...and this is why I shoot in raw

[n8]

We went out to our local bennihana style restaurant tonight, and I figured I'd be a good opportunity to exercise the d7000 a bit. I wasn't expecting the results I got in this particular image though. The first is what the camera showed me in the original raw and jpeg, and the second is with the fill light slider maxed out. Really makes it a whole new photo, and it really amazes me just how much can be pulled out of one image.

[daq7]

Absolutely! Very nice.

[WesternGuy]

Excellent illustration of the advantages of shooting raw and why I do it. Thanks for sharing.

WesternGuy

[Old Timer]

Ok... I've been resisting for a long time but I guess I'm going to have to start shooting more raw and exploring those shadows and highlights more.

[Rivman]

. . . a real "i" opener n8, I'm also guilty of resisting shooting RAW format too !

[poker]

Being able to easily adjust white balance was enough for me to always shoot in RAW.

[Photo-John]

Ok... I've been resisting for a long time but I guess I'm going to have to start shooting more raw and exploring those shadows and highlights more.

It's about time! There's really no reason not to shoot RAW anymore. Unless you're a photojournalist and need to deliver immediatelty. That's the only reason I know of to shoot JPEG.

[armando_m]

good to see a couple of excellent photographers convert to raw due to this thread
knowing a t2i and a D700 were shot in jpg only, is to me a bit mind boggling

I shoot both jpg and raw so i can browse instantly and quickly decide If I'll spend time on any particular images

[zerodog]

I still shoot JPEG for events. Gotta max out storage and let the camera do some of the PP for me when dealing with 1000's of shots. But for anything else it is RAW. You can not deny the adjustment possibilities with it. If something is too bright or dark you can really pull a lot out. It is amazing in some cases what you can get. This is a great example of it.

[Username2343]

I always shoot in raw to fix my hot pixel issue. Sometimes I envy those cannons with their mapping feature.

[Iguanamom]

It's not just Canon, my Olympus has pixel mapping as well. Hope I won't need it though.

[SmartWombat]

I now want a cellphone that shoots in RAW mode on its camera.

[Danbaileyphoto]

Cool shots! I'm a HUGE advocate for always shooting in not just RAW, but 14-bit RAW if you have that capability. Shooting RAW is the best way to take full advantage of your digital sensor and get the widest range of color information in your file.

Shooting JPEG means throwing away information that you can never get back. With memory and storage being so cheap these days, there is no reason not to shoot RAW all the time.

[Danbaileyphoto]

Cool shots! I'm a HUGE advocate for always shooting in not just RAW, but 14-bit RAW if you have that capability. Shooting RAW is the best way to take full advantage of your digital sensor and get the widest range of color information in your file.

Shooting JPEG means throwing away information that you can never get back. With memory and storage being so cheap these days, there is no reason not to shoot RAW all the time.

[TomBrooklyn]

In order to fairly compare jpeg and RAW, you need to make processing adjustments to the jpeg file, just as you made adjustments to the RAW file above.

It is possible to adjust a jpeg file in post processing, just as it is with a RAW file. It is not fair to adjust only the RAW file and compare it to an unedited jpeg. There is shadow detail in the jpeg that can be retrieved with the use of the same adjustment slider you used for the RAW photo.

After you make that adjustment, a comparison of how much shadow detail was recovered from each format, and any noise issues can be fairly evaluated.

[Anbesol]

I agree Tom. This forum sometimes just isn't very kind to the JPEG, no respect at all!

[Grandpaw]

I always shoot Raw, Fine JPEG just in case I need to make adjustments. The first picture is the JPEG version and the second is the RAW version after adjustments, Jeff

[Asmarlak]

In order to fairly compare jpeg and RAW, you need to make processing adjustments to the jpeg file, just as you made adjustments to the RAW file above.

It is possible to adjust a jpeg file in post processing, just as it is with a RAW file. It is not fair to adjust only the RAW file and compare it to an unedited jpeg. There is shadow detail in the jpeg that can be retrieved with the use of the same adjustment slider you used for the RAW photo.

After you make that adjustment, a comparison of how much shadow detail was recovered from each format, and any noise issues can be fairly evaluated.

I completely agree. I never had any problem pulling out details from dark areas in JPEGs which is my favorite format. Actually recovering those details are easy in both RAW and JPEG. The real challenge is to preserve highlight detail in BOTH formats which much of it was lost in the "flame" area.

[Grandpaw]

We went out to our local bennihana style restaurant tonight, and I figured I'd be a good opportunity to exercise the d7000 a bit. I wasn't expecting the results I got in this particular image though. The first is what the camera showed me in the original raw and jpeg, and the second is with the fill light slider maxed out. Really makes it a whole new photo, and it really amazes me just how much can be pulled out of one image.

Would it be OK if I tried giving this picture a try and posting it? Jeff

[OldClicker]

In order to fairly compare jpeg and RAW, you need to make processing adjustments to the jpeg file, just as you made adjustments to the RAW file above.

It is possible to adjust a jpeg file in post processing, just as it is with a RAW file. It is not fair to adjust only the RAW file and compare it to an unedited jpeg. There is shadow detail in the jpeg that can be retrieved with the use of the same adjustment slider you used for the RAW photo.

After you make that adjustment, a comparison of how much shadow detail was recovered from each format, and any noise issues can be fairly evaluated.

I don't understand the objections. There is more dynamc range captured by a 12-14 bit RAW file than by an 8-bit jpg from the camera. You cannot bring out detail that has not been captured. Correct? - Terry

[Username2343]

The only positive thing about jpeg, is that you can do the non stop unlimited photos per second paparazzi thing.

[Asmarlak]

That depends on the camera used. More details and more dynamic range in RAWs is not necessarily a rule of a thumb in any camera, each camera processes both formats differently.When it comes to my Olympus E-30, RAW and JPEG are about equal, I never felt the need to shooting RAW to capture more detail and dynamic range. I only use RAW when I have specific use for the file such as HDR for example.

[TomBrooklyn]

I don't understand the objections. There is more dynamc range captured by a 12-14 bit RAW file than by an 8-bit jpg from the camera. You cannot bring out detail that has not been captured. Correct? - Terry

Theoretically, the RAW file will contain more dynamic range. That's what this comparison above alleges to show, but the comparison was not made fairly.

You are correct that you cannot bring out more detail than has been captured or retained. But again, no attempt was made to process the jpeg, so we don't know how much detail, if any, is there.

[n8]

Ok, so I had to go in my recycle bin to dig this guy out, opened it up in acr and again cranked the fill slider, which I believe is all I did to the one up top. I wish I could have added it to the op, but I suppose this will do.

[Anbesol]

I don't understand the objections. There is more dynamc range captured by a 12-14 bit RAW file than by an 8-bit jpg from the camera. You cannot bring out detail that has not been captured. Correct? - Terry

Jpeg and raw have the same total range, it is the larger gamut between brightest and darkest tones that raw exceeds jpeg with. JPEG compression also effects very high adn low tones more than midtones