RAW :|!!!

[Moonrakerz]

Can you provide a link that states this. My understanding was that raw was basically what comes out of the A->D process in camera...

This is one of those subjects where there is a lot of conflicting information around .................Google it and you will see what I mean.

eg:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml
"Some cameras compress these files, others don't. In any event if they are compressed it is done losslessly so that there is no deterioration of the file due to compression artifacts. (Some companies, Nikon and Kodak specifically, use a slightly lossy compression algorithm when saving raw files)."
**********************************************************************************
http://www.digicamguides.com/learn/file-formats.html
"Both RAW and TIFF formats do not apply any compression to the photo to save space on your memory card. When your camera saves a digital photo as a RAW or TIFF file (if it can), the photo includes all of the information captured by your camera's image sensor".

Nikon admit, quite openly, that they do use RAW compression in some of their cameras.
So the first quote is totally correct.......
The second is incorrect ............

I am trying not to split hairs, but it just goes to show that if a statement is made, it must be totally correct or qualified.

PS: I use a Nikon and it looks OK to me..

 

[redhed17]

This was the main point:- "I think the most common mistake amongst many RAW users (not necessarily new ones either) is the idea, that once converted and opened as a visible photographic file, RAW will automatically produce a better quality photograph than Jpeg - it won't - it will be worse !
Before you even think about using RAW make sure that you know how to use your processing package first - if you don't, you are wasting good photographs which would have been better taken in Jpeg in the first place. Regrettably there are far too many good photographs (on this site even!) that suffer from this."

I know how to use RAW and process it, but there seems to be be far too may people who post poor quality RAW (yes - I know they are really jpeg on this site too !) photographs on various photo websites, in the belief that because they were taken in RAW they MUST be great photographs.
If I can take a poor quality jpeg photograph from TP/Flickr and improve it dramatically why didn't the OP do a better job with it when he had the full sized RAW file ?

I think I must be missing your point. A poorly edited image is a poorly edited image. :shrug: Unless someone says that they have edited an image from the RAW file, then I for one, couldn't tell you one way or the other how it was captured. :shrug:

I don't see anyone saying that an image converted from a RAW file will 'automatically' be a better image than the same image taken as a Jpeg, just that you have more chance of getting getting the best quality image, (should you know how to edit) and you have more chance of recovering any capture errors, (again, should you know how to edit) should you capture your images in the RAW format.

You only get good at editing by practising though. :shrug: Do you want to edit Jpegs or do you want to edit RAW files? Do you need to learn how to edit Jpegs before you can edit RAW files? Obviously the aim would be be able to edit well using any format.

 

[swanseamale47]

I must plead guilty there, didn't look too closely as wifey was waiting for the taxi driver this morning.....................

Anyway - thank you for the post coldpenguin - proves my original point quite admirably !
Below is a very quick (about 30 secs) stab at "improving" your photograph - as I keep on saying: if I can improve it that much from an "appalling" (sorry, but it is !) jpeg what could be done with the original RAW ?

Still a lot of comment from S Wales, but not many photographs though



PS: Framing isn't too good

Do you mean swanseamale47 or are you having a go at everybody from South Wales now

 

[arad85]

(Some companies, Nikon and Kodak specifically, use a slightly lossy compression algorithm when saving raw files)."

Shame on Nikon..........

 

[redhed17]

Shame on Nikon..........

My Nikon has the option for lossless compression, compressed and uncompressed, I use lossless compression.

And if I wanted full maximum quality and detail I have the option to shoot 14bit instead of 12bit.

Is compressed 12bit bit, either lossy or lossless better than a lossy compressed 8bit file? Most of the time it may make no difference, but as with the RAW and Jpeg question in general, more information may give you more options should you need them for whatever reason. :shrug:

 

[lensflair]

Below is a very quick (about 30 secs) stab at "improving" your photograph - as I keep on saying: if I can improve it that much from an "appalling" (sorry, but it is !) jpeg what could be done with the original RAW ?

PS: Framing isn't too good

So now you agree that you can do a lot more with a RAW file than a jpg?

This was the whole point of what we were saying, none said RAW files are automatically better than jpg. I convert to jpg for printing or web, if everything was perfect in camera and I was happy with how the camera did sharpening and noise reduction, contrast etc AND I nailed white balance and exposure perfectly every shot then sure jpg is fine, but I can get a better final product from a RAW file if I need to do any post on it. And while I consider myself quite proficient I don't belive any photographer in the world nails all that in every shot in the heat of the moment.

