Robg

Since it might have relevance to what follows, here is what I use: Lumix DMC-FZ300 (set at 12mp; 4000x3000), Dell XPS 15 with external 27” Ultra HD Display, Windows 10 (16GB), Lightroom CC version 3.2.

I’m not a professional and am primarily interested in travel, nature and wildlife photography.

Until now, I've only shot JPG, but with a major trip looming, I want to decide if I should plan to shoot in RAW. So, I took a number of pictures at a marina in RAW+JPG to compare them in post processing in order to "see for myself" if RAW was worth the disadvantages.

In Lightoom CC I compared the effects of various edits on many of the pairs. Bottom line: I saw very little (almost no) difference between the edited JPG’s and RAW’s. Only at the far end of a few of the edit sliders, say the last 5-10%, could I see a difference.

The strongest difference was in the exposure slider where I was able to reveal slightly more detail (with the slider all the way to the right) in the heaviest shadows in the RAW files.

I also compared the pairs after randomly applying some of the presets, and really saw no differences at all between a JPG and a RAW after any preset had been applied.

Lightroom has an “Enhance” feature that works only with RAW images. I tried that on a couple of images and although it made a difference, I can’t say that I preferred the enhanced images. But I can see that there could be images that this feature might improve.

In summary, the RAW advantages that might have some potential value are for images where desired details are hidden in very heavy shadows and for images that would be improved by using the “Enhance” feature, although for the latter I don’t know what those would be.

That didn't seem like much. Hence, the question in the topic title – what am I missing?

What else can I experiment with that would show me some major advantages of RAW? I did not compare the images after severe cropping, or, alternatively as very large prints. Is that where significant differences show up?

On the other hand, with my camera at least, RAW is not without cost. There is a loss of functionality when shooting RAW or RAW+JPG. The “Handheld Night Shot Mode” is disabled, as is the iHDR mode. I have benefited from these modes extensively, particularly iHDR.

Other features that I’m not so dependent on are also not available when shooting RAW, including Super High Burst Mode and digital zoom.

For me the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages of RAW unless someone can help me find other advantages I currently don’t see.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

A recent similar topic went on for 29 pages. Are you sure you don't want to reconsider your question?
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-632410-1.html

.

bleirer

Of course you can turn raw off when you want to use the in camera HDR or night mode, then turn it back on. Or make your own hdr from bracketed shots easily in Lightroom, just right click. Night mode is usually 4 stacked images combined to reduce noise, easy enough in Photoshop.

But I see your point. If you are happy with your results and don't need or want the latitude to edit more extensively, stick with the easier jpeg.

White balance is one area, you can dial a percentage on a jpeg, but on raw you can type or slide on the Kelvin scale, and use an eyedropper to reference a white or grey point in the image.

johngault007 Loc: Florida Panhandle

Do what works for you. At the end of the day, if you are happy with your process, and you see no benefit to additional work flow, it's not a necessary evil.

Night Mode and iHDR would have to be set up manually (probably a bad term for it) when using RAW as your output, but the deeper you dive into those styles, you get more control with RAW.

But again the big take away, if you are happy with your process, keep doing it because you enjoy it and are satisfied with the results.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Most of the time, your jpgs will do just what you need.

However, there are occasional situations in which raw will help you. One of them is misplaced settings on your camera. It's possible to change a setting and forget to change it back, or bump a setting accidentally. The raw file will allow you to change the setting after the fact. Another scenario is a scene with a dynamic range larger than a jpg can accommodate. Raw files can handle a large dynamic range better than a jpg. If you recognize that this is a problem while you are there, you can avoid the problem by bracketing and combining the shots in post.

If you are contemplating a trip that is not easily reproduceable, you might consider shooting raw+jpg. If your jpgs are working for you then you use them. No problem. If you encounter a problem on the trip, having a raw file available can provide you with some insurance. To do that you will probably want to get more cards for your images since shooting raw+jpg will increase your memory requirements by a factor of 3-5.

I don't believe the advantages of raw can be observed by just going out and taking some photos using raw and trying to compare them to jpgs. The advantage of raw is not in the ordinary results, it's in the problems.

I have never used a Lumix so I am not familiar with those limitations. HDR can be done with bracketing. Not sure how the camera determines whether you're hand holding your camera so you can use the night mode.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Working with raw images may not be for you. There should not be any functionality lost when working with raw files, nor are there any disadvantages. The question is do you want to let the camera process the raw data, or do you want to do it? HDR is processing. If you are happy with the job the camera does at that, then you are good to go.

The differences show up in the ability to capture a wider dynamic range and better color. I could never go back to JPEGs myself. The difference is stunning. But it isn't important to many people. Also, another thing you might want to consider is that there may be a time in the future when you wish you had the original raw data. That is true for me. I didn't "get" it, and no one could persuade me of the advantages, so I worked strictly with JPEGs for years. That was a really big mistake.

The raw files are unprocessed data. JPEGs are processed. You can't really compare them. Would you rather eat a cup of flour, or a piece of bread? Can you make a better bread at home, or are you happy with store bought?

Mike

Bushpilot Loc: Minnesota

My favorite part of using Lightroom when working with raw images (I don't shoot in JPG except with my iPhone) is using the shadow and highlights sliders, there is so much more latitude available with Raw images. One is able to bring out shadow detail with out increasing the exposure, also reducing highlights with the benefit of making the image have a more "natural" look, if that is what you are after.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Since I was a major contributor towards the end of the other thread, I will make one comment here.

