Delderby Loc: Derby UK

No way - but it could, for some, take the place of shooting in JPG, where the camera can be set to PRE process - with exposure, white balance, saturation, sharpness, besides of course, aperture and shutter speed. Some can crop as well and let's not forget quality setting.
Of course, these settings can be better fine tuned in camera with an EVF as in WYSIWYG

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

I beg to differ:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5Y8YcKnRm0

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

No, shooting raw is meant for post processing, that's were it shines!

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

RAW won't shine at all otherwise! With JPG there are choices - Pre process, Post process or both?

WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

👍👍👍

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

The paradox of JPEG post processing is that the more latitude you NEED, the less you HAVE. Exposure latitude of 8-bit files is very limited, say, one third f/stop overexposed to two thirds f/stop underexposed.

Most raw files have plus or minus two full f/stops of latitude, so you can recover highlights and/or shadows and correct minor exposure errors.

So... NO.

BUT, that does not mean you can't make great JPEGs in the camera. It's possible if you have the discipline to know the limits of the camera's JPEG exposure and processing controls and stay within them.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

just a thought, but how about shooting in raw, converting to tiff , post prossessing, and saving as jpeg?

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Certainly possible, but why? What does trading one lossless format for another do except add another step? I must be missing something.

Andy

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Unnecessary if your post-processing software supports raw files from your camera.

I use Lightroom Classic CC. It correctly opens and converts my raw files to a 16-bit bitmap. After adjustment, it exports in the file type, color space, and bit depth I choose, or converts directly to my Epson paper profile through a 16-bit driver. That retains maximum quality until the final output.

Lightroom is a database application. It NEVER changes ANY original file. Your originals remain where you put them, and Lightroom creates and stores proxy images on the fly. The LR catalog (a database) retains those proxies, and the instructions you used, when adjusting your PROXY images. It repeats the final set of instructions when you export, print, or post to the Internet.

Now, when I need Photoshop, I go as far as I can in Lightroom with global, parametric adjustments. Then I send to Photoshop as a 16-bit TIFF in a wide color space, edit the image, and send it back to LR as a new image file for storage, export, upload, or printing.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

RAW is raw data. It is not a picture file. A TIFF file, is a picture file, like a JPG or a PNG and can be saved, viewed, printed or edited.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Yes. But what’s the disadvantage of editing the RAW file and exporting it as a TIFF, versus converting and then editing as a TIFF?

Andy

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Sorry Andy - the intention was not to show you how to suck eggs - I think you know better than me!
When I edit RAWs or JPGs I usually save as TIFFs in case I want to further edit.
I would have thought it best to edit a RAW before converting, taking care of WB, Tone and Exposure first. I add layers and filters and do everthing else after converting.
Most editors seem to be designed to develop the RAW before converting? Some editors limit the RAW editing process after developing and converting - so there is no disadvantage, only advantage?
Del

Najataagihe

One possible advantage of RAW, which I have been unable to verify, is that RAW formats may the only ones admissible as evidence in a court of law, as “they can’t be manipulated without changing the format.”

Anyone know the truth of this assertion?

I have only read this on some legal fora, so it must be true, since I read it on the internet.

8)

If true, in-camera skills are even more important.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Got it. I guess I'd say that it largely depends on which editing program you use and how you like your workflow. Seems no qualitative difference in either direction. If you like editing a TIFF better, there's the advantage, if you like working from RAW, it's not worth the extra step.

Thanks for clearing it up!

Andy

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Even in film days, the photographer or darkroom tech enhanced images on prints, to make them more visible or readable. As long as the "negative" was preserved, for examination by opposing counsel if necessary, a "copy" (i.e. print) was considered admissible in almost all jurisdictions.

Federal rules of evidence suggest that files stored in their original formats are considered "originals" rather than duplicates. This goes for image files, in whatever native format they are shot and stored. Photos may be enhanced, but the nature and degree of enhancement must be authenticated by a qualified expert and the chain of custody of the image verified. In practice, this means that original RAW or other native format files should be preserved as "read only" files with the original metadata, which may then be examined by opposing counsel to authenticate or contest. Saving JPEG or other versions would be admissible, as long as the metadata shows any adjustments made in camera - e.g. changes in exposure or contrast, enhancement of color saturation, etc. Once a file has been re-saved in a lossy format, it is no longer considered an "original", so there is no longer an original available for evidence. When I was foreperson of a federal grand jury, we threw out evidence on a couple of cases on exactly these grounds, and that was about a decade ago, when digital imaging was still quite primitive. The basic principle is that the RAW/TIFF/JPEG recorded at the time and date that it is intended to be evidence must be preserved or any copies, images, enlargements, enhancements, etc. can be thrown out.

State rules vary, but I submit hard copy prints from JPEGs regularly in non-criminal code enforcement cases, and have never had them challenged. In theory, defense counsel could ask for the digital "original" and would need to see an original file from that date. If their experts were able to find even one save in a lossy format, that evidence could (in theory, at least) be tossed. Authentication is equally important - a photographer must be prepared to say "This is the original file and it has been in my possession since it was taken" as well as "Here is a copy (print, JPEG, whatever...) I personally made, with contrast enhanced and exposure lightened so you can see the features of the criminal's face better". But even that authentication statement can be shot down if you don't have the original file in unaltered condition.

So my basic advice to those shooters working with images that might be used as evidence is pretty simple:

Shoot and save in RAW.
Convert to Read Only immediately, or as soon as you know the photo may be used as evidence.
Maintain notes on what you do to the image, so that you can authenticate it in a courtroom.

Andy