chaman:
Good explanation. High quality tiff files derived from RAW converters such as Lightroom or software supplied by camera makers can be manipulated using software such as Photoshop or Gimp to make localized adjustments to enhance images as you describe. The result can then be exported or saved as a jpg.
I use darktable as my RAW developer, and it allows local adjustments to be made to the the RAW file, a workflow I find very useful. From darktable, you can export to jpg or other file formats as needed. I love that piece of software. But, until you get familiar with it, it can take some time to develop a file. It is, IMO, no harder than any other application, just different.
Caruso

Caruso

chaman:
Good explanation. High quality tiff files derived from RAW converters such as Lightroom or software supplied by camera makers can be manipulated using software such as Photoshop or Gimp to make localized adjustments to enhance images as you describe. The result can then be exported or saved as a jpg.
I use darktable as my RAW developer, and it allows local adjustments to be made to the the RAW file, a workflow I find very useful. From darktable, you can export to jpg or other file formats as needed. I love that piece of software. But, until you get familiar with it, it can take some time to develop a file. It is, IMO, no harder than any other application, just different.
Caruso

Caruso

I stand corrected, thank you.

I hope, however, that my reply along with pechohen's post helps clarify the issue for someone. I quite enjoy exploring photo manipulation software, and have tried many applications. Of those that I have tried, darktable and Ligthzone are the only two RAW editors of which I am aware that allow you to make local edits using the RAW file. darktable is much more feature rich, but Lightzone holds its own, and for someone who isn't interested in spending the extra time to learn darktable, Lightzone is very intuitive and photographer friendly. darktable will handle higher bit-depths than Lightzone, and I highly recommend it to any who are interested.

I will also affirm my agreement with those who state that shooting jpeg is different than shooting RAW.
Because I enjoy working on the computer, it is much easier and safer for me to shoot RAW than jpeg. My camera includes numerous in-menu adjustments that affect the jpg, and I don’t doubt that this jpeg flexibility is a boon to many a jpeg shooter. But for me, dealing with those settings on a shot by shot basis, or even a shoot by shoot basis, is too tedious, and I find that, even though the LCD on my camera is quite good, what I perceive when using it to evaluate shots in the field is not always as faithful as what I see on the computer display when I get home. If I shoot jpg and do not like the Qáresult when I get to my computer, my corrective choices are very limited. JPEG shooters who develop a facility at shooting jpeg with their camera probably do fine without shooting RAW. It is a personal thing.

For me, it is hard to go wrong when shooting RAW. I leave my camera’s playback mode set to the histogram display. A quick check after the shot will confirm that my exposure is within the safe range, and I will have a file that I can refine further on the computer if necessary (my histogram includes the blinking indicators that warn of over/under exposure).

Back in the day, I shot print and slide film (as they were the only choices when I started shooting), and you could easily loose an entire roll if you didn’t remember to set the ASA/ISO or many a shot if you got the exposure wrong, and by wrong, I don’t necessarily mean the exposure was way off. If you were shooting into the sun, you either bracketed the shot or you took a chance that your exposure compensation would or would not be correct. If you missed, your image could be spoiled by being bit too light or too dark.

I loved film (still do), but have to admit that my keeper rate increased dramatically after I went digital, and my skill with a flash has improved because I am free to experiment in ways that would be impractical for me using film, and the software tools we enjoy today are truly a blessing.

Happy shooting.

Caruso

DPI resolution is meaningless; the important measure is linear pixel count but that is a different thread.

The important take-home lesson from this thread is that different people have different aspirations, which lead to different needs. At one time I designed, implemented, and tested software sold to the US DOD; every project began with a careful determination of the needs to be addressed; you have to understand the customer in order to recommend a solution. Similarly, 'raw' meets some needs; I thought the purpose of this thread was to identify those. Some people want to say "Only for the arrogant." Some want to say "Everyone who wants to do something worth doing". The correct answer is somewhere between these two extremes.

My boss at one time was a talented Mechanical Engineer who happened to be dyslexic; before he sent off a report, he would have someone else proofread it for him. He told me at one time that his career was held back because others noticed his writing issues - I mentioned your 'loose' issue in that same spirit.

It is unconventional, and potentially misleading, to capitalize 'RAW' but not 'jpeg'.
As long as you understand that JPEG is a well-defined type of file, but 'raw' is a class of files, I guess that is OK.

I set my camera parameters and then basically leave them. To me that is the value of JPEG - like old Kodachrome it delivers a consistently processed product. I am a retired software engineer. Today, I spend many computer hours scanning {then 'fixing' the scans} old media. I don't need any more computer time when automation can do it for me.

Lee, a couple of minor disagreements, especially if a print is the final objective. A JPEG is not required. A bitmap file - say a 16 bit TIFF or similar format is required to pass to a 16bit capable printer, but there is absolutely no need to reduce to an 8 bit, lossy, compressed JPEG between the camera, the software and the printer. Comparing prints side by side, it is possible to see the difference in many situations, and the raw / 16bit printed image is normally superior. Also, not all professionals use LR. Many do, it is excellent software, but there other things used by some professionals. For example, Canon's own DPP software is free and does a good job with Canon's raw files. It isn't as feature rich as LR, but is quite good at basic raw manipulation and is free.

Unfortunately it is very hard to show these things on UHH which usually only allows JPEGS to be displayed, as is frequently the case with most browsers. Most raw or 16bit files are simply too big for the UHH system limits.

Peter, one minor disagreement. if I may...

You say that DPP is "quite good at basic raw manipulation." I find it excellent for any and all raw manipulation possibly needed. What is missing in your view? There is absolutely no doubt in my mind - and this is from hundreds of hours of direct experience rather an expression of some theory or based on any technical savvy - that I can quickly and easily output a JPEG from a raw file with DPP that will almost always be superior and will never be inferior to any JPEG written by the camera. Of course I can also output a TIFF file for further editing as needed in an appropriate editing program. What else are we asking for from a raw editor?

You make an important point about JPEGs not being required for printing.

Mike