Shooting in RAW??

[hollis_f]

so shoot raw , then batch process them exactly like the camera would if it was doing jpegs . pointless exercise then

D'oh!

Shooting jpeg is pointless because it's possible to get exactly the same results by shooting raw. But shooting raw also gives you the potential to get better results.

when all you raw shooters get better , you can start using jpegs

Yes, the day that I'm always 100% perfect, just like you, then I'll switch to jpeg. And the first pictures I take will be of the squadrons of airborne porcines flying over a snowball fight in hell.

But until I'm as perfect a photographer as you, I'm not going to settle for the 'Meh, that's close enough' results one gets from jpeg, but retain the option of something a lot better that raw shooting allows.

 

[donut]

thats the spirit ,,,keep practicing and maybe you will

 

[redhed17]

I've obviously not made my point clearly enough. Rather than saying that batch processing of raw has advantages over shooting in jpeg I'm saying that it gives results that are identical to shooting jpeg only. Each different image will be automatically processed using the exact same parameters as the camera would have used. There is no need to set different parameters for each image.

Won't it depend on what settings you're changing when you batch process? :shrug: If you are just processing the RAW files and making no changes, then there is probably no advantage. As long as you make no changes all of the time.

You could be setting a level of noise reduction for the situation, if you you were forced to use a very high ISO for example. In camera noise reduction is either on or off, noise reduction in software cam be applied on a per image way, or if the settings are the same for a number of images applied in a batch. But the point is they would be tailored to the scene and situation.

And yes, I know noise reduction can be applied to a Jpeg, but then you are already working on a compressed image with information already discarded. And noise reduction is something that can be improved in software, whereas the odd firmware update aside, the cameras features are locked at manufacture. The Adobe Camera Raw plugin got a major improvement to the noise reduction part of the program a few years ago, which allows me to go back to older RAW files and process again.

There are more options in processing that can be applied to a RAW file that, although there are a lot of options the camera can set (though most people don't bother), can be applied on a per image basis, if needed, during the RAW processing. I could boost or reduce specific colours, I could apply a tone curve, I can apply lens correction etc. I can do a lot of things, or not, in a multitude of combinations, some that a camera could do, but on a per image, or batch basis tailored to the image or series of images, which in a camera would be applied on a global basis before the image was taken. If I could totally predict the future, then I would still be laughing about my multiple Lottery wins.

The aim should always be to get the best image out of the camera, regardless if the file format that the image is recorded in. And if you are a person who does no editing to an image once in the computer, or your images need to be delivered/output quickly, then shooting in RAW may not be for you. :shrug:

If you do any editing regularly, then editing the RAW file will have less destructive consequences, because you are manipulating data, rather than manipulating pixels which may or may not have had high compression already applied. :shrug:

Whatever works for you though. But at least be aware of the pluses and minuses to each format.

I'm pro RAW btw.

 

[hollis_f]

Deleted.

 

[Nod]

Did anyone bother reading my posts? I've quoted them here with the relevant phrases/sentences highlighted as red text to make them harder to miss...

Personally, I only shoot in JPEG. A few reasons for this - #1, I hate PP time with a passion! Once I can drive again and I'm fully recovered, I'll be out taking pics rather than sat here at a computer. #2, I have done some tests and found that if I shoot raw and process the files to my tastes, the result is indistinguishable from a camera processed JPEG. Even zoomed in to pixel level, the colours etc are identical (or were where I looked!). #3, which is far less important now than it used to be, raw files eat into memory about 4 times as fast as JPEGs (Fine quality, Large size). there's still quite a difference in price between a 4GB card and a 16GB one - but not as much as there was a few years ago! #4, JPEGs can be printed direct from the card or straight from the folder using the built in viewer and print software. Again, prints are indistinguishable using this method from going through PhotoShop Elements. Maybe you could spot the difference if you used a high magnification loupe but IMO, prints are for looking at from a sensible viewing distance, not through a magnifying glass.

I'm perfectly willing to agree that there is a time and a place for raw - it makes it far easier to adjust so that both the bride's white dress and the groom's dark suit are vaguely correctly exposed and awkward lighting situations (where there's a mix of sun, tungsten and fluorescent light in the same scene) are easier to correct.

My advice (probably repeating others') is to try the different formats yourself - if you find that using raw is better for you, use that but if you find JPEGs do the job, save yourself some time!

