Is RAW THAT important?

[Ruahrc]

If you duplicate or triplicate you don't really add any data that's not there already. Exactly the same result would be achieved with just one raw. It's called pseudo hdr. It just compresses the dynamic range overhead available in raw into the jpg. Absolutely no difference between using 1 raw file or 100 copies of that same one.

Wouldn't it be just called tone mapping? There is nothing really "HDR" about using a single RAW files, as you're not capturing any high dynamic range.

Ruahrc

 

[gnd]

Wouldn't it be just called tone mapping? There is nothing really "HDR" about using a single RAW files, as you're not capturing any high dynamic range.

Ruahrc

I think it is still called HDR because the dynamic range in a RAW is (or better yet can be) higher than what is possible in a jpg.

 

[Ruahrc]

I think it is still called HDR because the dynamic range in a RAW is (or better yet can be) higher than what is possible in a jpg.

I always interpreted "HDR" as capturing dynamic range beyond what your sensor is natively capable of. RAW and JPG files from the same sensor are capturing the same dynamic range, but the greater bit depth of RAW enables you to more finely divide that available DR into distinct tones.

 

[kyussmondo]

I personally shoot RAW on my DSLR. If I need to edit a photo in Aperture then I like to work with as much detail as possible. I will then convert the pictures into high quality JPEGs to share them on Flickr. Although if I am outside and the weather is perfect then I will just shoot straight to JPEG sometimes.

 

[FrankieTDouglas]

I see (and understand) your points. RAW is generally, in most cases, a more fool proof option. It gives you greater latitude in PP. That said, for the majority of shots, jpg will server *most* people's needs. Yes, you can still make adjustments to images shot in JPEG (the first thing I do is open jpeg in Photoshop and save as tiff, and then work on the tiff file, so that the image doesn't degrade the same as if I worked on the jpg directly).

You realize that editing a JPG and a JPG-saved-as-TIFF inside Photoshop is the same thing, right? Once you import an image into Photoshop, it works within its PSD container until you decide to save that document and close. Merely opening a JPG and saving it as a TIFF before working on it does nothing extra.

And, regardless of the imported file type, once I work on something in Photoshop, the master file is always saved back out as a PSD file. For one, the file size is smaller.