Aristophanes
Well-known
RAW is this:
JPEG is this:
JPEG is this:
btgc
Veteran
Yes, but different converters may show you some details another will not. Say, clip-on Mickey ears Neo is wearing. Dumber converters can't interpret RAW file completely to extract this details, instead of smarter ones.
NLewis
Established
A jpeg is a converted RAW file. You can't look at a RAW file directly. A RAW converter is just an alternative way of converting to jpeg, instead of using the camera's inbuilt jpeg converter.
The advantages of doing your own jpeg conversions are mostly in the extremes. If you shoot where the camera is happy, then RAW doesn't offer much advantage. For example, you might get a little better noise processing with your own RAW converter, but instead, what if you just shoot at the camera's base ISO? You might get a little better dynamic range with your own RAW converter, but instead, what if you just used the correct "expose to the right" technique from the beginning? You can do your own white balance in RAW, but in fact you can also do your own white balance with a jpeg also.
As you might have gathered, I favor using jpegs for ease of use. Whatever advantages there are for doing your own RAW conversions tend to disappear if you stop trying to push the camera to its limits, and instead just use it in the range where it works best.
This tends to be advice for photographers. In the end, RAW aficionados use RAW because they like to dink around with digital post-processing. That is, actually, their hobby. I shoot at base ISO and jpeg, and don't waste any time with that stuff.
The advantages of doing your own jpeg conversions are mostly in the extremes. If you shoot where the camera is happy, then RAW doesn't offer much advantage. For example, you might get a little better noise processing with your own RAW converter, but instead, what if you just shoot at the camera's base ISO? You might get a little better dynamic range with your own RAW converter, but instead, what if you just used the correct "expose to the right" technique from the beginning? You can do your own white balance in RAW, but in fact you can also do your own white balance with a jpeg also.
As you might have gathered, I favor using jpegs for ease of use. Whatever advantages there are for doing your own RAW conversions tend to disappear if you stop trying to push the camera to its limits, and instead just use it in the range where it works best.
This tends to be advice for photographers. In the end, RAW aficionados use RAW because they like to dink around with digital post-processing. That is, actually, their hobby. I shoot at base ISO and jpeg, and don't waste any time with that stuff.
NLewis
Established
OP: film and digital work differently. Digital is like transparency film. It has little latitude in the highlights, unlike negative film, where you have up to six stops of latitude in the highlights.
The fix is to "expose to the right," which means that you set the exposure to keep the highlights from blowing out. Once they blow out, they are pure digital white and nothing can be done to save it. However, a digital camera (especially one with a large sensor) can have quite a lot of latitude in the shadows, up to 13 stops if we are to believe DXOmark.
The fix is to "expose to the right," which means that you set the exposure to keep the highlights from blowing out. Once they blow out, they are pure digital white and nothing can be done to save it. However, a digital camera (especially one with a large sensor) can have quite a lot of latitude in the shadows, up to 13 stops if we are to believe DXOmark.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
raytoei@gmail.com
Veteran
thanks everybody for the links and suggestions.
erik
Established
Sometimes you hear worry that RAW support will go away, I don't think so, look how many different converters there are. I'm sure a migration path will be possible if need be. One thing that hasn't been mentioned, RAW converters continue to improve, Lightroom has features now that didn't exist previously for example. It is possible that in the future you may be able to get more from that file than you can now. Better prints too... it once was thought that Adobe 1998 color space was always going to be larger than any printer could deal with but now we are seeing printers with larger color gamuts. Could give you a good reason to go back to the RAW file. I never shoot anything else, except film.