 

[petersmart]

So now you agree that you can do a lot more with a RAW file than a jpg?

This was the whole point of what we were saying, none said RAW files are automatically better than jpg. I convert to jpg for printing or web, if everything was perfect in camera and I was happy with how the camera did sharpening and noise reduction, contrast etc AND I nailed white balance and exposure perfectly every shot then sure jpg is fine, but I can get a better final product from a RAW file if I need to do any post on it. And while I consider myself quite proficient I don't belive any photographer in the world nails all that in every shot in the heat of the moment.

I used to use RAW all the time but when I found that there was virtually no difference in the final results between RAW and JPEGs I changed over to JPEGs.

I DON'T ever edit the JPEGs out of the camera I save them as "SOURCE JPEGs" and copy them to DVDs eventually.

What I do is convert these "SOURCE JPEGs" into TIFF files using Canon's DPP software (which incidentally DOES allow you to change the WB on a JPEG).

Then I put these TIFFs through Neat Image Noise Reduction software before editing them in Serif's PhotoPlus X2 editing program where I can sharpen them, alter the colour, tonal balance, lighten the shadows and/or darken the highlights ets - in other words do everything you can do to a RAW file.

Since these images are in TIFF I can save and re-edit them as often as I like without losing anything.

And finally I convert them to JPEGs for uploading to the Internet or printing.

In this way the JPEGs out of the camera are always there and totally unchanged.

Using JPEGs has a lot of advantages over RAW - smaller files, more pics possible when using continuous shooting, instantly viewable when downloaded etc.

And as cameras become better and better the difference between RAW and JPEGs will become less and less.

And of course virtually all the pics we see on the internet are all JPEGs.

.

 

[lensflair]

I used to use RAW all the time but when I found that there was virtually no difference in the final results between RAW and JPEGs I changed over to JPEGs.

I DON'T ever edit the JPEGs out of the camera I save them as "SOURCE JPEGs" and copy them to DVDs eventually.

What I do is convert these "SOURCE JPEGs" into TIFF files using Canon's DPP software (which incidentally DOES allow you to change the WB on a JPEG).

Then I put these TIFFs through Neat Image Noise Reduction software before editing them in Serif's PhotoPlus X2 editing program where I can sharpen them, alter the colour, tonal balance, lighten the shadows and/or darken the highlights ets - in other words do everything you can do to a RAW file.

Since these images are in TIFF I can save and re-edit them as often as I like without losing anything.

And finally I convert them to JPEGs for uploading to the Internet or printing.

In this way the JPEGs out of the camera are always there and totally unchanged.

Using JPEGs has a lot of advantages over RAW - smaller files, more pics possible when using continuous shooting, instantly viewable when downloaded etc.

And as cameras become better and better the difference between RAW and JPEGs will become less and less.

And of course virtually all the pics we see on the internet are all JPEGs.

.

Whatever a 'source jpg' is, if its actually a jpg the only advantage of converting it to a TIFF is multiple edits and saves won't FURTHER cause a reduction in quality due to the lossy compression of jpg.

You can adjust the white balance in a jpg but this isn't the same as changing white balance in a RAW file. Editing jpgs or TIFFs results in every change taking place to the pixels as you make them and the result is additive. With a RAW file the changes are applied in one go. And you can see how all these changes affect each other before applying them. Even the order you make the changes in will have an effect on a jpg. This apart from the fact that you have already discarded a lot of information in the jpg so its not there when you make these changes, and converting to TIFF first can't bring that information back.

If you want to shoot jpg that's fine, its a convenience thing, but surely no one can argue that you have as much flexibility as you do with the RAW file?

 

[petersmart]

Whatever a 'source jpg' is, if its actually a jpg the only advantage of converting it to a TIFF is multiple edits and saves won't FURTHER cause a reduction in quality due to the lossy compression of jpg.

The 'Source Jpeg' is the jpeg as it comes out of the camera and I never edit this jpeg because as you rightly say every edit and save causes a degradation of the jpeg.

You can adjust the white balance in a jpg but this isn't the same as changing white balance in a RAW file. Editing jpgs or TIFFs results in every change taking place to the pixels as you make them and the result is additive.

But if the end result is the same what does it matter?

With a RAW file the changes are applied in one go. And you can see how all these changes affect each other before applying them. Even the order you make the changes in will have an effect on a jpg.

Well when I edit the TIFF files I can also see the changes I make and they are only applied when I finally save the file.

Or I can save the file as a .Spp file (Serif Photo Plus file) and then later take up the re-editing where I left off.

