Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Most of our modern cameras in 202x produce 14 bit raw files.

No. A raw file stores only red, green, and blue pixels. There's no yellow pixels or magenta pixels or teal pixels etc. -- just red, green and blue at a bit depth of 14 bits. That 16,384 possible values per each color times three colors (setting aside that there are typically twice as many green pixels as red & blue) for a grand total of 49,152 different colors. Whereas a single pixel in a JPEG has a combined 8 bit value for red, green and blue -- 3 times 8 = 24 bits and so each pixel in a JPEG can be any one of 16,777,216 colors.
When a raw file's CFA is intrepolated off (demosaiced) and the image is converted to an RGB image is when additional color becomes possible through assignment of red, green, and blue values to each pixel. Convert a raw file to RGB and save the result as a JPEG and you get 16,777,216 colors -- way more than enough. It's when we convert and save raw files as a larger bit depth RGB image for further processing (16 bit per pixel typically) that we get a huge number of potential color values but they are only that: potential. 99% of that potential you can't see or print. Saved in the ProPhoto color space as is common they may even contain colors beyond the range of human perception. The potential is there to give us working room to post process the image. When we're finished with post processing it's appropriate to save the final result as an 8 bit (24 bits per pixel) RGB image. That's more than print sufficient.

There'd be no banding from an 8 bit file either if it was created properly.

A stored DPI (PPI) value in EXIF data is meaningless. There are two images below each saved at 640x446 pixels. The EXIF data for one is 10PPI/DPI and for the other 300PPI/DPI -- meaningless as they are both 640x446 pixels.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

If you shoot raw plus jpg, untill you develop the raw, both will look the same. The camera embedded a jpg in the raw. This is what you see when viewing, before editing the raw. The jpg and the the embedded one in the raw are identical.

paulrnzpn Loc: New Zealand

A commercial print publisher will generally require 300dpi or higher. There is a reason for that. Sure, on computer screen you cannot see any difference, I know.

Every time l talk to commercial print publisher they tell me it must be 300dpi or higher.
And I know others who've found the same.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Then when you have a photo printed set the printer DPI to 300. You can do that for any image regardless of the file format.

You previously said this talking about differences between raw and JPEG files:
"Also, if you look at the EXIF data of both, you'll likely see that the dpi is differnt between the two. Two examples:
On my Canon 600D: RAW is 240dpi and JPEG is 72dpi.
On my Canon 5D Mk4: RAW is 350dpi and JPEG is 72dpi."

You seem to be suggesting that difference in DPI values stored in the EXIF data between your camera's raw and JPEG files is significant, substantive -- that it's a meaningful difference. It's not meaningful. Both raw and JPEG files have the same resolution and will make the same size print at the same DPI value. A Canon 5dmkIV produces both a raw file and JPEG from that raw file with 6720 x 4480 pixel resolution. At 300 DPI the converted raw file and any TIFF, PSD, PNG, JPEG etc. saved from that raw file make the same 15 x 22 inch print.

Why did you mention the variance in DPI values stored in the EXIF data between your camera's raw and JPEG files as if it were a meaningful difference?

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

I don't know why they dsay that either. It is the resolution of the file that matters. I think they want a minimum dpi of 300 but that can be changed, and if the dpi is too small, they can't make a decent print, and can not raise the dpi.

Resolution of the photo file is what matters, and viewing distance of the photo.

NPSlover Loc: Woodbury Minnesota

So how do I access the raw file?

paulrnzpn Loc: New Zealand

Well, the only reason I said it is because that's what it is.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

With a raw editor, I use Lightroom. There are others. Bh photo has a list.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/buying-guide/best-photo-editing-software?BI=1372&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAiAk9itBhASEiwA1my_6yCWCfuqxYLbuEpjmvpWWCgCjY4wbOTwDQyh5XyiOu7pqv5RGFwYixoC2LMQAvD_BwE

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Do you think there is any way in which it matters that the EXIF DPI values between your camera's raw and JPEG files are different?

paulrnzpn Loc: New Zealand

How to find banding.
And how to treat banding.
Here is one technique...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWUolNiVcoU

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Quoting the beginning of the video:
"So what causes banding? Banding is usually caused by super aggressive editing, pulling a color gamut further than it possibly can go or by incorrect export procedures export processes and formats so banding is usually always 99.9 percent of the time caused by you in editing." [my bold]

In other words banding is not caused by the camera saving the image as a JPEG or by the photographer saving the image as a JPEG. Banding is caused by editing errors. I agree with her. It's not a JPEG problem it's an editing problem.

paulrnzpn Loc: New Zealand

If I find the other video that says otherwise, and explains it in detail, I will share the link.

topcat Loc: Alameda, CA

RAW is to process the picture, JPEG is to use the picture right out of the camera.

I shoot RAW because I love to process my pictures.

I use Elements, which is a poor mans Photoshop. That means that I don't use every picture.

nikonbrain Loc: Crystal River Florida

Bravo , Very Good examples .