Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Some people will used an editor on JPEGs, some will simply leave the shot as it exists.

What do you mean by "control"?
Control via the camera?
Control via an editor?

"Control" (or the amount of) would be their choice.

My point was whether they use MUCH control or Little control, JPEG or RAW, they are both still image makers.

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

Assuming that was the only major difference, and if the scene included elements that are not well handled by the camera's JPG converter and showed lost shadows, blown highlights, or poor skin tones, then almost anyone could tell. Of course, some scenes could be photographed where it might be hard to know. There is no way that the engineers who develop the instant RAW to JPG algorithms for SOOC could know enough about every scene ahead of time. In other words, comparing JPG with RAW is like asking two people to process RAW, but only one gets to actually see the image.

Hercegno54

He used Film...if that's not raw ! All the things you have to do. You edit in the darkroom .

Bike guy Loc: Atlanta

I think it was cold in Yosemite, so probably wore a lot clothes.

Anthony padua Loc: Ireland

Like that reply I have not got any pp stuff just glad to hear steep learning curve too old to start learning now although have read all posts on this subject and to be competent photographer u would need to be able to do it Happy Snapping

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

(SuperflyTNT) Print in RAW. I have no problem in processing my pictures in JPG and hit print and it's done. When I work in RAW I must go to JPG to print an even Costco needs JPG.
Why hasn't photo technology let me print the way to make the GREAT Pictured RAW.
Still must fall back to amateur JPG.
So what not learn to take great pictures and stay in JPG to fix (If they are great)and then hit print. And another picture flys out the door SOLD.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Don't people often say that raw is like film - all the info that's available through the lens? Raw give us all it can, while JPEG lets the camera manipulate the data.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

If you print at home, you can print from a PSD or TIFF file.

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

Wow, rcarol, what an idea!

I have a Hasselblad H2D (old) and bought a film back recently on eBay, over $400. Here is one that sold for over $1000:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/NEAR-MINT-3-Hasselblad-HM16-32-Film-Back-For-H-Series-Fujifilm-GX645-Japan-918-/164457214013

Three or four stops in each direction could get pricey...

A compromise that is practical is to shoot a roll for the lighting--on bright sunny days shoot for one contrast; for haze, another, and heavy overcast, another. Not as exact as individiual zone placements, but practical. Since 35mm film cameras are almost free, one could have several for different exposure values, one per camera.

Cut film in sheets makes the zone system work--and there are many medium format cameras that take sheet film holders for individual shots. This is indeed a valid reason to shoot film--in medium or large format.

My H2D has a quick button to increase or decrease exposure shot by shot (well, most cameras can do this one way or another), and with digital this does the job to some extent. But I only find it useful if the lighting is deceitful for a subject. (We know what to do on a sunny beach or sunny day with snow, strongly backlit subjects, etc.) The zone system with spot metering goes a bit farther than that. Controlling the light goes even farther.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

BUT NOT RAW

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

And digital.
--Bob

Raptorlg Loc: New Jersey

Ansel Adams used a Hasselblad, medium-format camera that uses 120mm roll film and is known for its high quality lenses (the individual negatives are 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 inches). Occasionally a 35mm Film Camera. His work was in Black and White.
Therefore the answer is neither Raw or Jpeg.

Dikdik Loc: Winnipeg, Canada

He also did a lot of work with larger format cameras...

Dik

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

No. It depends on who is printing it and what process they’re using. There is little need for 16-bit files when printing 11x14 and smaller to chromogenic, silver halide based, wet process photo paper. The color gamut of the paper is similar to sRGB! So 8-bit files are usually fine. A JPEG or TIFF in Adobe RGB may render very saturated blues and golds a bit better, but 8-bits will do, most of the time, if processed properly in 16-bits before export.

A printing process or monitor must be capable of rendering tonal values in a file for wider color gamuts or greater bit depth to matter.

TIFFs may be appropriate for very large prints, and for high-end, wide gamut, 8- to 12-color inkjet printing.

Even better is bypassing TIFF altogether and printing directly from raw conversion to a high end inkjet from Lightroom, so ALL color rendering is done by the same chain of hardware and software. Top portrait photographers and museums doing art reproductions for exhibiting artists use that setup.

Remember, unless everything in the imaging chain supports wide gamut capture, processing, viewing, and printing, sRGB is the safest color space. And first-generation low-compression/high quality JPEGs, made from raw files that are evaluated on a calibrated monitor, will suffice for 98% of what’s printed.

Dikdik Loc: Winnipeg, Canada

Thanks for the excellent description... Dik