arf9999
MyBroadband Member
Nope it's true. Sampling at 12 or 14 bits will always produce a higher range compared to 8 bits. When the camera applies jpeg conversion with the corresponding colour space and gamma curve it will make decision on how to treat the image. Typically most modern digital cameras will "underexpose" slightly in this process in order to preserve highlights, at the expense of shadow detail, because the cameras treat midtones as the most important for detail. If you are careful with your subject and your manual exposure settings, you can obviously mitigate this to a certain extent, but not the level where you just have more information at hand.
Of course chips clip highlights, but that's not the point. JPEG will flatten highlights or lose shadow detail before posterising midtones. RAW with more samples gives the photographer more control over the final image which may even be a JPEG.
As far as I can see Fuji cameras only operate in JPEG... I didn't know they still made a DSLR. And IIRC the Super CCD tries to increase sensitivity range (i.e. luminance), by incorporating additional luminance sensors. Not really relevant in this discussion.
As soon as you apply a colour space and a gamma curve, you need to discard some information. I can't see why this is such a big issue for you. If you're happy with JPEG, carry on.
I'm glad the meter in your camera is god-like perfect. I really don't believe that every mixed lighting shot you've taken has turned out perfectly exposed with all the detail that you wanted. If that was the case companies Nikon and Sony wouldn't integrate D-Lighting and DRO processing engines into their cameras. By using this technology, they overcome some of the problems prevalent in in-camera RAW-JPEG conversion - but at an expense: processing times are longer. Using RAW files and post-processing gives the same or better results.
Actually smaller/finer adjustments are harder to do since there are not as many levels in an 8-bit file.
The Nikon RAW conversion software uses the same engine as the camera, so there is no reason that you "can't recreate that in raw", it does however give you control over some of the decisions that the camera is making for you.
You're spouting nonsense now. Basically you're saying that you should accept the limits of a tool, despite knowing that there are ways to circumvent them. Also dynamic range is a technical term which you dont seem to understand. The photographer cannot "create" dynamic range, he can try to capture a scene with as much dynamic range as possible, but his limit will be the tool he uses to do so, be it a sensor or a film emulsion. Range isn't the contrast ratio (how light to how dark) but the number of graduations in between.
Compression as such isn't the issue, as I've said before. The loss comes from sampling at a lower bitrate.
The problem is that the chip is more capable than you think.
I'm not telling you to convert, I'm just suggesting that what is good for you, may not be ideal for everyone. I shoot mostly in JPEG, not because I think it's better, but because I shoot stuff that moves a lot, and I prefer having a faster camera response. It's a compromise that I've accepted, but I'll never tell someone that it's better than RAW.Get over it. It's all in your mind.
Last edited:
Memory cards arent exactly expensive anymore so why not 