I've had the batch processing discussion before! Unless the series of shots you're batch processing are all similarly lit etc, batch processing has few advantages over shooting in JPEG - each different situation needs seperate parameter settings to get the best out of it. Sure, you can return to each individual shot and change the parameters but that's as time consuming as doing them each individually anyway!

By no means am I (or have I ever) saying "Don't use raw, it's a waste of time", all I have said is that I don't because FOR ME, it has no significant advantages. Maybe I'm just lucky but my cameras seem to be able to meter well enough to get pretty damn close to 100% optimal parameters - but that's Nikons for you!!!

 

[GardenersHelper]

In the five years since I took up photography again I have only used JPEG. For the first four years or so this was because my (Canon bridge) cameras would not do raw. Subsequently it has been because when I tried using raw my current (Panasonic G3) camera took control away from me periodically and this destroyed the flow of my picture-taking and also caused loss of good opportunities, which are often time critical; I mainly shoot flowers and invertebrates and often for the latter and also sometimes for the former I use a high volume approach which can involve repeated shots, often over an extended period, of sufficient quantity and rate to jam up the raw production line. With JPEGs the camera responds without delay at all times.

As noted in many other contributions here, raw files contain more information than JPEGs and this additional information can enable some operations which are not possible with JPEGs.

However, some other assertions have been made about JPEGs, or seem to me to have been strongly implied, that are inconsistent with my experience with JPEGs.

These include the idea/suggestion/implication/hint that, quite apart from containing less information (which is of course true), JPEG compression (any/all JPEG compression) mangles what information a file does contain to the extent that it is not possible to derive high quality/stunning/worthwhile/serious images from a JPEG file. I think such suggestions overstate the case and are unhelpful and misleading to less experienced photographers.

(FWIW I have with each of my cameras turned all settings such as sharpness, contrast, saturation and noise reduction down to their minimum values and left them there. I have done this to try to minimise the, in some cases non-reversible, transformations carried out on the image file before I get my hands on it.)

Another quite common idea seems to be that the range of post processing operations that can be applied to JPEGs, or applied effectively, is much smaller than those that can be applied to raw files. Well, in Photoshop, depending on the image characteristics, I may change exposure, pull down highlights, pull up shadows, use large radius USM for defogging/clarity, use layers, masks, levels and curves, go into LAB mode, use global and selective (third party) noise reduction, separately controlled for chroma and luminance noise, adjust colour balance, saturation or gamma or use selective colour operations, crop, burn, dodge, clone, blur, warp or scale, cure barrel, pin-cushion or perspective distortion and chromatic aberration, use separate sharpening depending on the output size and medium, using global and selective sharpening, and for prints I convert the images to the colour profile used by the printers at the commercial printing firm that I use. These are the operations that happen to be in my particular day to day PP “kitbag”.* Photoshop of course makes many other operations and more complex multi-operation processes available for use on JPEGs for those who wish to learn, explore and use them (as of course do other applications such as the GIMP and Paintshop Pro).

*As it happens, as I gain more experience, my PP seems to be getting simpler and often involves only a small number of “core” operations. But the wider palette of PP operations is available, and I do dip into it from time to time as and when the need arises.

It is sometimes suggested, or at least implied, that JPEG PP is destructive and non reversible. I typically start out with 600 – 1500 captures from a 5 – 7 hour session at a nature reserve and whittle that down to perhaps 20 – 100 that I post process. For all of these, I keep two copies of the originals, and I never, ever overwrite either of them with a processed version. And for the processing of an individual file there are non-destructive constructs such as adjustment layers.

It is sometimes suggested that JPEGs cannot be batch processed. As someone who individually processes files depending on the needs of each one, I can't envisage solely using a single set of operations on a set of files. However, Photoshop (and doubtless other applications) does provide for batch operations on JPEG files. I do have a small core of operations that I often use in the middle of (or sometimes as) my PP workflow for an individual image and I have consolidated these as a one click operation.

 

[Phil V]

In the five years since I took up photography again I have only used JPEG. For the first four years or so this was because my (Canon bridge) cameras would not do raw. Subsequently it has been because when I tried using raw my current (Panasonic G3) camera took control away from me periodically and this destroyed the flow of my picture-taking and also caused loss of good opportunities, which are often time critical; I mainly shoot flowers and invertebrates and often for the latter and also sometimes for the former I use a high volume approach which can involve repeated shots, often over an extended period, of sufficient quantity and rate to jam up the raw production line. With JPEGs the camera responds without delay at all times.

