Originally posted by dtmateojr There are no blown highlights here. Sample it with photoshop and see if you get 255,255,255.
Trust me, I can print this at billboard size
Show me a raw shot of an overcast sky with details.
I'm not being critical of your image - it's beautiful... a fine photograph regardless of the equipment used
I don't want to turn the thread into a discussion about the iPhone, but... with respect, any image from any camera can be printed at billboard size, and with sufficient viewing distance it can look pretty good. But closer inspection reveals the weaknesses.
As for RAW vs JPEG, I heartily recommend that people shoot with whatever suits their needs
Originally posted by panonski RAW files are just usefull for better DR - when you have on one pic high levels of light, and shadows.
RAW files are useful for a lot more than that. With RAW, you're recording the maximum range of inside and outside gamut colours and tonality, with no sharpening and noise reduction, and no JPEG compression artefacts. That gives a totally clean file with maximum amount of unadulterated image data on which you can perform non-destructive adjustments and edits. It allows for the best possible control over colour and tonal transitions, and subject / scene-optimised noise reduction and sharpening. And you can revisit these adjustments & edits many times to get them just right. If you accept what the camera spits out as a JPEG, that's all baked in permanently, based on what the manufacturer has provided. Sure, you can perform edits on top of that, but then when you re-save, you're compressing further and introducing yet more JPEG artefacts. And if the in-camera noise reduction and/or sharpening weren't right for a particular image, tough... you're stuck with it.
That aside, JPEG definitely has its uses. And, as I said above, people should shoot with whatever suits their needs - so long as they're aware of the benefits and limitations of each format