pal,
I totally understand that JPEG and RAW are not the difference when dealing with bad exposure, instead it is the way it handles details in the areas. The dynamic range of a sensor can only do so much, the quality of the information you are working with when stretching that range beyond the amount capable in the sensor is the key. Can you stretch a JPEG? Yes, easily. Can you maintain the sharpness, detail and keep noise down as well in the image? No. Because the camera processing engine has already made changes to the exposure and produced a second generation of the image, you can only work with what the file contains at that point.
With RAW, nothing has been done and all the information is there. Part of what I do in my business is reworking images for other photographers when a shot is muffed. Opening a JPEG as a RAW file in PS gives you some added opportunities, but it will never match a RAW file.
I sell prints, mainly 24x36 and larger. Working off a file that was originally a JPEG vs. a RAW converted to a TIFF or even a JPEG is painfully obvious in prints that big. The breakdown in the individual pixels is noticeable. I work with just JPEGs often when I am shooting in flat light and low contrast.
1minute, it is a pretty cool place to sit and unwind. My nearest neighbor is about a 1/4 mile away as the crow flies.
BS,
I have nothing for you. You will argue the color of sky given the opportunity. You truly may be the smartest man alive so it does me no good to even discuss it with you.
Last edited by CameraLandTamronPhotAdv; 08/28/14.
