Is RAW going to give me a better tonal range than JPEG?

slackercruster · 03-31-2012, 05:38 PM

I shot some RAW today for the first time. Pain in the ass to deal with the files. Windows can't open em. Used the Pentax software to look at them.

Will I get any worthwhile benefits from RAW such a better tonal range? They don't look any sharper than JPEG. Was thinking of trying RAW+ before I give up on RAW so at least I can view them easier.

Thanks

jase036 · 03-31-2012, 06:00 PM

They will indeed. They won't look sharper, in fact they may look less sharp (depending on how you have your image settings configured). But once you run it through any digital darkroom software you'll be able to squeeze the most tonal range and sharpness out of the files. On my K-5 it's absolutely amazing what you can pull out of the RAW files, I can work with a file that's underexposed by more than 3 stops, and although it's a little noisy it's a very useable image (as long as you I'm not planning to print very large). That was unthinkable with my K200D. But even on my K200D I could squeeze out between one and 2 extra stops of dynamic range by using RAW. The camera discards that extra data when it writes the JPEG.
I use Lightroom to handle the files the RAW files, works like a charm, imports direct from the card to my catalog directory and can create folders based on date and any other parameter you wish. You can batch add keywords and copyright info as the files are imported, apply common settings, lens profiles correction info, etc. If you don't want to do anything to the files you can select them all (or only the good ones) and export as JPEG in any size with sharpening for screen or print. Or if you want to tweak them, you can adjust almost all aspects and then hand the file off to Photoshop if you are so inclined.

-Edit: I just remembered there is a DLL that was distributed by Pentax that allowed Windows to view RAW files as thumbnails and with the image viewer... Let me see if I can find it and point you to it...
-Edit: Found it! You can download the PEF RAW codec for Windows at: http://www.pentax.jp/english/support/digital/rawcodec_win.html

RioRico · 03-31-2012, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by slackercruster

Will I get any worthwhile benefits from RAW such a better tonal range?

Yes.

Quote:

They don't look any sharper than JPEG.

The preview is of an embedded JPG so it doesn't look sharper until you develop it and maybe add some sharpening. Shooting JPG-only, the rendering engine throws away much of the captured data. The RAW file won't have greater resolution, but you get to select which data to use and which to toss -- and you can develop the RAW in various ways, each different, each real.

With a JPG-only shoot, the in-camera settings for sharpness, contrast, color, saturation, white balance, etc, are hard-wired into the file. With a RAW file, you can tweak all those as needed|desired. I may generate a dozen or more versions of a shot before I even fire up the image editor. Shooting RAW just gives much more control over the output.

demp10 · 03-31-2012, 06:09 PM

A RAW file is like a negative. To use it you must "develop" it first and in the process you have full control to generate amazing results. All software that supports RAW formats will do a conversion on the fly with presets (very similar to in camera JPEG) but the real power comes when you take control.

Get yourself a good software package (Lightroom is by far one of the best) and enjoy.

reivax · 03-31-2012, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by jase036

They will indeed. They won't look sharper, in fact they may look less sharp (depending on how you have your image settings configured). But once you run it through any digital darkroom software you'll be able to squeeze the most tonal range and sharpness out of the files. On my K-5 it's absolutely amazing what you can pull out of the RAW files, I can work with a file that's underexposed by more than 3 stops, and although it's a little noisy it's a very useable image (as long as you I'm not planning to print very large). That was unthinkable with my K200D. But even on my K200D I could squeeze out between one and 2 extra stops of dynamic range by using RAW. The camera discards that extra data when it writes the JPEG.
I use Lightroom to handle the files the RAW files, works like a charm, imports direct from the card to my catalog directory and can create folders based on date and any other parameter you wish. You can batch add keywords and copyright info as the files are imported, apply common settings, lens profiles correction info, etc. If you don't want to do anything to the files you can select them all (or only the good ones) and export as JPEG in any size with sharpening for screen or print. Or if you want to tweak them, you can adjust almost all aspects and then hand the file off to Photoshop if you are so inclined.

