Still Trying to Convince Myself on RAW

Started Jun 29, 2013 | Photos thread
OP Gary Eickmeier Veteran Member • Posts: 3,479
Re: No Convincing Required

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.


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

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow