It is not about the look. It is about the exposure. To get rid of the clipping in highlights JPEG needs to be exposed more than 1 stop less compared to raw. And details in shadows do not exist after that underexposure. The dynamic range of the scene is quite modest btw - 8 stops only. But JPEG clips it to about 6 stops usable.
I understand that the colors, sharpness settings, etc of Fuji for their JPEGs are very very good. This is great news of course for anyone who prefers to have their images straight out of the camera style. For me, I like to spend time to "interpret" the image and for that I'm always going to use RAW because it's more optimal for that.... so even if I had a Fuji camera, I'd still be shooting RAW. What some folks fail to understand is that there are subtitles beyond just decent sharpness, exposure and color that many of us like to bring out of our photographs before we're done with them. Adjustments that are only going to be done after carefully evaluating the image rather than as we're taking the photo...JPGs can be set up really well to your own tastes with a bit of thought and consideration, via the menu. Aids like ADL can also make a big difference. I also think a lot depends on the individual camera. Some cameras do a superb job while others are just so so.
If you shoot with a camera like the Fuji Pro 1, there is seriously little need to shoot in RAW.
So let me get this straight. Your son lectures in wedding photography, and you guys own multiple FF bodies, and after all this, you allow somebody else to choose your camera settings?? You let somebody else choose your contrast, your NR, your sharpness, your saturation?
You still have a lot to learn my friend
Reason enough that I don't bother with JPEG. I want the flexibility to bring more out of the shadows and/or highlights later. I don't feel that a photo is always better if it has more shadow or highlight detail, but if I decide that I do want that and I've shot JPEG then I have much less to work with. RAW just gives me more options. If you don't care about those options and want something more convenient, you can get perfectly good results with JPEG... but if you do....
Sometimes it's better to see what the eye sees and stop going HDRish on everything.
Not always I agree but sometimes we should challenge the perceived conventions of what is good and bad.
The decision is better saved for image processing stage. No good in damaged originals. What eye can see - well, in that particular scene it was easy to see all of it.
Out of arguments?You still have a lot to learn my friend
Because of underexposure compared to raw JPEGs have less resolution and more noise in midtones as well.
Simple scenario where the eye has far more dynamic range: we can simultaneously see through a window out to a bright sunny scene outside, and also see the objects inside the house just fine.
The progress in both film and digital was always for more dynamic range - exactly because that is what the trade of photography needs.
Workflow and formats are strictly personal and it is up to the photographer to decide what suies him best.
I guess that I don't look at it that way... Not at all. I don't have a problem with photographers that do everything in-camrea and I'm sure that I've admired many shots made that way. I just consider the post-processing stage as part of the creative process. It isn't that I'm necessarily trying to compensate for poor exposure, white balance or anything else, it's just that I prefer to make certain adjustments only after evaluating what I have. Often I'm shooting B&W too and to set the JPEG for B&W and to shoot that way would seem to be giving up a lot of control over how colors are converted to B&W tones and the kind of super-percise contrast adjustments that I feel make B&W really sing..... and that's fine!
But it is NOT essential to shoot RAW and process everything.
in fact if you really really want to get the best out of your RAW shots try shooting JPEG for a while and concentrate on getting it right first time in camera.
You will be a better photographer for it.