As noted in many other contributions here, raw files contain more information than JPEGs and this additional information can enable some operations which are not possible with JPEGs.

However, some other assertions have been made about JPEGs, or seem to me to have been strongly implied, that are inconsistent with my experience with JPEGs.

These include the idea/suggestion/implication/hint that, quite apart from containing less information (which is of course true), JPEG compression (any/all JPEG compression) mangles what information a file does contain to the extent that it is not possible to derive high quality/stunning/worthwhile/serious images from a JPEG file. I think such suggestions overstate the case and are unhelpful and misleading to less experienced photographers.

(FWIW I have with each of my cameras turned all settings such as sharpness, contrast, saturation and noise reduction down to their minimum values and left them there. I have done this to try to minimise the, in some cases non-reversible, transformations carried out on the image file before I get my hands on it.)

Another quite common idea seems to be that the range of post processing operations that can be applied to JPEGs, or applied effectively, is much smaller than those that can be applied to raw files. Well, in Photoshop, depending on the image characteristics, I may change exposure, pull down highlights, pull up shadows, use large radius USM for defogging/clarity, use layers, masks, levels and curves, go into LAB mode, use global and selective (third party) noise reduction, separately controlled for chroma and luminance noise, adjust colour balance, saturation or gamma or use selective colour operations, crop, burn, dodge, clone, blur, warp or scale, cure barrel, pin-cushion or perspective distortion and chromatic aberration, use separate sharpening depending on the output size and medium, using global and selective sharpening, and for prints I convert the images to the colour profile used by the printers at the commercial printing firm that I use. These are the operations that happen to be in my particular day to day PP “kitbag”.* Photoshop of course makes many other operations and more complex multi-operation processes available for use on JPEGs for those who wish to learn, explore and use them (as of course do other applications such as the GIMP and Paintshop Pro).

*As it happens, as I gain more experience, my PP seems to be getting simpler and often involves only a small number of “core” operations. But the wider palette of PP operations is available, and I do dip into it from time to time as and when the need arises.

It is sometimes suggested, or at least implied, that JPEG PP is destructive and non reversible. I typically start out with 600 – 1500 captures from a 5 – 7 hour session at a nature reserve and whittle that down to perhaps 20 – 100 that I post process. For all of these, I keep two copies of the originals, and I never, ever overwrite either of them with a processed version. And for the processing of an individual file there are non-destructive constructs such as adjustment layers.

It is sometimes suggested that JPEGs cannot be batch processed. As someone who individually processes files depending on the needs of each one, I can't envisage solely using a single set of operations on a set of files. However, Photoshop (and doubtless other applications) does provide for batch operations on JPEG files. I do have a small core of operations that I often use in the middle of (or sometimes as) my PP workflow for an individual image and I have consolidated these as a one click operation.

What you've done there Nick is created yourself a Raw workflow, but using JPEGs as close as you can create to a Raw file.

Despite your assumptions there is more to be had from a Raw file, but if your JPEG output is 'good enough' that's all that's important (to you).

Buts lets go back to the pivotal point that developed your workflow;
I tried using raw my current (Panasonic G3) camera took control away from me periodically and this destroyed the flow of my picture-taking and also caused loss of good opportunities, which are often time critical

I had to read that a couple of times, but you appear to be saying that your camera buffer fills too quickly? Because in no other way will the camera shooting Raw rather than JPEG take control from you (the opposite is a more common complaint).

It's good that you've created a workflow that gives you 90% of what a Raw workflow would give, but to have to do that because of your cameras slow processor is a bit of a shame. Yours isn't JPEG because its as capable, it's JPEG because your camera is too slow for you.

 

[GardenersHelper]

What you've done there Nick is created yourself a Raw workflow, but using JPEGs as close as you can create to a Raw file.

Since the workflow involves the use of JPEG files and does not involve the use of raw files, I find it more logical to describe it as a JPEG workflow than a raw workflow.

I believe that to use the word raw to describe a process involving the manipulation of source files with only 3 x 8 bits per pixel risks misleading or confusing less experienced people.

My workflow may be similar to the workflow some people use for raw, but I could equally as well say that some people's raw workflow is similar to my JPEG workflow, but this would not cause me to describe their workflow as a JPEG workflow. I believe the argument is symmetric.

What I believe I have done (and continue to develop) is to create a JPEG workflow that gets me the best results I currently can with my chosen (JPEG) source material.

