Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Yes. And never ever less.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

yes?

Fayle Loc: Seward, Alaska and Rionegro, Colombia

This from Adobe website:
Here's a cooking analogy: "a raw file contains the ingredients to make a specific meal that you can prep however you'd like, whereas a JPEG is that meal already cooked, and there is less flexibility in how you can modify it."

https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom-cc/how-to/raw-vs-jpeg.html

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

Definitely!

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

In my experience in assisting (i.e. encouraging) newly emerging enthusiast photographers with optimizing their capture results I've encountered considerable complaints that when they have attempted to shoot in RAW their results are consistently less "pleasing" than if they shoot the same image in their camera's .jpeg format.

Sadly the answer here is the brutal reality that post processing required for a RAW capture is a much higher bar to clear. Thus many (new to digital) believe the shooting RAW may not be a great idea. Even in the face of the reality that few if any working commercial photographers (except possibly wedding shooters) work primarily in .jpeg fromat.

Bottom Line? Now I simply avoid trying to explain the logic behind the beauty of the massive increase in dynamic range latent within a RAW file. I no longer even bother "defending" the logic of capturing RAW images.

Oft said that "ignorance is bliss"

Urnst from your UHH BIO, I'm questioning the motive behind your post?
Seems to me that it's more akin to what I would expect coming from a troll...

About Urnst: "I have been involved with photography since my mother gave me her Argus C3 35mm camera in the early 1970's. For years I took black and white pictures with a Nikkormat FTN with a 50mm F2 lens. I bulk loaded TriX film from 100-foot rolls and processed my film and printed pictures in my darkroom.
I graduated to Nikon F cameras with a full complement of AIS lenses, then to Leica M and Lecia R systems .Now I use a Nikon D810, a D3400 and an Olympus digital Pen F, with lenses for each system..."

Urnst why pray tell are you asking "Do raw images have more dynamic range than JPEG?"?
What is your hidden agenda here?

Wishing you much joy and happiness in this wonderful Holiday Season Urnst.
Cheers! Thomas

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The surest way to corrupt a novice is to explain the importance of dynamic range.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Really?
I just edit (move the sliders) like any other image (ie. JPEG).
For me there is no big difference other than having more/better control with the RAW.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

That is true. You can take a JPEG image into the RAW processor pushing the Ctrl/Shift/A keys all at the same time.
In the RAW processor of Photoshop you can use the sliders to recover a lot of data that normally would not be possible in a JPEG image.
Bottom line, you can get ever more data from a RAW file. But, I was a JPEG user for years and got beautiful results using it.
So I guess, let the debate continue.
But, honestly, after switching to RAW I don't think I will ever go back to JPEG.
In the following image, I was able to build back the background to the level I shot it at using RAW, I do not believe I could have gotten to that level with JPEG alone.
Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I won't stop using RAW either!
I wish my old Sony H-1 provided RAW.....

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

No.

But it's curve is different and consequently the shoulder is linear. The importance of that is that the usefulness of the data near the saturation point is much better with post processing of raw photos.

The linear nature of the raw curve is much different than the S curve of the usual JPG.

This may help explain the point.

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-643297-4.html#11168302

JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ

In my experience, when you let the camera do the conversion to jpeg, it will set the white balance (either auto or according to the manual setting). In the raw file, it does not, and you have to do that manually in some raw file editor. And if you use a standard photo editor which just does a simple raw -> jpeg conversion upon loading, it will probably set the white balance wrong.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

They have more potential dynamic range. Until you process them into actual image files, such as jpeg.
If you are familiar to film photography, it's kind of like comparing negatives to prints.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

JPEG files contain 256 bits (brightness levels) per color channel.

Raw files are at least 4096 bits, and sometimes 16,384 bits per color channel.

In reality, that translates into 12 to 15 stops of dynamic range that can be captured in a raw file. A JPEG processed in camera (or in post) can contain about 5.5 stops of that.

Note that photo prints have a reflectivity range of around five stops, give or take the nature of the illumination used to view them.

The trick is to manipulate the raw capture to compress as much of the tonal range as is needed for your intended effect, and stuff it into that five stop range we can see on paper. There are tools in the camera to do that (rather crudely), but post-processing software can do it rather precisely.