-Edit: I just remembered there is a DLL that was distributed by Pentax that allowed Windows to view RAW files as thumbnails and with the image viewer... Let me see if I can find it and point you to it...
-Edit: Found it! You can download the PEF RAW codec for Windows at: PENTAX RAW codec software for Windows : Software Downloads : PENTAX

Anyone know if there is a version of this for .DNG? It would be really good to be able to view thumbnails of those files in Windows.

jase036 · 03-31-2012, 06:26 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by reivax

Anyone know if there is a version of this for .DNG? It would be really good to be able to view thumbnails of those files in Windows.

Sure! You can get that one here (Win 7 Only): DNG Codec - Adobe Labs

JohnBee · 03-31-2012, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by slackercruster

I shot some RAW today for the first time. Pain in the ass to deal with the files. Windows can't open em. Used the Pentax software to look at them.

Will I get any worthwhile benefits from RAW such a better tonal range? They don't look any sharper than JPEG. Was thinking of trying RAW+ before I give up on RAW so at least I can view them easier.

Shooting RAW can be very rewarding. However that isn't to say it's for everyone. As you yourself first saw, shooting RAW implies a learning curve and most of all a measure of work to accomplish.

So why shoot RAW you may ask?
Because RAW processing remains as one of the only ways from which we can tap into the full power of a particular sensor's performance. For example, the only way(to my knowledge) to make use of a sensors full dynamic range is in RAW. Likewise many development aspects of an image such as noise and color attributes can only be used from RAW. Therefore, RAW image processing is the means from which users can access the full potential of a sensor.

As for you're question on tonal range, the answer is yes. Shooting RAW will allow you better Tonal Range than in JPG. And though you may not get to see the full potential of your image on a screen(for example), that does not mean you can't make use of this extra range while developing your image(if that makes sense). IOW. you can compress or adjust an image in RAW to better suite the destination media.

BTW. I think the bundled Pentax software is very limiting in terms of RAW development. However, there are far better alternatives out there in terms of image handling(viewing and processing) that Pentax's software. Which can range from from to very expensive. Though one of my all time favorites happens to be free Called RAW Therapee. And other popular ones are made by Adobe such as Lightroom and Photoshop w/Camera Raw and Bridge and of course a host of other solutions such as: Silkypix, Capture One, Bibble, ACDSee and I'm sure many more which I'm not thinking of atm. And so there are many choices out there when it comes to RAW processing that's for sure.

Having said all that, speaking from experience, I'd say that shooting RAW can definitely pay off for those of us who are looking to maximize on camera output. However, getting there will require a measure of commitment and effort as well. Though when all is said and done, I'd also state(on record) that it is definitely worth the efforts.

Hope this helps.
JohnBee

reivax · 03-31-2012, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by jase036

Sure! You can get that one here (Win 7 Only): DNG Codec - Adobe Labs

Thanks. You are awesome. That had been driving me crazy for months.

Sagitta · 03-31-2012, 07:10 PM

RAW is most definitely worth it. If HDR is your thing, you can create a mock-HDR from a single RAW file as well. JPG... not so much. Before I saved up for my K-x I was using an inexpensive Powershot for a long time that I was able to hack to use it to shoot RAW.

These are some of them just to get an idea of what tweaking a RAW file from a $130 camera can do. Now imagine what your much-better sensor in your DSLR will be able to accomplish. (As an example, this first shot would not have had the sky blown out at the horizon like it has if I'd been using my K-x in RAW)

jase036 · 03-31-2012, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by reivax

Thanks. You are awesome. That had been driving me crazy for months.

No prob friend, glad to be of assistance

rvannatta · 03-31-2012, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by slackercruster

I shot some RAW today for the first time. Pain in the ass to deal with the files. Windows can't open em. Used the Pentax software to look at them.

Will I get any worthwhile benefits from RAW such a better tonal range? They don't look any sharper than JPEG. Was thinking of trying RAW+ before I give up on RAW so at least I can view them easier.

Thanks

I use only raw and do it all the time and have no issue with viewing them. I have photoshop elements on the computer and its organizer
side downloads them from the camera (or the card) and provides all the viewing you want... Find one that you want to do something
with--- right click it, and it opens in a 'developing window' where you have slider controls for exposure, color balance, fill light, saturation,
conrtrast and all the usual suspects. and with those adjustments added it shows up as a JPG in the photoshop elements editor where you can
edit/crop/save/resize etc....

I use none of the Pentax supplied software....

