Ysarex

So you're referring to these as every day pictures which implies they are casual and possibly not held to a high quality standard. This is difficult because it's very personal where each ...

Degrade in quality: yes with no possible option to not degrade in quality. To begin with JPEG is a degradation in quality. JPEG is identified by the designers of the algorithm as an archive format ...

Christof has it right. If you're shooting raw here's another way to think about it. Setting the camera to ISO L (100) does nothing to the raw file. It will alter the behavior of the camera's ...

In the most liked post in this thread I explained why shooting camera JPEGs was a legitimate option. I did not say they were equal in quality to what's obtainable from raw and I identified ...

I have never once in this thread suggested that camera JPEGs equal the quality obtainable from raw. I shoot exclusively raw and have for many years. I make my living now teaching other ...

Not true when compared with the end result photo from a processed raw unless all you ever do is make your own really big prints from TIFF files that you don't share with anyone who can't ...

BOGUS! That is complete BS. It's exactly the type of misinformation you accuse ignoramuses of spreading. You are making a general statement that JPEG image quality does not look natural. Back that ...

The pressure of having the people paying you looking over your shoulder and seeing your work before you do -- you don't even get the option to pull the duds first. And the pressure of no option to ...

Appreciate the thanks and glad I could help. I shoot exclusively raw as well and when I tell people one reason is because I like to reduce editing time at the computer they look at me like I'm ...

Sorry I missed this earlier. Yes of course it's possible to correct a JPEG, BUT (that's a big BUT) there's considerable qualification. The JPEG has to contain the data you need. Above for example ...

I said that. I responded to TKinVA's original question and not only affirmed that but explained why: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61452088 I never said anything in this post about raw/JPEG ...

Explaining why the JPEG file structure is 8 bit is not off topic. I did not change the topic I added supporting information that was helpful. Steve likewise noted that in his response and again ...

It is an inappropriate comparison because the files types are structurally different and storing different types of information. In a follow up post Steve acknowledged that and agreed with me: ...

A brightness adjustment does change contrast. In the illustration below Brightness and the Levels gamma (midpoint) adjustment are marked as the Same -- they're not. Admittedly the results appear ...

A raw file can also be easily converted to a 12 bit or 32 bit tiff. That doesn't mean the bit depth of the raw file is 12, 16 or 32. You said it was 16 and that's incorrect. Yes JPEG is defined as ...

No, I've been aware of Sony's lossy compression scheme for raw files and some of the controversy. This should still apply. It's highly unlikely that Sony creates their JPEGs from raw data before ...

Sony raw files are not 8 bit. Sony's newer cameras are equipped with a 14 bit ADC. As the article you linked explains the Sony raw files do apply a lossy compression scheme and store the 14 bit ...

It's not correct to say raw files contain 16 bits. It's also inappropriate to compare raw file bit depth to JPEG bit depth -- that's an apple/oranges comparison.

Absolutely sure about that. Easy to prove. First and most obvious: the RGB image (JPEG) the camera creates is derived from the raw file. All cameras begin by saving a raw data file which is in ...

They're higher res images than the ones you posted to start the thread. If your lower res images were good enough for you to show what raw can do then these higher res images should be good enough ...