Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Doesn't matter if the camera is set to raw only or raw+JPEG. Getting the highest degree of dynamic range and complete utilization of the sensor is a function of exposure. If you want that then expose for that. The point I made is (and as Superfly noted) that much exposure nukes the camera JPEG so there's no reason to save it.

It's also risky. If you decide to do that you better be right about the exposure. The sensor clipping threshold is like a brick wall -- it hurts real bad to run into it. That's why the camera engineers built a hedge into the cameras in the first place.

If you do then you want the JPEG. Therefore you should expose to get a good JPEG. Your resulting raw file will be usable but not as good as it could otherwise have been with more exposure.

That's right.

Joe

quenepas Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

Got it! Thanks.

Salo Loc: Cherry Hill, NJ

This topic always draws a lot of responses and opinions, mostly pro-RAW and less often pro-JPG, but in reality it depends mainly how you're planning to display your captured images. On a computer screen or smaller, JPGs will look just fine, and even on larger screens, remember that some limited image editing can still be done to improve even JPGs.

Personally speaking, I grew tired of always post-processing RAWs except in special cases, and I, like you, found the rewards to be less spectacular than the time and effort required. Most "SOOC" JPGs are very well developed by the current crop of in-camera image processors, so except for rare cases, I've reverted to shooting almost exclusively JPG, often with very pleasing results.

I suppose purists and "professionals" still tend toward shooting only RAW, but I have seen and have produced numerous JPGs which also evoke great visual pleasure "SOOC".

Maybe it's because I'm getting older or maybe it's because I desire quicker results, but whatever the reason, for the past few years I've been very happy getting my images straight out of camera as JPGs with only the rare RAW exception.

For example, attached is 2.1 mPx JPG photo I took with my first digital camera back in 1998. I'm sure RAW would have been a better option for this particular image, but JPG was all that I had available to me.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I used to be a pretty militant defender of JPEG...the range of most JPEG images matches the range of most printers and exceeded many video displays of the time. Like most folks, though, my photographic horizons expanded. Also...some video displays got quite a bit better. As Ive mentioned before, night sky photography really can't be done without the expectation of pretty significant post processing and the dynamic range which can only be saved to a raw file. So I'm not nearly as militant around this topic as I used to be.

On the other hand, as sensors and (even more importantly) camera processing capabilities have improved, captures which used to be impossible with JPEGs no longer are (possible, that is). Last night, I was goofing around on the back porch about an hour after sunset and decided to see just what might be possible photographing our landscaping illuminated by only a couple of those solar powered LED floodlights and a little bit of spillover from various sources outside the yard. So I set the D500 to ISO 10,000 and 1/10 second, and the 24-120mm f4 zoom to f4, as indicated by the camera's meter, set to matrix mode, all with the -2 stops of EC which I had programmed in. The result was a pretty cool hand-held image (see the other thread on the topic of that word), even if it is a pretty mundane composition.

I'm not intending to post that image here, because in order to do so, I'd have to reduce the size and resolution, meaning that it would no longer be SOOC and would not represent the image as it exists and is available for printing. By the way...a quick look at the raw version reveals a very editable image as well. Now please understand...there is no way I would have even attempted this exposure as a JPEG with my older D300...its much lower sensitivity would have required that even an attempt would have required a raw file and an attempt to recover the image from the shadow levels in post processing. Even that might not have worked. Might just try an experiment at some point.

It seems to me that a lot of times, we get pretty carried away with the "idea" of post processing, as opposed to the reality of post processing. 12 bits is still a lot of dynamic range. Far more than can be represented visually through current media, even though it is quite a bit less than what our eyes can decode. And...working to pull information out of those lower order bits is in reality asking for trouble anyway, creating noise and other problems.

So as I have stated other places here...we need to get "unstuck" from things we learned in the past that are (or may not be) true any longer. As technology has changed, capabilities have changed...a lot. With those changes have also come changes in results. What may have been true may not be true now...at least not in every case.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

So very TRUE and well said ! ..........as I have said before, the GOOD reasons/advantages for shooting raw become fewer and smaller every day now ....

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Sensor dynamic range and the scene DR that we can record is not a function of the bit depth of the camera's ADC.

Otherwise I'm not sure what you're saying.

Joe

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

If you shoot SOOC JPEG and you don't edit those JPEGs you save time but you settle for less.
If you shoot camera JPEGs and you do edit those JPEGs then you don't save time (likely to lose time) and you still settle for less.

My one GOOD reason/advantage for shooting raw is not settling for less.

Joe

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

LOL

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Got out this evening for a walk. We had some thunderstorms pass through. I stopped at the park to sit a few minutes on the bench at the ball field. The sky was dramatic and I thought it made for a nice photo of the park. So I grabbed a snapshot -- a photo that neither you nor anyone else shooting camera JPEGs could take. Trivial for me and beyond the technical capacity of any current camera's JPEG processors.

And that's LOL.

Joe

(Download)

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Just shoot a Sony IN CAMERA 3 exposure HDR of this subject - easy-piesy .......LOL!
.

Grahame Loc: Fiji

Less what?

Generally this is the sort of statement made by someone that's simply not competent at turning out SOOC adequately 'acceptable for purpose' images.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I'll take a swing at this dangling piñata too, hopefully to release some candy. Simply expose for the bright white clouds as far right as possible, but not blowing their highlights / details, and process the resulting JPEG to easily yield an equivalent result. If you meant a SOOC JPEG to match to this processed result, agreed, cameras don't do that. Maybe the HDR merge, but still unlikely to be this successful SOOC. But, to capture an image to be edited is rarely completely dependent on RAW, just greatly facilitated. If you think otherwise, you've been too long away from JPEG.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Please display here the section of your (or any) camera instruction manual that explains how to set two separate custom white balance values to different parts of the same SOOC JPEG. I did that and it has a dramatic effect on how the photo looks. You JPEG shooters don't see color very well do you?

"easy-piesy" LOL! You use your camera set to auto WB. Talk about settling -- ROFLMAO!

Joe

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

I do mean that, because that's what's been claimed. But there's more. I set two different custom white balances. One for the sky (basically daylight as the clouds were still in direct sunlight) and a second white balance for the foreground under overcast light. It makes a big difference.
I know you know no camera can do that. You can edit the JPEG but that's more work requiring more skill and more time with the guarantee that you'll still settle for inferior results. Their claim is that they're saving time and grief staying away from the computer. Then they can't take the photo I took.
There's another point. I exposed that shot with my Canon camera set to a +1 EC. Any JPEG I would have allowed the camera to create would be nuked into blown highlight oblivion. (I'll gladly re-generate it with my camera's onboard converter if anyone wants to see it). My raw file is exposed to capacity. I applied approx. twice as much light to the sensor as a JPEG shooter would have been able to apply. Given the high DR character of the shot and my camera's 1' sensor I have much cleaner -- less noisy shadows than would have been possible for the JPEG shooter.

Indeed. Even though some cameras now provide an in-camera HDR function that's still so primitive as to only apply one tone curve to the final image. I applied two.

I spend a lot of time with JPEG and I know what's possible. I teach students who aspire to careers in which being able to create a best possible SOOC JPEG is a job requirement. I do right by them.

Joe

JD750 Loc: SoCal

For me this is what it’s all about. I shoot raw when it makes sense. For fun except, for rare cases, I shoot jpeg.