RAW vs JPG

[shawn]

This is a pretty wide dynamic range and difficult lighting image. Raw can be useful when needed. It is not always needed. I try not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The image is a bit better on Flickr.

Sure, it is a good image.

Do you have the RAW file for that? If so the main thing I'd try is to see if it has any more highlights available. Mostly to see if the tops of the two window frames can be recovered. Never used the Hasselblad so I don't know what its metering is like for that kind of scene.

I'd probably shoot that RAW with Highlight Priority metering (which will pretty much prevent clipping) and then pull the rest of the image back up.

 

[boojum]

Sure, it is a good image.

Do you have the RAW file for that? If so the main thing I'd try is to see if it has any more highlights available. Mostly to see if the tops of the two window frames can be recovered. Never used the Hasselblad so I don't know what its metering is like for that kind of scene.

I'd probably shoot that RAW with Highlight Priority metering (which will pretty much prevent clipping) and then pull the rest of the image back up.

Thanks for your interest and input. HB RAW (3FR) images have a lot that can be recovered from them. They are very good that way. But I like the image the way it is from blacker than the inside of a bruised crow to blinding white. I think it is dramatic, drum roll please. ;o) I like how the bright, bright white shows up against the pitch dark night. Bringing up some detail in those windows might lessen that effect. But that's just my pinheaded opinion.

 

[shawn]

You posted the image as an example of wide dynamic range. Features of the ship are blown out and lost in that image. I was wondering if the RAW file has more dynamic range to recover the parts of the ship that are gone. The tops of two of the window frames are gone, some of the rigging is cut in half, the stair rail is as well. I wasn't saying to not have the contrast between the bright white and the black or to pull detail inside the windows just wondering if the raw file has the extra dynamic range to recover those details for someone that would prefer not to loose them.

 

[boojum]

You posted the image as an example of wide dynamic range. Features of the ship are blown out and lost in that image. I was wondering if the RAW file has more dynamic range to recover the parts of the ship that are gone. The tops of two of the window frames are gone, some of the rigging is cut in half, the stair rail is as well. I wasn't saying to not have the contrast between the bright white and the black or to pull detail inside the windows just wondering if the raw file has the extra dynamic range to recover those details for someone that would prefer not to loose them.

The RAW file by definition has more detail. It is 16-bit as opposed to 8-bit and is uncompressed. But the exact details of the RAW file will forever remain a mystery. I had HD problems and all my images, RAW and JPG, go back just to 29 September of last year. Earlier images, such as this one, are only JPG's on Flickr..

Regardless, I am not interested in a forensic recreation of the scene. I like the effect just as it is.

You are right. You have made your point. RAW files allow much more editing. This is a given. If I had the RAW image I could very possibly do all you suggest. What you have missed is that I am happy with the image as it is. I therefore have no need to edit anything.