Is it easier to tease out detail in dark areas from a RAW photo than a jpeg.?

Question

I find that teasing out detail from dark areas in a jpeg works to an extent but the result can be very grainy. Would this grainyness be less pronounced in a raw image due to the lossless nature of the file and the more info contained in it.

I have been shooting jpeg for years and am considering trying my hand at raw images now due to the increased flexibility of the format.

Answer 1

RAW is much more versatile than jpegs.It's not as if you are buying lots of film for every shot.The joy of digital is that you can change to jpeg if you prefer it and it doesn't cost you anything to try.The only downside of RAW is that it takes a bit of time to do the post processing,however once you have a prefered correction for your camera and shooting style you can apply it automatically to your files in your chosen RAW converter,saving your original files unchanged for future processing if you change your mind.

Answer 2

Hi Ach

Before working in dark areas of any jpeg, resample it at a higher resolution and size. Then resize it down and start working on it. This way you will eliminate the graininess.

Even if you work with raw, the outcome will still be the same. Raw pics have a higher resolution.

So if oyu use the same resolution on a jpeg, you can work the same way. The secret is to add a slight blurr (veryyyyyy minimal) after your touch - ups.

Answer 3

That all depends on how you feel about post processing. RAW format is made for exactly what you are talking about. However, some do not like post processing too much, so they opt to go for jpeg to eliminate the extra step of converting the RAW format. I shoot in RAW most of the time because the auto white balance on my camera can be real iffy. I would suggest that you try to shoot in RAW+jpeg format(if your camera can do it) If not, just try RAW and see if it is for you.  

Answer 4

Shooting in Raw is a much better proposition than shooting in Jpeg,

bringing out the detail in the darks is just one of them, but it does mean you have to do the post processing instead of leaving it to the cameras 'best guess'. Another learning curve.

Jpeg's are only have a bit depth of 8bits which means that the RGB (Red, Green and Blue) data can only be a value from 0 to 254, Raw on the other hand has a bit depth of 12bits and the RGB can have values of 0 to 4095, in other word your computer has a lot more data available to use before the data 'falls apart' by too much manipulation.

The camera 'dumps' all the data not used in the Jpeg conversion, and you can't get it back.

Chris

Answer 5

yes because some of the detail is missing in the jpeg.  A jpeg is a compressed version that is intended to represent the photo as taken and viewed at normal parameters.  In other words it is likely that a dark area would not be saved as a detailed area but rather as a dark area with detail lumped together... a raw image on the other hand would have all the data that the sensor captured not just a averaged out version.  Some manufacturers like Nikon have software that will automatically pull out shadow detail in a NEF file (Nikon's raw format).  You don't even have to tweak just click on d-lighting in Nikon Capture and the software tweaks it all for you.