DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

I recently went on a deliberate landscape "shoot" with the intention of generating a large print on the order of 24x30. I often shoot both jpeg and RAW which gives me an opportunity to review in jpeg and then PP a RAW image. On this occasion when I compared the in-camera jpeg images with the best I could do post processing the RAW file, I could not do much better than the jpeg produced by my D850. Have any of you experienced this outcome?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

No - all my RAW edits are always superior to anything the camera could create.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Yep. It's a common occurrence and the reason I shoot 95% jpg. Even in rare situation I think I might need the increased dynamic range, jpg can usually handle it just fine.

Hip Coyote

An acquaintance of mine, who is a national level award winning photographer (and sets up photo tours and instruction) shoots a lot in jpeg and even uses the various scene themes (outdoors, sports, etc.). So it does work. Her work is phenomenal.

But for us mere mortals raw seems to be the way to go to rescue photos when exposure is not dead on. I admit to using the “auto” feature on LR Classic to see where a decent starting point is on a lot of shots as well. But most of my keepers require a bit of fiddling to make them what I want. A few of my better shots were rescued thanks to the flexibility of raw.

Alas, I also suggest that you take a hard look at your processing abilities. Something may be wonky there too. The masking ability of LR has totally changed my game. I cannot imagine an unedited pic, jpeg or raw, not having room for improvement through some sort of editing, however slight.

This discussion always ends up in an argument between the usual suspects in about two pages. But remember, this is a hobby for most of us. Something for fun.

Perhaps post a few pics to see if your shots really don’t need fixin’???

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

I shoot raw and jpg as well and often compare my final result with the jpg. IMHO, my edits are far better over 90% of the time. Examples include being able to mask the background and drop the exposure by 1/2 or 3/4 stop to make the subject pop. Remove distracting objects. Adding an S in the tone curve. Dehaze. Color grading. ...

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

Quality is judgmental. One man's truth is another man's folly.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

The adjustments (settings) available in the camera are fairly coarse. There might be 5 levels of adjustment in many parameters. Some things like white balance can get finer if you use a temperature setting. OTOH, many editing programs come with 100 levels of adjustment via sliders. And white balance has not only a temperature adjustment but a tint adjustment.

I don't think it's surprising that you can get better results postprocessing a raw file than you can with taking a jpg from the camera, not even considering the ability to edit through a mask for fine spatial control.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

n the usual suspects in about two pages. But remember, this is a hobby for most of us. Something for fun.

Perhaps post a few pics to see if your shots really don’t need fixin’???[/quote]

Attached are: in-camera jpeg, RAW, and one post processed. All saved to ca. 10mp file size.
I hope I've done this correctly.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Trying to edit raw from a bridge camera back in 2014 - 2016, I could not achieve the quality of my in-camera SX50 jpg's of small subjects shot at great distances.

These days I shoot and edit raw only (with an Olympus), often in challenging lighting conditions but usually large subjects much closer than a baby eagle in a nest across the river. My results are far superior to the occasional jpg I might compare.

DO WHAT WORKS FOR YOU


.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Raw isn't just a file format, it's a way of life. The higher possibilities of photography can be awakened and developed only from the RAW files.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

This issue raises two main questions:-

How important is it for you to have your photos fully optimised?

Are your post processing skills good enough for you to do a better job than the "one size fits all" editing that jpegs get?

If good enough is good enough for you and your PP skills are so-so, you'll save yourself a lot of work sticking with jpeg. OTOH if you spend time learning PP skills you will be able to improve on jpegs most of the time. Sometimes the improvements will be slight but sometimes they will be enough to produce exceptional results. Learning PP will teach you a lot and you'll be able to get close to fully optimised photos much of the time. And that's just two of the benefits you get from being able to do your own PP.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

No. I always produce a better quality result processing a raw file than does the JPEG processor in the camera.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I save raw and Fine*/Large JPEGs of all my exposures. I am also very careful with my pre-exposure camera choices, metering pattern, white balance, and ISO choices. I do not use Auto ISO or Auto White Balance (unless there is a compelling reason to make a different choice).

During the recent eclipse, I had decided to focus on what was happening on the ground, since our local viewing conditions were not ideal. At the last minute, during totality I decided to see what I could do with my D500 and 16-80mm zoom hand-held. Here is my result. The only real "trick" is that I used Highlight Weighted Metering." EXIF data should be intact for the rest of the story. This photograph has not been altered since leaving the camera.

(Download)

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Alas, the digital noise baked-into this ISO-6400 JPEG is completely unacceptable. The RAW image with 2024-grade software would yield a far, far better result.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

There's a difference in luminosity between the shots. Took the downloaded shots and animated a blink test. Not sure what the first image is. 400441 is the second image (in camera?), 402950 is the third image (raw? not sure how this is extracted -- embedded preview?), 404010 is the fourth image. Had to reduce the image size to get it to fit into UHH. To see the animation, click on the download link.

(Download)