Despite your assumptions there is more to be had from a Raw file,

This implies that I have assumed that there is no more to be had from a raw file than a JPEG file, but I wrote "As noted in many other contributions here, raw files contain more information than JPEGs and this additional information can enable some operations which are not possible with JPEGs." So to which assumptions are you referring?

but if your JPEG output is 'good enough' that's all that's important (to you).

In common usage the term "good enough" often carries an unspoken negative component, and I can't help wondering whether your use of term (especially in its quoted form) is intended to carry a negative connotation of some sort. You see, in relation to “good enough” and also the “(to you)” qualification which also might be interpreted as carrying a negative subtext, I know how a number of other people (including some who only, mainly or sometimes use raw, on cameras up to and including full frame) have reacted to my JPEG-originated images; terms such as (all used on this site) “impressive”, “excellent”, “superb”, “splendid”, “awesome”, “amazing”, “brilliant”, “professional”, “fab”, “pin sharp and so much detail” or “Look very Real without being overly Manipulated” suggest to me that I am not the only one who thinks that JPEG-oriented images can indeed be good enough, in an unqualified positive sense.

Buts lets go back to the pivotal point that developed your workflow;
I tried using raw my current (Panasonic G3) camera took control away from me periodically and this destroyed the flow of my picture-taking and also caused loss of good opportunities, which are often time critical

I had to read that a couple of times, but you appear to be saying that your camera buffer fills too quickly?

I believe that is what is going on, and the (assuming it is a buffer issue) "full-buffer/you'll have to wait" status lasts too long for my purposes.

you've created a workflow that gives you 90% of what a Raw workflow would give,

No need to quibble over exact numbers here – I agree with the sentiment. In the same spirit, a raw workflow might give me 90% of what my current workflow gives me. That is, neither workflow would give me all that I would ideally like. With one I lose shots because of timing issues, and with the other I lose processing opportunities because of the lack of bits. (Roughly speaking.)

but to have to do that because of your cameras slow processor is a bit of a shame.

Perhaps you could help me here and point me to a camera which can take bursts of unlimited numbers of raw images without any interruption to operator controlled activities?

Yours isn't JPEG because its as capable,

This is true. However, if one were to draw the implication from your mentioning this that I have suggested otherwise, then one would be mistaken.

it's JPEG because your camera is too slow for you.

The slowness of the camera when using raw is a sufficient condition at present for my use of JPEG, but I do not conclude from this that I would use raw were it not for the loss of capture control that using raw causes; it is an open question. While there would be obvious benefits in terms of processing options, there would be disbenefits too stemming from the additional time required for data management of my quite large datasets – for example it already takes a significant amount of time to load 1,000+ images from my camera to my PC and then make short term security copies of all of them. And if I used RAW + JPEG rather than just RAW there would be additional data management complexity too, as well as an additional increase in timescales for bulk data management operations.

If and when I have a camera that allows me to use raw without disrupting my capture workflow I shall try using raw and see where the balance of benefit and disbenefit lies, and then decide whether to add raw to my kitbag and if so decide the extent and nature of its role. As with many aspects of photography, there are tradeoffs and knock-on effects to consider, and whilst I am greatly in favour of learning about concepts, methods, options and recommended practices, for me it is the practical operational issues and the characteristics of the outputs that are the final arbiters of what mix of options I adopt.

 

[petersmart]

I also have used JPEGs instead of RAW for several years now and find that JPEGs can be processed to give excellent results regardless of what many detractors say.

I always set my camera to give 0 sharpness to minimise noise because I often shoot indoors at 3200 ISO.

My camera has several different options for picture modes called "sets".

I have set the contrast in these sets according to the brightness of the day with the contrast set at +1 for a moderately dull day to -2 for a very bright day.

When I download my pics they are batch processed in DPP to give TIFF files then batch processed in Neat Image for noise reduction after which they are processed in Serif PhotoPlus X2.

I know all the arguments in favour of RAW but I have found that JPEGs can easily be processed to give excellent results.

And if you look at many of my pics here and on Flickr you can judge for yourselves.

.

 

[Phil V]

Actually I've re-read - and before I comment further, I think we need to know what the 'loss of capture control that using raw causes'. Because it's something I've never heard of, and I've been shooting Raw for nearly ten years - I need to know if I'm missing something.

 

[GardenersHelper]

Actually I've re-read - and before I comment further, I think we need to know what the 'loss of capture control that using raw causes'. Because it's something I've never heard of, and I've been shooting Raw for nearly ten years - I need to know if I'm missing something.