Brooke Meyer · 03-31-2012, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by slackercruster

I shot some RAW today for the first time. Pain in the ass to deal with the files. Windows can't open em. Used the Pentax software to look at them.

Will I get any worthwhile benefits from RAW such a better tonal range? They don't look any sharper than JPEG. Was thinking of trying RAW+ before I give up on RAW so at least I can view them easier.

Thanks

Like any idea that is new to you it requires some effort to understand. If you read the first part of any edition of this book ( I have the CS3 version), you will understand Camera RAW. Amazon.com: Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS3 (9780321518675): Bruce Fraser, Jeff Schewe: Books

Lightroom and Photoshop both use the same Camera Raw software so you don't have to buy a full copy of Photoshop to take advantage. If you read what it really is and what potential benefits are, you can decide if its worth it or if JPEGs suit you better. I've never shot anythings but DNGs and years after, when my understanding and skills improved, I was able to make images I shot look like I really wanted.

**Rondec** · 04-01-2012, 03:47 AM

Just to echo what other say, I do think it is worth it. There is a lot of detail in a RAW file that isn't there in a jpeg. If you want to bring up shadow areas in particular, jpegs lose that detail pretty quickly. I use lightroom to develop them and it is fairly easy. If you want a viewer that can see raw files, try faststone.

**Lowell Goudge** · 04-01-2012, 05:17 AM

Here is my take as a jpeg shooter.

If you take your time, and actually learn the jpeg settings, and adjust your settings for the situation, I.e. contrast, hue, WB, highlight and shadow detail protection.... RAW offers very little advantage because you are already so close that there is no need for further adjustments. People argue against this, but after all that is what you did in film, by changing emulsions, etc. the real benefits I see for raw is that if you miss the shot settings, with raw you can rescue this to some extent much better than jpeg. Large modifications in tonal range are safer in raw and eliminate tonal banding in the images, just because the tonal resolution is better.

It is really up tonthe individual, I prefer jpeg, it I come from film where I would select ektachrome or kodachrome and different print films based upon what I wanted. I also had 3 bodies, and the general rule was to load them differently, now, I can "change film" so to speak mid roll without rewinding

The benefits are argued long and hard in both camps, there is no winner,

Edit note, the RAW coded only works in windows vista and higher, it does not work in XP. Also note that without starting a huge debate there are other low cost editors like Corel PSP X4 which can manage raw files very well.

Sagitta · 04-01-2012, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

Here is my take as a jpeg shooter.

If you take your time, and actually learn the jpeg settings, and adjust your settings for the situation, I.e. contrast, hue, WB, highlight and shadow detail protection.... RAW offers very little advantage because you are already so close that there is no need for further adjustments. People argue against this, but after all that is what you did in film, by changing emulsions, etc. the real benefits I see for raw is that if you miss the shot settings, with raw you can rescue this to some extent much better than jpeg. Large modifications in tonal range are safer in raw and eliminate tonal banding in the images, just because the tonal resolution is better.

This is true, and few things give me the warm fuzzies more than going in to tweak my RAW file and realizing it needs no tweaking since the colors are already what I want, but when you're rushed and don't have time to go in and set this, that, and the the other thing in-camera for the situation, blasting away with RAW shots can save the day as you can go back and mimic those settings afterwards.

I managed some shots of an osprey last year that I wasn't set up for. I'd been shooting some landscape stuff when I realized the bird was doing a fly-by on me, so I swung the camera up and started shooting the bird. Most of the first few shots had screwed up exposure since I'd just transitioned from 'shooting stuff under trees' under Tv mode to 'shooting a bird against a blue sky'. Luckily he hung out for a while so I had time to adjust, but I would have lost those initial shots had I not been shooting in a mode where I could tweak my exposure back to where it worked for me.

