Still wondering if you should shoot RAW?

[Buckster]

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]

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

 

[soufiej]

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]

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!

Yes!!!

 

[soufiej]

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!

Yes!!!

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]

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

 

[bribrius]

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]

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

 

[dennybeall]

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

 

[Parker219]

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

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

 

[dennybeall]

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

 

[Parker219]

^ Worse than my edit, but thanks for trying.

 

[KmH]

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]

why what?

why couldnt you do that in jpeg?

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]

why what?

why couldnt you do that in jpeg?

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.

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.