a farm, had the right exposure when I was inside the barn using aperture priority. When I went outside in the bright sun, the shutter speed maxed out and the shot was still overexposed. I fixed the jpeg a little. Earlier this year, I was able to do more with the raw file, and the farm sold a print as part of a fundraiser.

Bill Houghton Loc: New York area

Here is a JPEG attempt.

(Download)

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

You've also made a case for exposing raw files to the right with this one. It is amazing how much detail was hiding in that overexposed file.

I fully agree about the benefits of raw files. In addition to compensating for photographer errors, I like the range of detail I can recover from one file (thanks to modern sensors and software) without having to bracket and blend (which isn't always possible or preferable). The software alone lets me pull unexpected details from photos taken years ago with smaller sensors - as long as I shot them in raw. The jpegs are far less recoverable.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi, Curve-in,

Given the beautiful sharp detail of the eye and chitinous leg hairs and spines I'm suspecting you had little or no noise reduction to do. Am I right? I say that because beyond your almost complete absence of blown highlights ( other than the obvious specular highlights on the shiny chitin exosceleton, there seems to be practically no noise nor evidence of the blurring of detail associated with Noise Reduction. These are the two great advantages of properly exposing RAW data intentionally ( or accidentally, as in this case) utilizing the Extra RAW-Accessible Dynamic Range (ERADR) off to the right of the JPEG-based histogram and hoghlight clipping warnings...the EBTR (Expose Beyond the Right Technique)!

thus, when it comes right down to it, exposing that RAW data as you did was exactly the way we ought be exposing RAW data. The misleading washed-out appearance of the in-camera thumbnail and of the image file before tonal normalization in your raw converter is simply the result of the camera manufacturers failing, apparently for economic reasons, to acknowledge the ERADR that every camrra model contain to some amount. How much, you have to tezt each of your cameras to find out how many thirds of a stop or even how many full stops of exposure you've not been using all this time.
I use three Sony Alphas:
Alpha55 has 2/3 of a stop of ERADR
Apha77 and Alpha99 each have one and 2/3 stops.

Nice job!

Dave in SD

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

sometimes you just have to accept a screw-up and hit the delete button.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Another question, Kervin,
What camera were you using for this image?
Thanks,
Dave

Rongnongno Loc: FL

He was using a Nikon7000 per the EXIF data offered in the first picture.

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

RAW is excess most of the time. For those who learned on film, they are not really needed.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Thanks, Ron----
Dave

Bret Loc: Dayton Ohio

Amen brother...:)

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

And sometimes, BULL DRINK WATER, one ought think of Winston Churchills words:

Man often stumbles over the truth,
picks himself up,
steps over or around it,
and travels on.

Travel on, if you wish,

......but this observation of the truth of extra RAW-accessible dynamic range is helping many to be better photographers, and be able to use higher ISOs and capture far less or practically no noise in the process of EBTR.

so...
travel on...if you wish!

Dave in SD

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Yeah right and lab work was not needed either.