03-31-2012, 05:38 PM	#1
slackercruster Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: NE, USA Posts: 1,302	Is RAW going to give me a better tonal range than JPEG? I shot some RAW today for the first time. Pain in the ass to deal with the files. Windows can't open em. Used the Pentax software to look at them. Will I get any worthwhile benefits from RAW such a better tonal range? They don't look any sharper than JPEG. Was thinking of trying RAW+ before I give up on RAW so at least I can view them easier. Thanks

03-31-2012, 06:00 PM	#2
jase036 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Calgary, Alberta Photos: Gallery Posts: 170	They will indeed. They won't look sharper, in fact they may look less sharp (depending on how you have your image settings configured). But once you run it through any digital darkroom software you'll be able to squeeze the most tonal range and sharpness out of the files. On my K-5 it's absolutely amazing what you can pull out of the RAW files, I can work with a file that's underexposed by more than 3 stops, and although it's a little noisy it's a very useable image (as long as you I'm not planning to print very large). That was unthinkable with my K200D. But even on my K200D I could squeeze out between one and 2 extra stops of dynamic range by using RAW. The camera discards that extra data when it writes the JPEG. I use Lightroom to handle the files the RAW files, works like a charm, imports direct from the card to my catalog directory and can create folders based on date and any other parameter you wish. You can batch add keywords and copyright info as the files are imported, apply common settings, lens profiles correction info, etc. If you don't want to do anything to the files you can select them all (or only the good ones) and export as JPEG in any size with sharpening for screen or print. Or if you want to tweak them, you can adjust almost all aspects and then hand the file off to Photoshop if you are so inclined. -Edit: I just remembered there is a DLL that was distributed by Pentax that allowed Windows to view RAW files as thumbnails and with the image viewer... Let me see if I can find it and point you to it... -Edit: Found it! You can download the PEF RAW codec for Windows at: http://www.pentax.jp/english/support/digital/rawcodec_win.html Last edited by jase036; 03-31-2012 at 06:13 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
RAW to JPEG	Krzys	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	6	04-25-2011 10:32 AM
Raw vs Jpeg?	ChallengedOne	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	69	04-01-2011 07:53 PM
[K10D RAW+]Exposure difference between RAW and JPEG	sterretje	Pentax DSLR Discussion	9	04-13-2010 02:06 AM
JPEG, RAW, JPEG + RAW...huh?	Raptorman	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	14	12-22-2009 11:49 AM
RAW + JPEG with JPEG on One Star quality	laissezfaire	Pentax DSLR Discussion	58	12-10-2008 02:42 PM

03-31-2012, 06:08 PM	#3
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by slackercruster Will I get any worthwhile benefits from RAW such a better tonal range? Yes. Quote: They don't look any sharper than JPEG. The preview is of an embedded JPG so it doesn't look sharper until you develop it and maybe add some sharpening. Shooting JPG-only, the rendering engine throws away much of the captured data. The RAW file won't have greater resolution, but you get to select which data to use and which to toss -- and you can develop the RAW in various ways, each different, each real. With a JPG-only shoot, the in-camera settings for sharpness, contrast, color, saturation, white balance, etc, are hard-wired into the file. With a RAW file, you can tweak all those as needed\|desired. I may generate a dozen or more versions of a shot before I even fire up the image editor. Shooting RAW just gives much more control over the output.

03-31-2012, 06:09 PM	#4
demp10 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Atlanta Photos: Albums Posts: 602	A RAW file is like a negative. To use it you must "develop" it first and in the process you have full control to generate amazing results. All software that supports RAW formats will do a conversion on the fly with presets (very similar to in camera JPEG) but the real power comes when you take control. Get yourself a good software package (Lightroom is by far one of the best) and enjoy.

03-31-2012, 06:23 PM	#5
reivax Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 826	Originally posted by jase036 They will indeed. They won't look sharper, in fact they may look less sharp (depending on how you have your image settings configured). But once you run it through any digital darkroom software you'll be able to squeeze the most tonal range and sharpness out of the files. On my K-5 it's absolutely amazing what you can pull out of the RAW files, I can work with a file that's underexposed by more than 3 stops, and although it's a little noisy it's a very useable image (as long as you I'm not planning to print very large). That was unthinkable with my K200D. But even on my K200D I could squeeze out between one and 2 extra stops of dynamic range by using RAW. The camera discards that extra data when it writes the JPEG. I use Lightroom to handle the files the RAW files, works like a charm, imports direct from the card to my catalog directory and can create folders based on date and any other parameter you wish. You can batch add keywords and copyright info as the files are imported, apply common settings, lens profiles correction info, etc. If you don't want to do anything to the files you can select them all (or only the good ones) and export as JPEG in any size with sharpening for screen or print. Or if you want to tweak them, you can adjust almost all aspects and then hand the file off to Photoshop if you are so inclined. -Edit: I just remembered there is a DLL that was distributed by Pentax that allowed Windows to view RAW files as thumbnails and with the image viewer... Let me see if I can find it and point you to it... -Edit: Found it! You can download the PEF RAW codec for Windows at: PENTAX RAW codec software for Windows : Software Downloads : PENTAX Anyone know if there is a version of this for .DNG? It would be really good to be able to view thumbnails of those files in Windows.

