quixdraw wrote:
Interesting - so "better" in the final analysis, translates into personal preference? Edit: And (CYA?) No other factual evidence I've seen in this thread.
Let's do some facts then. One reason I shoot raw is to be able to take photos that are
impossible to take shooting JPEG. I do that regularly and no way am I willing to give up that capability. Shooting camera JPEGs would mean I can't take many of the photos I want to take.
Worth noting here as well: I also shoot raw to reduce my time spent at the computer in post processing. It's faster and easier to just process a raw file. Given that I take photos out in the world under given lighting conditions half the time plus the lighting is not ideal and some post correction is required. Doing that to repair a JPEG takes more skill and more time than just processing the raw file.
But back to point number one and you'd like to see some facts.
Here's a photo I took of a lamp on a table. This was done for illustration purposes and we're going to assume it's representative of a high contrast scene in which you do not have access to adjust the lighting. The lighting contrast in the scene is extreme since the lamp shade is in fact a diffuse highlight and we can't clip a diffuse highlight.
The camera is a Fuji XT-2 on a tripod. I shot a bracket set changing the shutter speed. ISO is at base (200). WB is auto. The XT-2 has JPEG picture controls for highlight and shadow tone and they are both maxed to accommodate the extreme contrast -- doing all we can to get the best possible JPEG result.
Next step we're going to cheat in favor of the JPEG. Here it is:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/slpgudjqveetqlh/DSCF1810.JPG?dl=0 The brightest diffuse highlight in the lamp is in fact clipped in two channels but we're going to use it anyway since the clipping is minimal. If we were being fair about this we'd have to drop exposure another 1/2 stop to get a JPEG with unclipped highlights -- so let's go with the cheat.
Below is the photo that I processed from the raw file that got 2/3 stop more exposure. Go ahead and download that JPEG in the link above and process it to match the photo posted below. Pay extra attention to the shadow detail and color in the lower right corner (maybe Delderby can help out with that extra special JPEG software). Deliver the facts back here that prove I'm wrong otherwise I think I'm right.
Why did I get to use a raw file that received 2/3 stop more exposure? Is that fair? Absolutely it's fair and
that's the point. Shooting raw I can expose more and still not clip the highlights. Shooting JPEG you have to accept the best the camera JPEG sofware can provide and as you can see in this example even after giving the camera software every advantage plus some cheating it still couldn't avoid clipping that diffuse highlight. (In case it occurs to someone, in my job I get to handle and test most of the cameras in popular use and what I've done here with a Fuji will work much the same with the rest of them.)
I enjoy shooting backlit landscapes/cityscapes with the same kind of extreme lighting contrast in the photo presented here. I can take photos of those scenes shooting raw that are simply impossible to capture shooting JPEG -- and that's a fact.
Joe