This apart from the fact that you have already discarded a lot of information in the jpg so its not there when you make these changes, and converting to TIFF first can't bring that information back.

The reason I convert to TIFF is so that I can process the file without any degradation of the image as it came out of the camera.

If you want to shoot jpg that's fine, its a convenience thing, but surely no one can argue that you have as much flexibility as you do with the RAW file?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by flexibility - I can apply exactly the same edits as I would to a RAW file - WB, sharpening, contrast, lightening or darkening etc - the only difference is that I use a Jpeg as my "Source" file rather than RAW.

And since I also convert my RAW files to TIFF in DPP as a first step to editing for me at least there is no discernible difference.

Which is why I canged to using Jpegs in the first place.

And of course all the images you view on the 'Net are always Jpegs anyway so for me at least the argument is rather fallacious.

I recognise that professional photographers might wish to use RAW as a fall-back in case of problems but as an enthusiastic amateur I have no reason to do so.

.

 

[arad85]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by flexibility - I can apply exactly the same edits as I would to a RAW file - WB, sharpening, contrast, lightening or darkening etc - the only difference is that I use a Jpeg as my "Source" file rather than RAW.

You're missing the higher dynamic range that raw has over JPEG. Raw files from most modern cameras are 14 bits per pixel per colour. JPEGs are only 8 bits. In the conversion to 8 bits you've lost 6 bits of dynamic range which equates to each level in the JPEG file representing 64 levels in the raw file. You just can't do as much processing to the JPEG as you can do to the raw file and still get the same result. JPEG and raw files are not equal starting positions for post processing....

 

[Olliel]

I used to shoot in jpeg, before then editing the images in lightroom of they looked especially flat (from my nikon d80).

I found that the camera used to process the jpeg to be slightly over exposed.

I've since taken up shooting raw. I have however found that I can be snapping away with things looking superb on the LCD, before then looking 'less than perfect' when loaded into lightroom.

Is this down to the difference in the process/ application of default by the camera and lightroom? What is the best way to stop this from happening?

Ollie

 

[arad85]

I used to shoot in jpeg, before then editing the images in lightroom of they looked especially flat (from my nikon d80).

I found that the camera used to process the jpeg to be slightly over exposed.

I've since taken up shooting raw. I have however found that I can be snapping away with things looking superb on the LCD, before then looking 'less than perfect' when loaded into lightroom.

Is this down to the difference in the process/ application of default by the camera and lightroom? What is the best way to stop this from happening?

Ollie

The image on the LCD is a camera processed version of the data. The RAW image when loaded into LR has had no processing applied. If you want it to look like the JPEG, yuou need to process it like the camera would. On Canons, you can get nearly there in the Camera Calibration box in the Develop module. If you select the Profile pulldown, this lists the ones available in camera on my images. Don't know if it is the same for Nikons.

 

[Olliel]

just having a quick look now on lightroom3, but struggling to find what you've mentioned above

Ollie

edit: think I have found what you mean, but it controls for the lens rather than the body??

Ollie

 

[arad85]

just having a quick look now on lightroom3, but struggling to find what you've mentioned above

Ollie

edit: think I have found what you mean, but it controls for the lens rather than the body??

Ollie

Think you'rer looking at the Lens corrections section. The one I am talking about is 2 further down than that (it is the last bit of the Develop module right hand tab). It is definitely entitled "Camera Calibration" and has a process pulldown and profile pulldown above some sliders that affect shadows and the primaries. It is shown here (if the image loads):

If not, it's on this site: http://jefflynchdev.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/the-making-of-camelot/ on step 3 Camera Calibration

 

[Olliel]

Thanks, had just found it.

Found that 'camera standard' produces more like what I see on the LCD

Good top tip, which might help a few people with the move over to RAW - as it gives me a safety default now

Thanks

Ollie

 

[redhed17]

Using JPEGs has a lot of advantages over RAW - smaller files, more pics possible when using continuous shooting, instantly viewable when downloaded etc.

My RAW files are instantly viewable in Adobe Bridge or LightRoom. Not in the Windows OS, I'll give you that.

And as cameras become better and better the difference between RAW and JPEGs will become less and less.

They will always be different. The Jpeg will always be a compressed format, which has had information taken away, has less scope for editing as some settings are already been written to the Jpeg, as so to edit means altering pixels, with any big changes degrading pixels.

And of course virtually all the pics we see on the internet are all JPEGs.

