# Still wondering if you should shoot RAW?



## Parker219 (Jan 15, 2015)

Simple, you could never do this with a jpeg...

Before






After







Before 2







After 2






Note: This is with a Nikon D5300.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 15, 2015)

why?


----------



## Braineack (Jan 15, 2015)

why what?


----------



## bribrius (Jan 15, 2015)

Braineack said:


> why what?


why couldnt you do that in jpeg?


----------



## DoctorDino (Jan 15, 2015)

Yup. You can fix stuff in RAW images that you wouldn't be able to fix if it was a jpeg..

I just have my camera set for it to save a photo RAW+jpeg. RAW for editing and jpeg for if I want to post it real quick on a social networking site or whatever.


----------



## Parker219 (Jan 15, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > why what?
> ...




I will leave the technical aspects to someone who knows what they are talking about, but just from my own trial and error, if I try to boost the shadows on a jpeg, it comes out looking horrible.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 15, 2015)

you can tecnically get the same thing in JPG if you shoot one at 100iso and the other at say 6400iso.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 15, 2015)

Braineack said:


> you can tecnically get the same thing in JPG if you shoot one at 100iso and the other at say 6400iso.


i was also thinking moving up the ec and dimming your flash down to balance the light. The difference left would be recoverable in jpeg. No different than shooting anything else back lit.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 15, 2015)

the point is nikons have incredible dynamic range that you can expose for the brightest light in the scene and recover the shadows.

you cant recover like this in jpg because you threw about the data.


----------



## sashbar (Jan 15, 2015)

If you want to show the interior AND street in that lighting condition, then RAW  (or even HDR) is useful. This is a notoriously difficult exposure due to the wide dynamic range. 

With the first image, where the street is already overexposed and there are no details in the window, you can just use exposure compensation in JPEG and get a better result than boosting a RAW file in post production, that makes it look unnatural.


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 15, 2015)

I shoot RAW because all the cool kids are doing it!


----------



## Parker219 (Jan 15, 2015)

Sashbar- True, it was a mess up to begin with, I should have noticed the settings were wrong BEFORE I got home and uploaded the photos.

I am just glad I was able to still use the photo for basic MLS purposes.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 15, 2015)




----------



## bribrius (Jan 15, 2015)

raw is better for recovery. couple seconds though i think i got close. spent more time on it would get even closer.


----------



## Parker219 (Jan 15, 2015)

Nice edit, how did you do it?


----------



## Buckster (Jan 15, 2015)

I always shoot RAW, but I think this is not the best example of what you're trying to say.

It looks to me like you've gone overboard with them and, frankly, I think a better job could be done by taking the original dark JPGs here and just running them through Shadow/Highlight in Photoshop, and then perhaps giving them a minor tweak or two from there.


----------



## Parker219 (Jan 15, 2015)

^ I increased the shadows and tried to do that in lightroom. Yes, my editing still needs work though.


----------



## soufiej (Jan 15, 2015)

Vtec44 said:


> I shoot RAW because all the cool kids are doing it!




If all the cool kids threw their cameras off a cliff, would you do that too?  LOL!


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 15, 2015)

soufiej said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > I shoot RAW because all the cool kids are doing it!
> ...



Yes!!!


----------



## soufiej (Jan 15, 2015)

Vtec44 said:


> soufiej said:
> 
> 
> > Vtec44 said:
> ...




Sounds like a jihadist to me.  Or a cult follower.  A serial killer ... Or someone still living in his parent's basement.  Maybe someone should be watching Vtec44.  Just sayin' ...


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 15, 2015)

I've been on the NSA watch list for years..... just sayin'


----------



## bribrius (Jan 15, 2015)

Parker219 said:


> Nice edit, how did you do it?


moved the shadow recovery slider to 82 percent or so, highights to 63 percent. Most of this site knows more about pp than me. In this case i would rather defer to buckster. he could run circles around my pp skills.


----------



## Parker219 (Jan 15, 2015)

that sounds like what I did, but your edit looks a lot more natural.


----------



## dennybeall (Jan 15, 2015)

A minute with the Camera Raw Filter in PS:
Could use some touch-up.....


----------



## Parker219 (Jan 15, 2015)

^ yeah, that's how mine came out pretty much.

Bribrius had an edit that looked a lot more natural though.


----------



## dennybeall (Jan 15, 2015)

If you want to really play with the second one:
Take a minute and mess with perspective..


----------



## Parker219 (Jan 15, 2015)

^ Worse than my edit, but thanks for trying.


----------



## KmH (Jan 16, 2015)

bribrius said:


> why?


Color bit depth limited to 8-bits and the other ways JPEG compresses a file. Like grouping adjacent pixels into MCUs - Minimum coded units.

It's like trying to communicate using the written word, but then not using appropriate capital letters.


----------



## JerryVenz (Jan 16, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > why what?
> ...



You can easily do this with a JPEG---JUST OPEN THE JPEG IN CAMERA RAW. Then you can do all the usual adjustments you want!

I've been going back and fixing all the little things--that  I do regularly with my RAW files--to images I did only as jpegs 10 and 15 years ago.  The results are impressive!

Jerry V.


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 16, 2015)

JerryVenz said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack said:
> ...



JPEGs contain less data than raw files -- a lot less data as in stops less data. If you take full advantage of a raw file then it will be impossible to manipulate the JPEG to a similar end result. The examples here, as Buckster noted, are not ideal.

Try this one:





The raw file was exposed to record maximum data and the processing takes advantage of that data. Here's the JPEG straight from the camera full-res and untouched: DSCF4516.JPG

Anyone want to process that JPEG to open the shadows similar to the processing from raw file shown above go for it -- love to see it. By the way the highlights in the JPEG are clipped but in the photo above they are not clipped because the sensor was not clipped. What's the plan to deal with that?

Joe

P.S. Parker, not really wanting to hijack your thread, but you are fundamentally right; there's more data in raw file and thought some evidence would help your case.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 18, 2015)

or try to pull this amount of recovery:







out of this jpg


----------

