Hello all - with recent threads being similar to this one I determined to become more knowledgeable and proficient in RAW PP, so that I could make up my own mind on the subject of RAW v JPG. Well I am developing RAWs but have had to shoot pics with purposely blown highlights or underexposed etc to find things to recover. And yes - in such circumstances RAW can have a marginal advantage - but nothing to get too excited about. The fact remains that if the exposure is good to start with, then I can do as well by using layers. I have certainly enjoyed using a high pass filter for clever sharpening as well as unsharp mask, and I shall continue to develop RAWs. Suddenly my pics have improved punch and are certainly not flat. But that is down to adjusting after conversion.

...................

Hi, usaellie;

To keep it simple let's envision a B&W image.

You are to replicate that image with maximum accurate detail using one of three available collections of square tiles. Those collections differ only in the number of shades of gray between black and white.

these are the three unlimited supplies of square tiles; we'll call those three sets:
8-bit JPEG image file data
12-bit RAW image data, and
16-bit RAW image data

8-bit JPEG image file: black, white, and 254 shades of gray between B&W

12-bit RAW data: black, white, and 4096 shades of gray in between B&W

14-bit RAW data: black, white, and 16,384 shades of gray in between B&W


Which selection of image tiles would you choose to use to render maximum accurate detail?

That's the bottom line basis upon which decisions are made regarding use of 8-bit JPEG, 12-bit RAW, and 14-bit RAW image data.

(the differences based on numbers of available colors are even more impressive!)

Dave in SD

Raw is the raw data which is used to produce a jpg file. You probably have seen there are different types of jpegs that your camera can produce such as vibrant or portrait or black & white or even line drawing.
when you save a jpeg a preset is applied and the image can have 1 of several looks to the image.

lets say you pick a black & white preset for the jpeg (and your camera will have a range of presets for black & white at the least digital filters).

you now have a black & white image but suppose you think that could look better in colour, well just having the jpeg file you can't produce a colour image now because the colour information has been lost.

Or perhaps you shot an indoor photo under artificial light peoples faces might appear red or even worse have a green cast to them because the white balance was wrong. Our eyes are quite strange they adjust the image automatically to see things the right colour, but the camera faithfully records the colours it see's.

However the Raw file has all the information that was recorded when you took the photograph. So this information can be processed differently so instead of a black & white jpeg you can have a colour one or you can select a white balance to correct for the type of light that it recorded. A sunset setting for instance will show the vivid colours you saw.

I think canon photo professional for example can adjust the raw file to any of your camera's settings and more. The more bit is where it gets complicated.

Some adjustments can be attempted from a jpeg file for example converting colour to black & white (but not the reverse) or trying to fix a colour cast from artificial lighting, however given the option from starting from raw or starting from a jpeg file the raw file will always be the better starting point.

With presets such as in canon photo professional your jpegs will be the equal of any in camera jpeg your camera can produce, with programs such as lightroom or photoshop they can be better, or worse much worse :) but if you persist and learn how to control these programs you can produce excellent results.

While it is always best to get it right in camera, some things can't be fixed without some post processing, E.g lens corrections are a brilliant advance which can remove lens distortions and colour fringing, for example.