Advantages of RAW (Page 2): "I think you would have been able to accomplish this with a jpg as well." In total agreement.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

"I think you would have been able to accomplish this with a jpg as well."

In total agreement.

sodapop Loc: Bel Air, MD

Raw photos give you greater latitude in processing as they contain more data to work with. A JPG is already processed to some extent in the camera and has less data to work with.

StevenG Loc: Long Island, NY

AlexS wrote:

I do not do a lot of post processing but I do like... (show quote)

You did a great job processing this photo, and saving what might have been a lost shot. This is a very good example of the benefits of shooting in raw.
Steve

Sally D

Great job. I really don’t understand why so many people seem to be opposed to raw if they are going to process anyway. If you don’t plan to process then jpeg is the way to go. I love the extra flexibility raw gives me.

ltj123 Loc: NW Wisconsin

Nice update, but RAW and JPEG can be updated about the same, just takes the "art part" of photography.
I updated several older JPEG with Luminar when it worked for me (last update would not allow export) anyway had about same results I see on your updates.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

fourg1b2006 wrote:

I think you would have been able to accomplish this with a jpg as well.

Possibly similar, but unlikely just as good. There would have been more noise in the details recovered from the shadows with a jpeg. And most standalone denoiser programs, or denoiser features in programs like Lightroom, tend to get better results with raw files. One of the big advantages of raw over jpeg, is it's ability to be manipulated in postprocessing with less noise and fewer artifacts. This is especially noticable when images are cropped.

While jpegs can often be successfully edited in post, once saved they are destructive edits and you can't undo what you've done unless you have a backup copy and start over from scratch. With raw files, which are non destructive, modifications and additional tweaks to your raw files can be made at any time without having to start over and no loss of image quality. The superiority of raw images is a result of their additional data and greater latitude when adjusting in post.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Sally D wrote:

Great job. I really don’t understand why so many people seem to be opposed to raw if they are going to process anyway. If you don’t plan to process then jpeg is the way to go. I love the extra flexibility raw gives me.

Yep!

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

ltj123 wrote:

Nice update, but RAW and JPEG can be updated about the same, just takes the "art part" of photography.
I updated several older JPEG with Luminar when it worked for me (last update would not allow export) anyway had about same results I see on your updates.

While I don't want to get into an argument over this with you, that's really a stretch. The devil, as they say, is in the details. Raw is a superior format for post processing.

Smudgey Loc: Ohio, Calif, Now Arizona

fourg1b2006 wrote:

I think you would have been able to accomplish this with a jpg as well.

Not at all.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Linda From Maine wrote:

Raw must be cooked img src="https://static.uglyhe... (show quote)

I think you might have added the JPEG files are subsets of the information in a raw file with the rest of the information permanently thrown away. A raw file contains all the shooting information when an image was captured. A jpeg does not contain a significant amount of that shooting information, which is why raw files can be edited more successfully and with better results. I'm always amazed by those who think there is no advantage to raw files in post processing. Those of us who post process most of our images know that isn't true.

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

ELNikkor wrote:

When I've tried this in jpeg, the dark parts would have looked very grainy and contrasty, RAW really can make it more like your eye remembers it. Great photo!

I think RAW does give you what your eye remembers because there is no algorhythmic processing involved. Just the ones and zeros of each pixel. Not to say that the human mind doesn't alter what it actually sees to be what it wants to see! Nevertheless, the RAW image is what was there, then.

Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

Good work on the PP.

joel.photography

fourg1b2006 wrote:

I think you would have been able to accomplish this with a jpg as well.

Probably not, but why would you want to?

ltj123 Loc: NW Wisconsin

joel.photography wrote:

Probably not, but why would you want to?

Because you can

kay55 Loc: NE Ohio

nice job AlexS, the picture really came out nice after processing, I have decided my next camera will be able to shoot in RAW. Thanks for sharing.

cdayton, I like your version too!