Gabriel, I agree that the JPEGs produced by the best modern cameras are very good indeed. As processor speed has increased, some manufacturers have used it wisely to produce a very high standard of default image.
Where we differ is firstly that I do not think this obviates the desirability of processing RAW files, since they afford photographers a lot more control over the final result, and secondly that the idea that DR can be extended by applying PP to JPEGs is just plain wrong-headed. As I and others have explained, each time you open a JPEG, edit it in any way, then save it, you degrade the quality markedly. If you want to extract more highlight or shadow detail from an image, the only sensible way to do it is in RAW.
Hi Mark,
Wrong-headed - I don't think so:
It all depends on where you come from, and where you are heading. Take three cases:
1. The careful photographer who makes a living from his pictures, and has the time for post processing, should of course shoot raw + jpeg. Anything else would be very foolish indeed.
He or she will later have the option to use the jpeg, if it is ok. If not, use the raw.
2. The perfectionists among us who are serious amateurs and enjoy post processing should do the same thing. It will give them much more latitude for adjustment and will ensure the best possible results.
(Please note, I am not trying to criticize anyone for trying to make the finest possible pictures - in my own way, I have exactly that same ambition)
3. The casual shooter not relying on his images for making a living could well take a chance on jpeg only. There are two advantages and one downside to this.
* The advantages. For the 90 - 95% (or whatever the percentage is) of pictures that turn out reasonably well exposed, with the right in-camera settings, the images will often come out better than the ones you would be able to batch process using the best raw converters. Remember jpeg processing in the newest Nikon FX cameras do a lot of things that many raw converters don't.
Still, this approach will have saved you hours in front of the computer.
* The downside. For the 5 - 10% (or whatever) which come out lacking in exposure, you will still be able to salvage more or less every one of them. But if the image is way off to begin with, the end result would have been better if you had shot in raw.
* Please note: What I am saying is that this option basically only exists if you are shooting a present generation Nikon FF camera - D600 / D610, D800 and, as it seems, Df + D4.
Take a look, for example, at this link published by Fred Miranda (a Canon user and the person behind the website) comparing shadow recovery from a
Nikon D800 and Canon 5D MkIII. The Canon is not capable - in RAW - of what a D600 or D800 can do - in jpeg! (you will have to look at both sources to see what I am referring to, the D600 jpeg recovery in my link above, and raw recovery from Canon 5D MkIII in F M's link)
http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html
You could say that shooting jpeg only with a D600 is 'wrong-headed'. But in such case shooting raw with a 5D MkIII would be an even more wrong-headed, because the results are inferior.
Which of course is not true, the Canon is an excellent camera. Raw from the Canon is great - only thing is that jpeg from the Nikon is, in some respects at least, even better.
Gabriel
P.S. - in my last example, like the others, I have not even been using 'Jpeg Fine' to start with, but 'Jpeg Normal' (8-bit). There are some jpeg artefacts when zoomed in. I added a touch of sharpening which added to the artefacts. No noise reduction was applied.
I also took one of my worst jpg images and added copious amounts of shadow recovery (how much? 2-3 stops?) only to show the possibilities, and their limits, not to demonstrate a beautiful result.
All of this could be done a lot better by somebody shooting more cautiously and applying sensible amounts of recovery on slightly better jpeg files.
But I seriously doubt that a fine jpeg, opened and saved unchanged one extra time, will 'degrade the quality markedly' as you write.
That is simply not true. From my experience, that certainly happens with lower jpeg quality (say, below 8 in PS) saved a couple of times.
For Jpeg Fine, saved without changes once more as fine,
nobody will be able to see jpg artefacts appearing.
Gabriel
It's unbelievable really.