I've just done an experiment. I think you will find the results interesting.

Darkness was falling by the time I started the experiment, so I ended up taking pictures of the clock on my PC screen. I put the camera in its not quite fastest burst mode of around 3 fps. The camera was on a tripod and so all the images were of the same subject (this becomes relevant later). I kept my finger on the shutter button and timed what happened.

I started with RAW only, no JPEG. It took 8 shots and then 1 shot every 2 seconds. It took about 15 seconds to clear the buffer after I stopped. If I started again before 15 seconds had elapsed it would take somewhat less than 8 shots in burst mode before reverting to 1 every 2 seconds, the number in burst mode increasing the more of the 15 seconds I allowed to elapse before recommencing.

I then tried RAW + JPEG. This time it was 7 shots in burst mode and then 1 every three seconds. I didn't time the buffer clearing time.

I tried both setups a lot of times, with entirely consistent results.

So far, this was similar to what I expected. Two seconds or three seconds is a long time not to be able to take a picture of an insect that is moving. These are periods during which I have lost capture control.

Then, a big surprise. I set the camera to JPEG and expected it to capture continuously for as long as I wanted it to. It didn't. The results were very variable. To begin with I got results very similar to the RAW only results. Later on, after a battery change and twice emptying all the images from the camera (don't know if those events were at all relevant to the performance), it was taking between 10 and 30 shots before stopping, but if I lifted my finger from the shutter button and put it straight down again it would go for another 10 to 30 shots. It kept doing this for a number of cycles until I got bored with it. It was very inconsistent as to the number of shots before it stopped. (And these were all of the same subject, so it can't have been variations in, for example, the time needed to apply noise reduction, which I'm sure it does even if NR is set to its minimum value).

I am really quite excited by this. It is true that in this test I lost control more with raw than with JPEG, and worst with raw + JPEG. But in practical terms, given that (unlike when I tried raw a year ago) these days I very rarely use burst mode, I'm thinking that raw may well be more of a practical proposition than my earlier (brief) experience of it had led me to believe.

To take this forward I now need to learn about raw processing. I have Silkypix of course, but my camera came with (a presumably Panasonic only version of) Lightroom 3. I have read people referring to ACR frequently in a favourable light. I shall have to find out how (if) that relates to Lightroom.

If I can get time off for good behaviour in the digging trenches and moving heavy rocks department (major garden works in progress) I shall try some raw captures and enjoy some experimentation. All very invigorating after a somewhat indifferent summer of close-up (non, or at least not much) photography because of all the rain. Thanks for pursuing this; it is turning out to be a very productive and energising discussion one way and another.

 

[Richard King]

Smoke and mirrors

All digital camera's shoot in RAW. If you choose (or have the choice) to accept the JPEG conversion the camera does for you, that is entirely up to you. If you choose to sacrifice file size and slightly slower shooting, for more control over the finished product - Shoot RAW

If you have a tightly controlled shooting environment, and you can tweak the JPEG settings on your camera to suit (e.g. event shooter) shoot in JPEG, as shooting in RAW will slow your work flow for no gain in quality, and cost you money

If you are working in a variable uncontrolled environment (e.g. wedding) where you are stretching the Dynamic Range performance of everything (e.g. wedding) you would be bananas not to shoot RAW

 

[Phil V]

So it was just about the buffer?
Shooting Raw:
My 7d will shoot 25 frames at 8fps
My 40 will shoot 17 frames at 6.5fps
And even the ageing 20d will shoot 6 frames at 5fps

In real life, even the 20d rarely suffers from a full buffer, and that's shooting motorsports - I'm not sure I could ever fill the buffer on any of these cameras shooting plants

 

[GardenersHelper]

So it was just about the buffer?
Shooting Raw:
My 7d will shoot 25 frames at 8fps
My 40 will shoot 17 frames at 6.5fps
And even the ageing 20d will shoot 6 frames at 5fps

In real life, even the 20d rarely suffers from a full buffer, and that's shooting motorsports - I'm not sure I could ever fill the buffer on any of these cameras shooting plants

Oddly enough, shooting plants is (occasionally) what I am most likely to fill the buffer doing - shooting "play of light" shots where dappled sunlight is coming through moving foliage to create continuously changing patterns of light on and around the subject. The changes happen too fast to see a nice one and then capture it, so I use bursts, sometimes long bursts.

