...and this is why I shoot in raw

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[OldClicker]

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

But when you get down into the darker tones, the 8-bit jpg no longer has enough levels within the stop to provide any details - the choice has been made, those details are gone and they cannot be recovered in PP. Also, in camera jpgs have that nice ‘contrasty’ image that sells cameras. This contrast comes at the expense of the dynamic range.

When you post adjust the exposure on a jpg, all you are doing is changing the brightness - same as if you used the brightness adjustment on your monitor. When you adjust exposure with RAW, you are changing the RAW conversion process.

Terry

[freygr]

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

Incorrect, RAW on my camera has 12 bits per color! As JPEG is 8 bit per color, by JPEG specifications. So a 12 bit RAW file has 2^4 more range (that is 4 F stops) then any JPEG image to start with, and some of the newer camera's are using 14 bits per color RAW images files that is a total of 6 F stop more range than JPEG files can handle. JPEG is also lossly so you lose tonal range and detail and it's cumulative each time the file is opened and saved even it no editing is done (open and close has no effect on the file).

With the extra stops you can capture more contrasty without washing out the highs or loss in the shadows. Using JPEG you have 256 shades of gray with 12 bits you have 4096 shades of gray which you can save to a 16 bit TIFF file