julian.gang

I'm wondering does post processing in Lightroom and Photoshop take the place of shooting in RAW?...Julian

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Just the opposite. Post processing of a JPEG is extremely limited in scope. A RAW file allows you much greater control of the image, as well as non-destructive editing. If you DON'T like to post process, JPEG controls are probably enough and can be applied in camera on many models. But if you do, you're severely limiting your choices by not shooting RAW.

Andy

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

Julian - If you don’t want to shoot in RAW mode or deal with the post processing complications of RAW, there is a simple answer: just don’t do it. Old joke - Man hitting his head with a hammer asks doctor, “Doctor, how can I make this headache go away?” Doctor answers, “Stop hitting your head.”

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

No, one still post-processes, just using the RAW data instead of a JPEG to do so.
Different capabilities between the two.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

This is just not true! As some of my cameras lack RAW output capability, I have experience with both JPEG and RAW editing. Almost anything I can do with RAW editing I can do with a (lightly) compressed JPEG file. Of course there are undesirable effects (such as banding) to watch out for, but with a little practice one can learn how avoid these, use alternate methods and still produce the desired results.

Generally people who claim JPEG editing is extremely limited in scope haven't done any serious JPEG editing in a very long time, or perhaps have never really tried it.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

For years, I shot saving only JPEGs. I worked hard to get exposure, white balance, and other basic parameters correct initially, then used the Microsoft Photo Editor to make adjustments. Final results were quite good. And when exposed properly, JPEGs capture pretty much the same dynamic range that most printers can reproduce. Because I do a lot of railroad photography, which involves sunlit subjects that also have areas of shadow including lots of detail that is needed in the final image. My answer to that was High Dynamic Range Photography, which is really just a specific discipline of pre and post processing to integrate a wider range of exposure values into a final image. My HDR still was based on JPEG captures, but most HDR software utilizes an internal "working format" with more bit depth even if the overall process is JPEG to JPEG. Finishing was either done with the HDR software, Photo Editor, or sometimes Nikon's supplied and purchased software.

I still capture images in JPEG, but I now also save a raw version of every image. And I still work to do the best job possible to make certain that the JPEG is as close as possible to a finished image. That way, I not only have a nice image to share immediately, but I also have the best possible starting point for finishing the raw image, making that job much easier and faster. It is very rare now that I'll capture a bracketed set of images for HDR processing. A properly exposed 14 bit raw exposure has plenty of latitude in all but the most extreme cases (like shooting at high ISO, where dynamic range captured can be limited), and almost all of the same benefits can be realized by adjusting the shadows and mid tones.

Many here suggest that when shooting raw, camera settings resulting in dull, flat images are best, then they work to restore everything in post processing. Many also either use auto-WB or just ignore it altogether, fixing it later. I've tried that approach, and do not follow it. It seems to me that it creates a lot of unnecessary work, and if it happens that I can't remember exactly what the scene looked like, or what specific details in the scene looked like, the job of trying to recreate it, or at least an attractive version of it, can be very difficult and frustrating.

Not sure this post answers or addresses what you are asking about, but the point is that yes...images not captured in raw can be processed. If they are exposed properly, the results can be very attractive and can be printed readily. If there are errors, primarily underexposure, there may not be enough captured information to allow a successful repair. If you are wanting to do some really radical editing, there may not be enough room available in the 8 bits per color that you have available to do it and save it. And if you don't make the proper choices when setting up to capture and save JPEGs, you may lose a lot of the information that you do get.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Methinks you haven’t done much editing with RAW images. Much more dynamic range to work with.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I've not found how to get the white balance tweaked in a JPEG editor like I can in the RAW editor I use.
Guess I'll keep trying.
But - to each his own.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I don't think anyone is saying that there are not advantages in post processing raw images. We are saying that the propaganda that proclaims JPEGs to not be processable is simply not true, especially if one takes the time to get exposure correct to start out.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Lightroom doesn’t let you choose from dropdown menu with jpegs. But you can adjust temperature and hue.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

If you use a program that can adjust a variety of characteristics, then processing JPGs is not that limited in scope. I use programs that came with my camera, ZoomBrowser EX and Digital Photo Professional 4 and with less color control, Picasa3.

But the starting point IS limited. RAW files offer greater dynamic range than JPG. You can recover more from deeper shadows, etc. You can't recover what isn't there in JPG.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Among many other things deep shadow detail recovery is far superior and cleaner when shooting raw than jpeg. There simply is no comparison.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

The problem of less capability is more prevalent with older JPEG editors. The newer editors have incorporated many of the adjustment capabilities that are in RAW editors. Many of us were weened on the older editors. I had an old JPEG editor that couldn't do anything like what the newer JPEG editors can do.

srt101fan

Julian, I don't think your question can be answered as written. If you shoot RAW you HAVE to post-process to get a viewable image; it's not a choice of one over the other. With JPEG the post-processing is done in the camera but you can do additional processing if you want to.