And the point is? :shrug:

The reason I convert to TIFF is so that I can process the file without any degradation of the image as it came out of the camera.

When it comes to editing, by working on the Jpeg file you are already working on less information than the camera recorded.

Did anyone look at the video link I posted earlier to show people how much more information there can be in a RAW file?

I think I remember having this discussion before, and I think then you didn't want to consider any other view then. Fine, whatever works for you.



There is a good article here about the difference between the more data there is in a 12bit file compared to an 8bit file.

If anyone is happy with the Jpegs they are producing out of the camera, and/or with the amount of editing capability they have on the Jpeg files, then great, carry on. But at least be aware of the positives, and of course the negatives, of shooting in RAW.

 

[petersmart]

The image on the LCD is a camera processed version of the data. The RAW image when loaded into LR has had no processing applied. If you want it to look like the JPEG, yuou need to process it like the camera would. On Canons, you can get nearly there in the Camera Calibration box in the Develop module. If you select the Profile pulldown, this lists the ones available in camera on my images. Don't know if it is the same for Nikons.

In fact a RAW file is NOT an image file - as many people have already pointed out - "The RAW file format is digital photography's equivalent of a negative in film photography: it contains untouched, "raw" pixel information straight from the digital camera's sensor. ":

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/RAW-file-format.htm

Since this is the case when "edited" in LR or any other RAW editing program surely what you are editing is not the true RAW file but a conversion to some kind of image file - like TIFF, DNG etc.

Of course in this I could be wrong and am willing to be educated

.

 

[petersmart]

Originally Posted by petersmart
And of course virtually all the pics we see on the internet are all JPEGs.

And the point is? :shrug:

My point is that everyone arguing in favour of RAW always quotes the difference between between the bit size of Jpegs (8 bits) and the bit size of RAW files (12-14 bits):

You're missing the higher dynamic range that raw has over JPEG. Raw files from most modern cameras are 14 bits per pixel per colour. JPEGs are only 8 bits. In the conversion to 8 bits you've lost 6 bits of dynamic range which equates to each level in the JPEG file representing 64 levels in the raw file. You just can't do as much processing to the JPEG as you can do to the raw file and still get the same result. JPEG and raw files are not equal starting positions for post processing....

Perhaps, but my point is that you may start with 12-14 bits of dynamic range but once converted to JPEGs for viewing on the internet "you've lost 6 bits of dynamic range."

I do understand what you are saying about the higher dynamic range but no matter where you start from you still end up with exactly the same 8 bit JPEGs that I do!

And as you say you simply cannot replace that 6 bits of dynamic range you have just thrown away!

.

 

[lensflair]

In fact a RAW file is NOT an image file - as many people have already pointed out - "The RAW file format is digital photography's equivalent of a negative in film photography: it contains untouched, "raw" pixel information straight from the digital camera's sensor. ":

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/RAW-file-format.htm

Since this is the case when "edited" in LR or any other RAW editing program surely what you are editing is not the true RAW file but a conversion to some kind of image file - like TIFF, DNG etc.

Of course in this I could be wrong and am willing to be educated

.

No the RAW image you see in lightroom is what the RAW file will look like when its exported with the setting you have applied. Its not the same as working on an image file that has defined pixel values etc. Every change you make to an image file will be a change to the values, this will have an effect on any subsequent changes. The editing of a RAW file is a set of instructions that tell the software what changes to make, none of those are changes to the original file, so changes any changes made and how they nteract with each other are seen as you make them. The only image file in this case is the one you export from the RAW file that has been interpreted using the settings you have adusted.

The film negative analogy is why this gets confusing, this isn't really how RAW is working. A better analogy would be its like being able to process the exposed film in different ways, change the properties of that film so its like you actually shot the image with a different type of film, and see how these changes along with any printing techniques such as dodging and burning will affect the final print, see these changes as you make them and do it as many times as you like, AND you can go to any point in the proccess and change something and see the effect on everything else in real time. You always have the option of reprocessing that film as many times as you like and advances in RAW proccessing are like having shot the image on film that didn't even exist at the time the photograph was taken.

Is RAW starting to sound as amazing as it actually is? Anyone who has worked in a dark room has to be impressed with the flexibilty we have now. In fact we have almost too mch flexibility, maybe there is something to be said for shooting jpg :bonk:

 

[lensflair]

And the point is? :shrug:

My point is that everyone arguing in favour of RAW always quotes the difference between between the bit size of Jpegs (8 bits) and the bit size of RAW files (12-14 bits):

Perhaps, but my point is that you may start with 12-14 bits of dynamic range but once converted to JPEGs for viewing on the internet "you've lost 6 bits of dynamic range."

