Why Shoot Raw? Always amazed at the improvement I can get in Post compared to the in-camera JPG 'optimization'. Here's a before and after - just for fun. I might be able to re-define...

Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

Always amazed at the improvement I can get in Post compared to the in-camera JPG 'optimization'. Here's a before and after - just for fun. I might be able to re-define the in-camera JPG settings - - but would probably need different ones for each condition.

TTT (Time to Tweak) the RAW for new JPG in Post = 2 minutes or less

Although I hate to do it - I usually toss the RAW once I've reviewed all and updated those needing a tweak - - tough to hang on to 2.4GB RAW+JPG files when the JPGs only take up 400MB (would be different if I was a Pro - would then keep everything)

Before

After

Old Timer Loc: Greenfield, In.

I agree. You can do a lot quickly and you can decide which is a keeper, then delete the ones you do not like. A good comparison of what can be done quickly.

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

Merlin1300 wrote:

Always amazed at the improvement I can get in Post... (show quote)

If you upload the original camera JPG, I'll give it a try... Then we can compare.

Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

Did that already - - found them close, but the add fill light feature in Camera Raw doesn't have any equivalent - as it permits selective non-linear lightening of the darker areas without affecting the lighter areas PRIOR to the compression down to 8-bit per channel JPG. This permits keeping the entire 8-bit range per color in the final JPG. Once converted to JPG in the camera - the data is lost that would have filled in the blanks when you re-edit the JPG.

Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

mdorn wrote:

Merlin1300 wrote:

Always amazed at the improvement I can get in Post compared to the in-camera JPG 'optimization'.

If you upload the original camera JPG, I'll give it a try... Then we can compare.

OK - - here's one likely to be a little more challenging
.
Please DO 'Store' your full res mod when you upload - -
.

Before

After

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

From your original dark photo...

Lighten+NoiseControl

Dunatic

Merlin1300 wrote:

Always amazed at the improvement I can get in Post... (show quote)

I never knew much about RAW files until I joined this forum and have since been saving my photos as RAW+JPG. However, they sure do hog the space on my computer or on my external drive. Although I do understand the purpose is to be able to adjust the photo manually instead of letting my camera do the work, I'm just not sure how to do it. Or I am not sure I'm doing it correctly in Photoshop. I play with the curves and layers that's about it. They do look better then the jpg image my camera produces, but I'm not sure if it is worth it. Now some of you out there probably know exactly what you are doing to produce stellar images, I'm just not there yet. It is frustrating to me. So...I just keep practicing and playing with Photoshop. Cheryl ;)

Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

Interesting comparison - -
Applied 'despeckle' to mine
I cropped both around the mirror and banister.
Mine has a bit more noise - but much better fine detail - - I wonder if some of that was lost in yours as a result of heavier application of noise control?
But - your point is taken - adequate detail remains in the JPG to salvage the photo.
.

Original - cropped from RAW

MDorn recovered from JPG - cropped

steve40 Loc: Asheville/Canton, NC, USA

Another version from the dark file, this took a few seconds.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

I've been reading, "The Practical Zone System for Film and Digital Photography" by Chris Johnson. It was suggested by someone on here. Here's what he says: "Always shoot in RAW format unless you are certain that you will never need the visual information and metadata stored in the raw digital file." Elsewhere he refers to the RAW file as the digital "negative".

Just know this: you can never go back and get that data.
Recently, I read learned something that sent me back to an old file. Without the RAW file, this would not have been possible.

In my opinion, memory is cheaper than regret.

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

Stumptowner wrote:

I've been reading, "The Practical Zone System... (show quote)

I've never regretted shooting JPG only, but I guess there is always a first time! Maybe I'll just go back to film... never had a problem there. :-)

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

Merlin1300 wrote:

Interesting comparison - -
Applied 'despeckle' to mine
I cropped both around the mirror and banister.
Mine has a bit more noise - but much better fine detail - - I wonder if some of that was lost in yours as a result of heavier application of noise control?
But - your point is taken - adequate detail remains in the JPG to salvage the photo.
.

Here's the edited JPG without noise control... you are right, there is some detail loss, but not enough to make a measurable difference IMO.

Lighten w/o Noise

flshutterbug Loc: FloriDUH

Someone needs to do some polite headbanging to those who read this forum regarding the reasons to shoot raw and not JPEG. There are reasons to convert and output in the JPEG format but no good ones to shoot in it (unless you are cheap or lazy). Flash memory and hard drive capacity are so relatively inexpensive now there's no reason to complain about file size. Ditto for processing power and DRAM ...

Perhaps they need to suffer the indignity of having an image they think is good (or like) examined by a pro or advanced amateur whose trained eyes can point out the numerous technical shortcomings, almost all of which could be corrected by beginning with raw data and some judicious post-processing. C'mon people, this is not rocket science; but it does take some time and effort. Superior effort doesn't always guarantee superior results but inferior effort will almost always produce inferior results.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

flshutterbug wrote:

Someone needs to do some polite headbanging to those who read this forum regarding the reasons to shoot raw and not JPEG. There are reasons to convert and output in the JPEG format but no good ones to shoot in it (unless you are cheap or lazy). Flash memory and hard drive capacity are so relatively inexpensive now there's no reason to complain about file size. Ditto for processing power and DRAM ...

I'm with you.

There just is NO good reason to shoot in JPG...it's like shooting a polaroid and then scanning it! Lol...

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

Under fully controlled lighting, with the correct white balance, and time to examine the histogram and reshoot if necessary, there is no real reason to shoot in Raw. Otherwise...

Cheers,

R.