Anyway, I think you were right about the buffer issue. I don't think it is going to be much (if at all) of a problem.

On the other hand, the experiments with raw are extremely encouraging. In fact, encouraging enough that I have bought a 32gb memory card and may well turn off JPEG very soon.

I have had a couple of sessions shooting raw + JPEG and doing processing comparisons.

I had thought that in practical terms raw versus JPEG would be just an issue of being able to do deeper highlight/shadow recovery, and a bit easier white balance control. It is too early to draw definitive conclusions, because I am only just starting with raw processing, and still very much in the "finding my way around" stage with Lightroom (which btw I am rapidly coming to like a lot). However, I'm beginning to think that the advantages of raw are rather deeper than that, although I'm unclear as yet as to how much of the benefits are because of the unprocessed "purity" of raw data and the benefits of processing using additional bit depth (e.g. reduced posterisation with shadow/highlight operations), and how much stems from how Lightroom delivers its functionality, which I am finding extremely usable and pleasing. There may also be an element of just enjoying exploring something new.

However, white balance control seems a much stronger, more controllable and subtle tool in Lightroom than at least in my current and rather old version of Photoshop (CS2). I had not realised the huge difference it makes to have temperature as an absolute measure with raw rather than a relative measure as with JPEG.

And I seem to be getting better "depth" to my images. It is difficult to describe, but at the small scale details seem to be a bit richer and textures a bit more "texturey". It is rather subtle, but to my eye definitely significant. I don't know yet if it is something to do with the way Lightroom is working on the image data that I could recreate in JPEG if I worked out how, but with the limited attempts I have made so far I haven't been able to. So it may be something intrinsic to do with using the additional raw bit depth. (btw, it is also nice how Lightroom throws 16-bit files straight into Photoshop, with no save/load action needed on my part, and it is great to carry on processing with the extra bits and avoid going down to 8-bits until I absolutely have to, which thus far has quite often been after the final sharpening. Selective noise reduction using the Noiseware plugin only works 8-bit with CS2 unfortunately, but that is the only 8-bit only operation I have encountered so far.)

Also, I have got some quite nice (to my eye) results with ISOs a couple of stops higher than I normally use (3200 versus 800). It might just be that i happened to try it with particularly easy subjects (plants mainly - hardly any invertebrates to be seen at the moment) and perhaps I could have done pretty much as well with JPEG. I haven't explored that enough to know yet. The thing is, I'm happy enough with how things are going with raw that I'm very tempted to stop the raw/JPEG comparisons and just get on with making friends with raw data and its processing.

Thanks for pushing back on my (not so much as it turns out) buffer problem Phil. I suspect you've done me a big favour.

 

[redhed17]

Sounds like you're enjoying using LightRoom Nick.

I'm sure you already know, but LightRoom can also be used for Jpegs, although with some of the functionality lost, if you want to compare editing a Jpeg and a RAW file to see how much you gain or lose when editing each format. :shrug:

 

[GardenersHelper]

Sounds like you're enjoying using LightRoom Nick.

Oh yes!

I'm sure you already know, but LightRoom can also be used for Jpegs, although with some of the functionality lost, if you want to compare editing a Jpeg and a RAW file to see how much you gain or lose when editing each format. :shrug:

Thanks. For the most part I have been comparing my honed-over-several-years-get-the-best-I-can-out-of-JPEG processing in Photoshop with my what-can-I-do-in-the first-couple-of-days-starting-to-learn-the-fundamentals-of-Lightroom processing with just a bit of back end processing in Photoshop for the raws, for example because the output sharpening options in Lightroom seemed a bit crude when I glanced at them. But that may just be that I haven't taken the time to properly grasp Lightroom's output sharpening functions yet. I also haven't worked out how Clarity and Vibrance map on to the mild defog I often use of USM typically Amount 7% (but variable depending on image), Radius 30 pixels (fixed), Threshold 0 (fixed). And I haven't yet noticed provision for selective noise reduction.

So I haven't really tried Lightroom on JPEGs in any serious sense. But I did load one up to play with and that is what made me realise about absolute temperature for raw versus relative for JPEG and the huge significance of that (for me at least).

Like I said, it is too early for definitive conclusions, but thus far somewhat crude use of Lightroom on raw with a bit of finishing off in Photoshop seems to be at least matching the best I can do with JPEG in Photoshop, and I suspect doing better in some cases (btw not involving shadow or highlight recovery, which I did try as a first experiment, and where I would expect raw to outclass JPEG).