03-31-2012, 06:26 PM - 1 Like	#6
jase036 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Calgary, Alberta Photos: Gallery Posts: 170	Originally posted by reivax Anyone know if there is a version of this for .DNG? It would be really good to be able to view thumbnails of those files in Windows. Sure! You can get that one here (Win 7 Only): DNG Codec - Adobe Labs

03-31-2012, 06:28 PM	#7
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667	Originally posted by slackercruster I shot some RAW today for the first time. Pain in the ass to deal with the files. Windows can't open em. Used the Pentax software to look at them. Will I get any worthwhile benefits from RAW such a better tonal range? They don't look any sharper than JPEG. Was thinking of trying RAW+ before I give up on RAW so at least I can view them easier. Shooting RAW can be very rewarding. However that isn't to say it's for everyone. As you yourself first saw, shooting RAW implies a learning curve and most of all a measure of work to accomplish. So why shoot RAW you may ask? Because RAW processing remains as one of the only ways from which we can tap into the full power of a particular sensor's performance. For example, the only way(to my knowledge) to make use of a sensors full dynamic range is in RAW. Likewise many development aspects of an image such as noise and color attributes can only be used from RAW. Therefore, RAW image processing is the means from which users can access the full potential of a sensor. As for you're question on tonal range, the answer is yes. Shooting RAW will allow you better Tonal Range than in JPG. And though you may not get to see the full potential of your image on a screen(for example), that does not mean you can't make use of this extra range while developing your image(if that makes sense). IOW. you can compress or adjust an image in RAW to better suite the destination media. BTW. I think the bundled Pentax software is very limiting in terms of RAW development. However, there are far better alternatives out there in terms of image handling(viewing and processing) that Pentax's software. Which can range from from to very expensive. Though one of my all time favorites happens to be free Called RAW Therapee. And other popular ones are made by Adobe such as Lightroom and Photoshop w/Camera Raw and Bridge and of course a host of other solutions such as: Silkypix, Capture One, Bibble, ACDSee and I'm sure many more which I'm not thinking of atm. And so there are many choices out there when it comes to RAW processing that's for sure. Having said all that, speaking from experience, I'd say that shooting RAW can definitely pay off for those of us who are looking to maximize on camera output. However, getting there will require a measure of commitment and effort as well. Though when all is said and done, I'd also state(on record) that it is definitely worth the efforts. Hope this helps. JohnBee

03-31-2012, 07:02 PM	#8
reivax Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 826	Originally posted by jase036 Sure! You can get that one here (Win 7 Only): DNG Codec - Adobe Labs Thanks. You are awesome. That had been driving me crazy for months.

03-31-2012, 07:10 PM	#9
Sagitta Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Maine Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,081	RAW is most definitely worth it. If HDR is your thing, you can create a mock-HDR from a single RAW file as well. JPG... not so much. Before I saved up for my K-x I was using an inexpensive Powershot for a long time that I was able to hack to use it to shoot RAW. These are some of them just to get an idea of what tweaking a RAW file from a $130 camera can do. Now imagine what your much-better sensor in your DSLR will be able to accomplish. (As an example, this first shot would not have had the sky blown out at the horizon like it has if I'd been using my K-x in RAW)

03-31-2012, 07:24 PM	#10
jase036 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Calgary, Alberta Photos: Gallery Posts: 170	Originally posted by reivax Thanks. You are awesome. That had been driving me crazy for months. No prob friend, glad to be of assistance

03-31-2012, 08:54 PM	#11
rvannatta Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Apiary, Oregon Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,181	Originally posted by slackercruster I shot some RAW today for the first time. Pain in the ass to deal with the files. Windows can't open em. Used the Pentax software to look at them. Will I get any worthwhile benefits from RAW such a better tonal range? They don't look any sharper than JPEG. Was thinking of trying RAW+ before I give up on RAW so at least I can view them easier. Thanks I use only raw and do it all the time and have no issue with viewing them. I have photoshop elements on the computer and its organizer side downloads them from the camera (or the card) and provides all the viewing you want... Find one that you want to do something with--- right click it, and it opens in a 'developing window' where you have slider controls for exposure, color balance, fill light, saturation, conrtrast and all the usual suspects. and with those adjustments added it shows up as a JPG in the photoshop elements editor where you can edit/crop/save/resize etc.... I use none of the Pentax supplied software....