I do understand what you are saying about the higher dynamic range but no matter where you start from you still end up with exactly the same 8 bit JPEGs that I do!

And as you say you simply cannot replace that 6 bits of dynamic range you have just thrown away!

.

It doesn't matter that the final image is 8 bits, its what can be done with the extra information while you are making changes to the image.

 

[lensflair]

Oh no I just realised what I said, now someone is going to tell me they can edit a jpg as many times as they want and see the chanes in real time etc etc.

never mind :/

 

[petersmart]

Is RAW starting to sound as amazing as it actually is? Anyone who has worked in a dark room has to be impressed with the flexibilty we have now.

I have worked in many darkrooms including processing colour films and prints in a darkroom set up in a small room situated next to the outer bulkhead on a passenger ship cruising the Caribbean - try processing in temperatures of 90-100 degrees and keeping the chemical baths cool with ice!

One reason I embraced the Digital age with absolute delight!

In fact we have almost too mch flexibility, maybe there is something to be said for shooting jpg :bonk:

FINALLY - you get where I'm coming from!

.

 

[lensflair]

And the point is? :shrug:


I do understand what you are saying about the higher dynamic range but no matter where you start from you still end up with exactly the same 8 bit JPEGs that I do!

And as you say you simply cannot replace that 6 bits of dynamic range you have just thrown away!

.

OK just one example, you shoot a landscape and don't use a gradient filter. Why would you do this, well I never bother with gradient filters these days, there one in lightroom and it works a treat on a RAW file. I can tweak the filter just how I want it, I don't even have to put up with a straight line along the gradient. I can drop the sky 2 stops easily and the image will look great, no expensive time consuming flter, no cheap image degrading filter, just RAW and software.

 

[petersmart]

OK just one example, you shoot a landscape and don't use a gradient filter. Why would you do this, well I never bother with gradient filters these days, there one in lightroom and it works a treat on a RAW file. I can tweak the filter just how I want it, I don't even have to put up with a straight line along the gradient. I can drop the sky 2 stops easily and the image will look great, no expensive time consuming flter, no cheap image degrading filter, just RAW and software.

Well I use Serif products because I'm used to them and they're very cheap compared with others.

But have you tried using the software gradient filter with Jpegs?

I know I can replace any sky I want simply by using layers.

.

 

[lensflair]

FINALLY - you get where I'm coming from!

.

I never said jpg isn't concenient, and I agree jpg can produce perfectly good results, I just don't think anyon can argue that jpg has as much flexiility as a RAW file. Its a simple fact, there is no debate. I hope people don't mind me pastng this bit of text from luminous landscape, I like the way it is explained in simple terms and its a much better job than I would do. People can see pictures and read the rest here http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml


***taken from luminous landscape****

Reasons to Shoot JPG
— Files are smaller and therefore more of them fit on a card.

— For many applications image quality is more than sufficient (family snapshots, news images).

— Small files are more easily transmitted wirelessly and online. This is important to newspaper photographers.

— Many photographers don't have the time or inclination to post-process their files.

— Many cameras (especially digicams) can not shoot quickly when working in raw mode. Some lower-end models can't record raw files at all.

Reasons to Shoot Raw
— A raw file is comparable to the latent image contained in an exposed but undeveloped piece of film. It holds exactly what the imaging chip recorded. Nothing more. Nothing less. This means that the photographer is able to extract the maximum possible image quality, whether now or in the future. A good analogy with the traditional world of film is that you have the opportunity to use a different type of developer or development time at any point in the future if one comes along that you think might do a better job of processing the image.

— Raw files have not had while balance set. They are tagged with whatever the camera's setting was, (either that which was manually set or via auto-white-balance), but the actual data has not been changed. This allows one to set any colour temperature and white balance one wishes after the fact with no image degradation. It should be understood that once the file has been converted from the linear space and has had a gamma curve applied (such as in a JPG) white balance can no longer be properly done.

— File linearization and colour filter array (Bayer) conversion is done on a computer with a fast and powerful microprocessor. This allows much more sophisticated algorithms to be used than those done in a camera with its slower and less powerful processor and with less space for complex conversion programs.

— The raw file is tagged with contrast and saturation information as set in the camera by the user, but the actual image data has not been changed. The user is free to set these based on a per-image evaluation rather than use one or two generalized settings for all images taken.