Think back to the days of slide film. Exposure controlled density. Development controlled contrast, and with it, color balance. So development was RIGIDLY controlled. Blow the exposure, and your slide was too dark or too light. For my standards, latitude was +0.33, -.67 stops. More than a third of a stop over, the highlights would be burned out and detail-less. More than two thirds of a stop under, the shadows would be plugged up.

With JPEGs processed in camera, roughly the same rule of thumb applies. However, good post-processing can adjust an image to create an illusion of normality... up to a point. You can't put back into a JPEG what bad exposure took away from the top or bottom end of any of the three color channels.

With negative film, you got to play with the development a bit in black-and-white, but with color, altered development messed up the color balance about the same as it would with slide film. But assuming normal development, you had at least ten stops of dynamic range to work with. Sometimes, as with motion picture film and the processes used to develop it, you could have 20 stops of dynamic range to work with, albeit quality suffered beyond 12 stops in most instances. Negative film latitude was typically two stops over and 1.5 stops under, for acceptable prints.

With raw capture, and post processing, we can rein in the highlights and shadows, to discard intermediate tones and use the 256 available to represent the 4096 or 16384 reasonably well. The trick is to exercise restraint and taste while "cramming the dynamic range of reality into the narrow bandwidth of the medium," as one photo industry pundit puts it.

The same thing is done in audio recording, where the dynamic range of a vocal is heavily compressed so it "sits well" within a mix of musical instruments. That simply means that the quietest and loudest parts of a singer's delivery are intelligible, especially when heard on a car radio used on the highway.

Camera manufacturers put all sorts of controls on their camera menus that allow alteration of the default JPEG processing. A lot of folks have been told, MISTAKENLY, that camera manufacturers determine what a JPEG should look like. The truth is far more nuanced... They merely provide reasonable starting points for you. Casual users will accept them until they learn that they can adjust them, or save raw files and post-process their own realities.

Working with in-camera JPEG processing to achieve *professional level* results is possible, but it is actually a LOT HARDER than recording a raw file and processing it on a computer. It generally helps to control the lighting, to maintain a usable contrast range. White balance is a huge issue, so achieving a custom white balance at the camera for accurate JPEG processing is important. Pros use exposure and white balance targets (many types are available). Exposure must be dead-on accurate.

Entire pro industries use JPEG capture, but within thoughtful constraints that provide the desired results. The school portrait industry relies upon JPEG capture. But there is a rigid formula for it. Cameras are tested and menu settings adjusted to capture just the right subtleties. Lighting is controlled to within a 3:1 ratio (often 2.5:1 or 2:1). The subject is lit very softly, using large white umbrellas and soft boxes. The lighting never changes from subject to subject. Exposure and white balance are set from a target. The subject is always at the same distance from the camera and lights. Lab color correction is very slight (within about half a stop of the original recorded values), and is usually the same for all the subjects photographed on the same camera during the same session. The result is very high quality, with little to no effort in post-processing.

There is an argument in the photo industry that pits JPEG capture against raw capture. It should NOT be an argument! It should be JPEG AND raw capture, not JPEG vs. raw capture. They serve entirely different purposes.

JPEG processing in camera was an early feature demanded by the photojournalists who used the early dSLRs. They simply needed to be able to deliver the images in a ready-to-use format. That the camera automation became "good enough" for most people to accept most of the time was a plus. However, ALL automation has limits, and there are a great many instances where even the best automatic cameras fail us. That's when raw capture comes into play.

Just as I would never expect the mass portrait market (school portraits, big-box store studio portraits), or parts catalog photography, or eBay studio product photography, etc. to use raw capture, I would never expect TRUE PROFESSIONALS to photograph one-of-a-kind events such as weddings, SOLELY using JPEGs. To do so would be irresponsible.

There is no "argument." There is only appropriate usage. Let the use case determine your approach. I do, and that makes a huge difference for me.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Try as I might, I couldn't find any reference indicating the contrary. Usually there is online disagreement about everything, even if the earth is flat or round.

joewade2 Loc: Mindoro, Wis

Interesting points of view.
Different camars will present the same immage differently. Even when you try to set then the same.
The dynamic range of a sensor is ISO setting and sensor dependent. This dynamic range can be represented in 8 bits (JPEG) or 14 bits (RAW). 14 bits will have more information.

Please forgive me for over simplifying some of the technical detailes in the previous statements.