03-31-2012, 09:45 PM	#12
Brooke Meyer Guest	Originally posted by slackercruster I shot some RAW today for the first time. Pain in the ass to deal with the files. Windows can't open em. Used the Pentax software to look at them. Will I get any worthwhile benefits from RAW such a better tonal range? They don't look any sharper than JPEG. Was thinking of trying RAW+ before I give up on RAW so at least I can view them easier. Thanks Like any idea that is new to you it requires some effort to understand. If you read the first part of any edition of this book ( I have the CS3 version), you will understand Camera RAW. Amazon.com: Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS3 (9780321518675): Bruce Fraser, Jeff Schewe: Books Lightroom and Photoshop both use the same Camera Raw software so you don't have to buy a full copy of Photoshop to take advantage. If you read what it really is and what potential benefits are, you can decide if its worth it or if JPEGs suit you better. I've never shot anythings but DNGs and years after, when my understanding and skills improved, I was able to make images I shot look like I really wanted.

04-01-2012, 03:47 AM	#13
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	Just to echo what other say, I do think it is worth it. There is a lot of detail in a RAW file that isn't there in a jpeg. If you want to bring up shadow areas in particular, jpegs lose that detail pretty quickly. I use lightroom to develop them and it is fairly easy. If you want a viewer that can see raw files, try faststone.

04-01-2012, 05:17 AM	#14
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,888	Here is my take as a jpeg shooter. If you take your time, and actually learn the jpeg settings, and adjust your settings for the situation, I.e. contrast, hue, WB, highlight and shadow detail protection.... RAW offers very little advantage because you are already so close that there is no need for further adjustments. People argue against this, but after all that is what you did in film, by changing emulsions, etc. the real benefits I see for raw is that if you miss the shot settings, with raw you can rescue this to some extent much better than jpeg. Large modifications in tonal range are safer in raw and eliminate tonal banding in the images, just because the tonal resolution is better. It is really up tonthe individual, I prefer jpeg, it I come from film where I would select ektachrome or kodachrome and different print films based upon what I wanted. I also had 3 bodies, and the general rule was to load them differently, now, I can "change film" so to speak mid roll without rewinding The benefits are argued long and hard in both camps, there is no winner, Edit note, the RAW coded only works in windows vista and higher, it does not work in XP. Also note that without starting a huge debate there are other low cost editors like Corel PSP X4 which can manage raw files very well.

04-01-2012, 06:24 AM	#15
Sagitta Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Maine Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,081	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge Here is my take as a jpeg shooter. If you take your time, and actually learn the jpeg settings, and adjust your settings for the situation, I.e. contrast, hue, WB, highlight and shadow detail protection.... RAW offers very little advantage because you are already so close that there is no need for further adjustments. People argue against this, but after all that is what you did in film, by changing emulsions, etc. the real benefits I see for raw is that if you miss the shot settings, with raw you can rescue this to some extent much better than jpeg. Large modifications in tonal range are safer in raw and eliminate tonal banding in the images, just because the tonal resolution is better. This is true, and few things give me the warm fuzzies more than going in to tweak my RAW file and realizing it needs no tweaking since the colors are already what I want, but when you're rushed and don't have time to go in and set this, that, and the the other thing in-camera for the situation, blasting away with RAW shots can save the day as you can go back and mimic those settings afterwards. I managed some shots of an osprey last year that I wasn't set up for. I'd been shooting some landscape stuff when I realized the bird was doing a fly-by on me, so I swung the camera up and started shooting the bird. Most of the first few shots had screwed up exposure since I'd just transitioned from 'shooting stuff under trees' under Tv mode to 'shooting a bird against a blue sky'. Luckily he hung out for a while so I had time to adjust, but I would have lost those initial shots had I not been shooting in a mode where I could tweak my exposure back to where it worked for me.