— Possibly the biggest advantage of shooting raw is that one has a 16 bit image (post raw conversion) to work with. This means that the file has 65,536 levels to work with. This is opposed to a JPG file's 8 bit space with just 256 brightness levels available. This is important when editing an image, particularly if one is trying to open up shadows or alter brightness in any significant way.

Figures #1 and #2 below shows why. Assuming for this example a 5 stop dynamic range, you can see how much data is found in each of the brightness levels in the image. In other words with a 12 bit file the two darkest levels of the file combined have some 384 brightness levels to work with.

An 8 bit JPG file on the other hand has considerably less. Both the sRGB and Adobe RGB colour spaces use a gamma 2.2 encoding. Gamma encoding reallocates encoding levels from the upper f-stops into the lower f-stops to compensate for the human eye's greater sensitivity to absolute changes in the darker tone range. Therefore an 8 bit JPG file has just 47 brightness levels available in the bottom two stops.

A 12 Bit raw File
Within the first F/Stop, which contains the Brightest Tones 2048 levels available
Within the second F/Stop, which contains Bright Tones 1024 levels available
Within the third F/Stop, which contains the Mid-Tones 512 levels available
Within the fourth F/Stop, which contains Dark Tones 256 levels available
Within the fifth F/Stop, which contains the Darkest Tones 128 levels available

Figure #1
An 8 Bit JPG File
Within the first F/Stop, which contains the Brightest Tones 69 levels available
Within the second F/Stop, which contains Bright Tones 50 levels available
Within the third F/Stop, which contains the Mid-Tones 37 levels available
Within the fourth F/Stop, which contains Dark Tones 27 levels available
Within the fifth F/Stop, which contains the Darkest Tones 20 levels available

Figure #2
Now imagine that you want to make a modest adjustment to the file in Photoshop or any other editing program. Which would you rather have to work with, 47 levels or 384 levels? Clearly the 8 bit file will show posterization, which is the effect that one sees when instead of smooth transitions between brightness levels you see abrupt jumps.

— Because a raw file has not been processed in any way, if new and improved methods of linearizing files, applying colour filter array decoding, or other image processing advances are made, you can return to your archived raw files and work on them afresh. A JPG file, on the other hand, is fully baked.

*************************


If anyones interested there is a lot of good information over at this site and its well explained so its good for people just starting out too.

 

[lensflair]

Well I use Serif products because I'm used to them and they're very cheap compared with others.

But have you tried using the software gradient filter with Jpegs?

I know I can replace any sky I want simply by using layers.

.

Yeah I started shooting jpg and switched to RAW a few years ago, it just doesn't work as well with a jpg. And replacing skies is too much work if I can avoid it, especially if I have hundreds of images to do.

 

[petersmart]

No the RAW image you see in lightroom is what the RAW file will look like when its exported with the setting you have applied.

Ah NOW I understand.

I had assumed that an intermediate image file was produced but what you get when viewing a RAW file in any editing program is a REPRESENTATION of an image file which only becomes an image file when saved as one.

I see how that works.

Something new learned today.

.

 

[redhed17]

But have you tried using the software gradient filter with Jpegs?

Have you tried using a software 'gradient filter' on a sky that is already blown out? Blobs of blocked up sky in most cases in my experience. In a RAW file there is a chance of recovering that blown out sky with the extra bit depth that is available, once it is already a Jpeg that possible extra information has gone.

Obviously the goal would be to get everything correct and perfectly exposed at capture, and this is where real graduated filters come in, but not everyone has the time, the equipment or the knowledge. :shrug:

I know I can replace any sky I want simply by using layers.

Once you know how, to replace a sky it is quite easy, though scenes with trees against the sky, and sky showing through the branches can be very difficult. I think most people would rather have the original scene to make the final image.

 

[arad85]

Perhaps, but my point is that you may start with 12-14 bits of dynamic range but once converted to JPEGs for viewing on the internet "you've lost 6 bits of dynamic range."

Yes, you have, but when you do the processing in something like LR and export to jpeg at the end, you are losing those 6 bits of dynamic range after you do any image manipulation on the computer, not before it .

 

[arad85]

In fact a RAW file is NOT an image file - as many people have already pointed out

Any image file (in fact any file at all) is just a collection of numbers written in a specific format. All the computer does is interpret that in a particular way to display it on screen. A raw format image is just that, a collection of numbers that can be manipulated to display on screen. JPEGs aren't image files either. Before being displayed, they too need to be manipulated and processed to make them representations of the brightness and colours we perceive to be pictures.