First of all, we can waste a lot of electrons here. The biggest advantage of 'raw' that nearly everyone sees is when major changes need to be made to exposure of the photo. In most cases, the photos I take fit within the 'latitude' of slide film or the DR of JPEG. Given enough time before I press the shutter, I will fit the JPEG within that DR. I have already adjusted my camera so the colors I get were the colors I saw.

However, a few situations are not like that, and we never know when they will occur, so I take all my photos in "RAW+" mode and then in most cases use the JPEG version. Every so often I do need the 'raw' version. For example, there is a kitten in our family. A couple days ago, just after I had 'unwatched' the other thread, the kitten did something "cute" close to my wife's lamp. I did not have time to think - just to snap a picture. When I looked at the image, the combination of the light and my flash was too much, so I rescued the image by using the 'raw' version. That was unusual, but this is one case when I had to use the 'raw' version if I was going to keep a record of the situation.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

You will get far more feedback in this thread than you would have ever expected, and most of it will be absolutely useless to you. It will turn into a argumentative contest.

First, understand that raw files have all the original shooting information when you took your pictures, whereas jpegs have only a subset of that data. Second, all the in-camera settings like sharpness, contrast, color tone, picture style, etc., are not applied to your raw files. To create jpegs your camera processes the raw images and adds these settings. As as result raw images straight from the camera tend to look duller and less sharp than jpegs. Since in-camera processing is very limited, the goal of post processing raw files, which have a far greater latitude for adjustment then jpegs, is to go far beyond the capabilities of jpegs straight out of the camera.

My suggestion is to research the subject of using raw on your own, consider what aspects of your photography you are hoping to improve in post processing raw, and download and trial some of the better raw processors available like Capture Pro, DXO PhotoLab and ON1. After gaining some experience decide for yourself whether it's worth the effort since you will need to post process every one of your raw files.

For years I shot jpeg only, but once I learned how to get the best from my raw files, I stopped shooting jpegs and have never gone back. However, it may not be the right decision for you.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

When you take a photograph the image the camera captures is a RAW file. If you have set your camera to JPEG then the camera decides how your image should be processed and then drops out data it believes is not needed for the resultant JPEG image. This "dropping out of date," not a scientific term (the scientific term would be compression) but a simple way to describe it, can create a situation in a JPEG where artifacts, which is a scientific term, show up. An artifact can be in the form of blocking or ringing or some other effect that is not desirable from a viewer's perspective. If you are shooting a high quality JPEG and do no additional processing on your images then artifacts may not be a problem, although they can often show up in the sky of a JPEG image that has been processed a second time.

An additional difference between JPEG and the original RAW file is the tones available in the images. A RAW file, as shot file straight from the camera (contrary to what JPEG shooters call their images a RAW file is really the SOOC version), is called a 16-bit (or 14-bit or 12-bit) file and it contains a wide range of tones, tones can be BW or color, in fact a 16-bit file contains 65,535 tones, whereas an 8-bit file, a JPEG file, contains 4,095 tones. Why are tones important? They are important because our eyes want to see a smooth transition between the tones in a photograph, as images are made of small squares the transition from one tone to another tone can be less than optimal. The more tones an image has, the smoother the gradation of the tones from one tone to another. Having all of the tones that a RAW file has can also lead to an image with a brighter degree of color. And, more of an ability to bring up the shadows without artifacts.

These things may not matter to you or others and then shooting in JPEG is most likely the way to go if someone is not concerned with creating the the highest quality print available. There is no rule on using one form of file versus another form, shoot the way you want and be happy with it.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

If you can't see the difference, it's not there ...

Bill_de Loc: US

I used raw only for many years when jpg didn't cut it. Over time cameras and software got better. Jpg improved to the point that, as you found, it is usually all you need. Since memory is cheap I shoot both raw and jpg for those rare occasions that I need the raw file.

There are a few folks here that are masters at post processing and turn raw images I would consider way under exposed into masterpieces. There are many here who preach that you need raw, but we never see their results or when we do they are sub par.

The rest do the best they can with what works for them. My friend's wife always used to say, "there's something for everyone".

--

BebuLamar

Rather than relying on others I think it's best to develop your own techniques. Whether it's shooting RAW or JPEG or making use of built in Night Mode and HDR etc..
Experiment like you did and then pick the technique that works best for you.

Grahame Loc: Fiji

Go out before sunrise and after sunset and shoot material that includes sky and foreground subjects.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

The following sentence, I believe, did not seem to be needed in this discussion, "There are many here who preach that you need raw, but we never see their results or when we do they are sub par." Even if that is the case, throwing it "out there" is not productive or useful. I'd be happy to share my results with you and I don't think they are sub-par. I shoot RAW because I like to process, it is, for me, creating a piece of artwork my way, I get to put my spin on the image. I'm not processing, in general, to save an underexposed image, although I cannot say that I have never done that. Some of us just like to have fun and play with our images while others just want to take a shot and get it done with and neither is right or wrong and neither needs to have people make blanket negative comments about them. Why are so compelled to "throw others under the bus" in a wholesale format? The person posting had a valid question and there are answers and providing the answers helps us all to learn.