Still Trying to Convince Myself on RAW

Started Jun 29, 2013 | Photos thread
Gary Eickmeier
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,451
Like?
Re: No Convincing Required
In reply to Renato1, Jun 30, 2013

Renato1 wrote:

I'm not sure what you are trying to compare. The JPEG comes from the RAW file - the nice clean Jpeg came from that noisy RAW file.

Ten years ago it was not uncommon to have blown highlights and to have dark patches devoid of detail in Jpegs. It was fairly wise to shoot RAW if one could, as the detail could be brought back into the picture, which otherwise would have been irretrievably lost in a Jpeg. For me, that hasn't been much of an issue since Sony bought out the A100 with the then novel feature of Dynamic Range Optimization.

RAW is still handy for instances where one can expect the camera to struggle with  exposure and white balance (especially indoors with all those energy saving flourescent globes around), but otherwise, unless one is really enthusiastic about getting the absolute best (by doing a stack of work) Jpegs are very satisfactory.
Regards,

Renato

OK, finally, a point that we can test. If RAW can recover blown out highlights that JPG cannot, I will be a convert forevermore. This is exactly what I was looking for, some aspect of the image that RAW could save the day with.

I think the first couple of exposures of the band were a little too bright on the white shirts. Maybe I could use that to show myself how RAW can save them. Stay tuned.

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
+1New
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow