Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

RAW question

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
September 10, 2005 4:02:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'm not familiar yet with RAW photos but am familiar with jpegs. I've
read that RAW is highly editable for photo touch ups but using a
program like photoshop or paint shop, isn't jpegs just as editable for
photo touch ups? I realize that the jpeg is compressed so I guess the
editing on RAW will be more efficient, effective and probably look
better??

More about : raw question

September 10, 2005 6:40:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Rob wrote:

> I'm not familiar yet with RAW photos but am familiar with jpegs. I've
> read that RAW is highly editable for photo touch ups but using a
> program like photoshop or paint shop, isn't jpegs just as editable for
> photo touch ups?

Not for things like exposure/contrast adjustment or dealing with WB issues.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 9:03:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understandi...

Gregor

<Rob> wrote in message news:0rp4i1pibas6kesllitlao4u3do6ijjsis@4ax.com...
> I'm not familiar yet with RAW photos but am familiar with jpegs. I've
> read that RAW is highly editable for photo touch ups but using a
> program like photoshop or paint shop, isn't jpegs just as editable for
> photo touch ups? I realize that the jpeg is compressed so I guess the
> editing on RAW will be more efficient, effective and probably look
> better??
Related resources
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 10:08:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Rob wrote:
> I'm not familiar yet with RAW photos but am familiar with jpegs. I've
> read that RAW is highly editable for photo touch ups but using a
> program like photoshop or paint shop, isn't jpegs just as editable for
> photo touch ups? I realize that the jpeg is compressed so I guess the
> editing on RAW will be more efficient, effective and probably look
> better??

I'll provide a summary:

When you shoot JPEGs, your camera starts with Raw internally, then
converts it to JPEG with settings that you have only a limited amount
of control over, then it throws the Raw away.

When you shoot Raw, instead of the camera doing internal conversion to
JPEG, you do that under your own control externally. You have the
option of using different settings from the one that your camera uses
for JPEG conversion. Or you may not even want JPEG, perhaps you want
TIFF.

You actually always start with Raw. The choice is then whether your
camera's firmware makes a single conversion to JPEG, or whether you use
a package that can do lots more than your camera's firmware ever could,
without committing yourself for ever.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 12:17:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 02:40:19 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Rob wrote:
>
>> I'm not familiar yet with RAW photos but am familiar with jpegs. I've
>> read that RAW is highly editable for photo touch ups but using a
>> program like photoshop or paint shop, isn't jpegs just as editable for
>> photo touch ups?
>
>Not for things like exposure/contrast adjustment or dealing with WB issues.

This is nonsense and I don't understand how it ever got started!

By exposure/contrast I presume you mean gamma and curves/levels. All
of these adjustments plus white balance corrections work just fine on
JPEG files. I've been editing digital images from scanner and Kodak CD
files using Paintshop Pro, PictureWindows and various Adobe programs
for over fifteen years. Raw image files are relatively new on the
scene and while are able to utilize a wider dynamic range for some
purposes, the results in printed images are indistinguishable from
JEPG files.

Dave
East Englewood
---------------------------
The proof is in the print.
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 2:59:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Rob wrote:

RAW is not a single format, any make has one
The main advantage of using raw is that you don't lose anything. Everything
the camera has captured is there.

> I'm not familiar yet with RAW photos but am familiar with jpegs. I've
> read that RAW is highly editable for photo touch ups but using a
> program like photoshop or paint shop, isn't jpegs just as editable for
> photo touch ups? I realize that the jpeg is compressed so I guess the
> editing on RAW will be more efficient, effective and probably look
> better??

--
al-Farrob
http://al-farrob.blogspot.com/
http://www.al-farrob.com
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 4:32:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 08:17:22 -0400, dave6134@verizon.net wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 02:40:19 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Rob wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not familiar yet with RAW photos but am familiar with jpegs. I've
>>> read that RAW is highly editable for photo touch ups but using a
>>> program like photoshop or paint shop, isn't jpegs just as editable for
>>> photo touch ups?
>>
>>Not for things like exposure/contrast adjustment or dealing with WB issues.
>
>This is nonsense and I don't understand how it ever got started!
>
>By exposure/contrast I presume you mean gamma and curves/levels. All
>of these adjustments plus white balance corrections work just fine on
>JPEG files. I've been editing digital images from scanner and Kodak CD
>files using Paintshop Pro, PictureWindows and various Adobe programs
>for over fifteen years. Raw image files are relatively new on the
>scene and while are able to utilize a wider dynamic range for some
>purposes, the results in printed images are indistinguishable from
>JEPG files.

Why do people want to work with JEPG files? I do all my work first
in RAW with a ProPhoto color space and 16 bit channels, save out to
Photoshop PSD for basic archive and finally to TIFF for printing and
stock submission.

I fail to see any use for JEPG with it's lossy compression, 8bit
channels and is more prone to digital artifacts. If you have to have
JPEG you can always generate one from the PSD file.


*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 4:32:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 12:32:27 GMT, in rec.photo.digital John A. Stovall
<johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:

>I fail to see any use for JEPG with it's lossy compression, 8bit
>channels and is more prone to digital artifacts. If you have to have
>JPEG you can always generate one from the PSD file.

Guess you've never posted anything on the web or e-mailed friends or family
any of your photos?
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 4:32:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John A. Stovall wrote:


> I fail to see any use for JEPG with it's lossy compression, 8bit
> channels and is more prone to digital artifacts. If you have to have
> JPEG you can always generate one from the PSD file.

First I realize JPEG vs RAW debates can become more intense than
political discussions :-) I have RAW editing software and I do
use RAW.. I'm *not* against it..

But the bottom line is that you *can't* tell the difference between
a print made from a JPEG or 16 bit TIFF generated from a RAW file.

That's the beauty of JPEG and that's the reason it has endured
for so many years. The only information that is 'lost' is subtle
differences in color. In low compression 'fine' mode, artifacts
aren't an issue.

In days of film, some photographers shuddered at the though of
setting up a processing lab to do fine work on their photos. Today
there are people who don't like sitting in front of their computer
futzing with digital images. There are people who don't want to
spend as much for editing software, and storage as they did for
their camera.

Try this.. Take a RAW+large fine JPEG image.. Print them both
at 8 x 10 and see if you can see a difference.. I can't.

I do use RAW, but I don't use it to shoot mundane stuff. If I'm
sending my sister a shot of the new siding on my garage, or my new
kitten, or if I'm posting an image on eBay I just use JPEG. There
is absolutely NO need for RAW in these instances.
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 4:34:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 00:02:31 -0500, Rob wrote:

>I'm not familiar yet with RAW photos but am familiar with jpegs. I've
>read that RAW is highly editable for photo touch ups but using a
>program like photoshop or paint shop, isn't jpegs just as editable for
>photo touch ups? I realize that the jpeg is compressed so I guess the
>editing on RAW will be more efficient, effective and probably look
>better??

May I suggest you read:

_Real World Camera Raw with Photoshop CS2: Industrial-Strength
Production Techniques_ by Bruce Fraser

Then you'll understand why you want to work in RAW and stop doing
JPEG's.


*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 5:40:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jim Townsend <not@real.address> wrote:
>John A. Stovall wrote:
>
>> I fail to see any use for JEPG with it's lossy compression, 8bit
>> channels and is more prone to digital artifacts. If you have to have
>> JPEG you can always generate one from the PSD file.
>
>First I realize JPEG vs RAW debates can become more intense than
>political discussions :-) I have RAW editing software and I do
>use RAW.. I'm *not* against it..
>
>But the bottom line is that you *can't* tell the difference between
>a print made from a JPEG or 16 bit TIFF generated from a RAW file.

True *if and only if* your in camera color correction is fairly
close to correct. If it isn't, you can't put back what is lost
during the in-camera conversion.

It's fairly simple. With JPEG you have 256 levels of
brightness, with a 12 bit RAW image you have 16 times that many.

But that is only one part of the whole situation...

>That's the beauty of JPEG and that's the reason it has endured
>for so many years. The only information that is 'lost' is subtle
>differences in color. In low compression 'fine' mode, artifacts
>aren't an issue.
>
>In days of film, some photographers shuddered at the though of
>setting up a processing lab to do fine work on their photos. Today
>there are people who don't like sitting in front of their computer
>futzing with digital images. There are people who don't want to
>spend as much for editing software, and storage as they did for
>their camera.

That is *very* true. By the same token... I'm one who has
given up photography at *every* point in my life when it was
impossible to do "darkroom work". Hence I'm just exactly the
opposite! (The neat thing about digital photography is that a
"darkroom" is so much easier to set up just anywhere.)

>Try this.. Take a RAW+large fine JPEG image.. Print them both
>at 8 x 10 and see if you can see a difference.. I can't.

If the original color correction for the JPEG was seriously
wrong, say the camera was set for incandescent and the lighting
was actually fluorescent... I won't even bother trying to
correct a JPEG. With a RAW image that simply makes no
difference at all, since color correction hasn't yet been
applied.

>I do use RAW, but I don't use it to shoot mundane stuff. If I'm
>sending my sister a shot of the new siding on my garage, or my new
>kitten, or if I'm posting an image on eBay I just use JPEG. There
>is absolutely NO need for RAW in these instances.

That's true!

I'd imagine a great deal depends on equipment and the working
environment that each person has. In my case I'm set up for
RAW, and gain almost nothing (but lose a lot) by switching to
JPEG. I get about 125 exposures on a 512Mb memory card, and
twice that on a 1Gb card. I'm rarely ever going to shoot more
than that in one sitting, so smaller files means little. Time
is a small factor, but I rarely run out of buffer space on the
camera (I'm using a Nikon D1 and get 21 shots in the buffer, as
I shoot with the camera set for 1 fps continuous). Different
work and different equipment would make that very different for
someone else.

The one place it makes a difference is the time downloading from
the compact flash card to the computer, where 100 JPEGs would
take 1/4 the time that 100 RAW images takes. (That would be
more than offset by the extra time it would take to color
correct anytime I make a mistake and switch lighting without
switching the camera correction.)

That works for me, but obviously is *not* the same environment
that others need to work with. I also have a Sony FD-91, which
puts 8 to 10 JPEGs on a single floppy disk, or one raw format
image... needless to say, I *always* use JPEG format with that
camera!

I don't think it is correct to say that one or the other of JPEG
or RAW is necessarily the _right_ way. It is just two different
options, one of which may suit a particular need better than the
other.

--
FloydL. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 5:42:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 09:28:12 -0400, Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net>
wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 12:32:27 GMT, in rec.photo.digital John A. Stovall
><johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>I fail to see any use for JEPG with it's lossy compression, 8bit
>>channels and is more prone to digital artifacts. If you have to have
>>JPEG you can always generate one from the PSD file.
>
>Guess you've never posted anything on the web or e-mailed friends or family
>any of your photos?

I generate them from the PSD for that but those are just throw away
images. I print my serious work. To me the true measure of a
photograph is the final print.


*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 10:13:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 13:42:01 GMT, in rec.photo.digital John A. Stovall
<johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:

>images. I print my serious work. To me the true measure of a
>photograph is the final print.

First, maybe not everything is "serious work". Or maybe even other folk's
"serious work" may not warrant it.

This is not to say I don't mainly shoot raw with my D70.But there is a
whole class of photos I take documenting test articles at work for reports,
or even heaven forbid Powerpoint presentations that don't warrant it. Yes,
"My name is Ed and sometimes I'm a NASA Powerpoint Engineer." But almost
never with my CP-5700, and can't with my CP-990. The later being used a
lot lately to take photos not possible with the other two cameras.

Part of my reason to reply as such to your original reply was the way you
made an absolute statement, when taken as quoted out of the context of the
whole reply. It's nitpicking yes. But.... everyone's needs are not the same
at all times.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 11:30:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 10:41:34 -0500, Jim Townsend <not@real.address>
wrote:

>John A. Stovall wrote:
>
>
>> I fail to see any use for JEPG with it's lossy compression, 8bit
>> channels and is more prone to digital artifacts. If you have to have
>> JPEG you can always generate one from the PSD file.
>
>First I realize JPEG vs RAW debates can become more intense than
>political discussions :-) I have RAW editing software and I do
>use RAW.. I'm *not* against it..
>
>But the bottom line is that you *can't* tell the difference between
>a print made from a JPEG or 16 bit TIFF generated from a RAW file.
>
>That's the beauty of JPEG and that's the reason it has endured
>for so many years. The only information that is 'lost' is subtle
>differences in color. In low compression 'fine' mode, artifacts
>aren't an issue.

Color is an issue why reduce your color gamut on purpose by using a
format which does that?


*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 11:30:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John A. Stovall wrote:


>>That's the beauty of JPEG and that's the reason it has endured
>>for so many years. The only information that is 'lost' is subtle
>>differences in color. In low compression 'fine' mode, artifacts
>>aren't an issue.
>
> Color is an issue why reduce your color gamut on purpose by using a
> format which does that?

But you can't *see* the reduction. That's why it's not an issue..

I think for many, it's just knowing that some information was
lost whether they see it or not makes them resist JPEG.

You obviously consider that all images must undergo heavy
editing to be acceptable and process your images passionately.
I respect you for that. I can understand it. There's nothing
wrong with that.

I'm just trying to address your original statement:

> I fail to see any use for JEPG with it's lossy compression, 8bit
> channels and is more prone to digital artifacts. If you have to have
> JPEG you can always generate one from the PSD file.
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 12:27:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <7hg5i1hpbghq3sur1rlss5ntudq8qf663m@4ax.com>,
<dave6134@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 02:40:19 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Rob wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not familiar yet with RAW photos but am familiar with jpegs. I've
>>> read that RAW is highly editable for photo touch ups but using a
>>> program like photoshop or paint shop, isn't jpegs just as editable for
>>> photo touch ups?
>>
>>Not for things like exposure/contrast adjustment or dealing with WB issues.
>
>This is nonsense and I don't understand how it ever got started!
>
>By exposure/contrast I presume you mean gamma and curves/levels. All
>of these adjustments plus white balance corrections work just fine on
>JPEG files.

Push a JPEG 2 stops, look at what used to be the shadows, then perhaps you
might want to reconsider that statement.
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 12:30:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 15:20:03 -0500, Jim Townsend <not@real.address>
wrote:

>John A. Stovall wrote:
>
>
>>>That's the beauty of JPEG and that's the reason it has endured
>>>for so many years. The only information that is 'lost' is subtle
>>>differences in color. In low compression 'fine' mode, artifacts
>>>aren't an issue.
>>
>> Color is an issue why reduce your color gamut on purpose by using a
>> format which does that?
>
>But you can't *see* the reduction. That's why it's not an issue..

Can you prove that one "can't see" it? Why do people who are
seriously into color management and graphics use Tiff?


*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
September 11, 2005 2:49:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Like Rob, I know about raw, but I have not used it extensively. Is there
any EXIF data in a raw file and how can it be saved with a jpeg for
distribution?

Jean

<Rob> a écrit dans le message de
news:0rp4i1pibas6kesllitlao4u3do6ijjsis@4ax.com...
> I'm not familiar yet with RAW photos but am familiar with jpegs. I've
> read that RAW is highly editable for photo touch ups but using a
> program like photoshop or paint shop, isn't jpegs just as editable for
> photo touch ups? I realize that the jpeg is compressed so I guess the
> editing on RAW will be more efficient, effective and probably look
> better??
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 1:39:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 22:49:03 -0400, "jean" <try-to@find.it>
wrote:

>Like Rob, I know about raw, but I have not used it extensively. Is there
>any EXIF data in a raw file and how can it be saved with a jpeg for
>distribution?
>

Yes, the raw file has full metadata. Some (most?) converters
pass it through transparently into the output, or if you use
one that doesn't do this there are programs like Exiftools
that can copy the metadata from the raw file to the
corresponding JPEG.

I use Photoshop CS2 and Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) for all my
image processing, and the EXIF data is handled automatically
without my help :-)

--
Regards

John Bean
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 4:37:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John A. Stovall wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 15:20:03 -0500, Jim Townsend <not@real.address>
> wrote:
>
>
>>John A. Stovall wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>That's the beauty of JPEG and that's the reason it has endured
>>>>for so many years. The only information that is 'lost' is subtle
>>>>differences in color. In low compression 'fine' mode, artifacts
>>>>aren't an issue.
>>>
>>>Color is an issue why reduce your color gamut on purpose by using a
>>>format which does that?
>>
>>But you can't *see* the reduction. That's why it's not an issue..
>
>
> Can you prove that one "can't see" it? Why do people who are
> seriously into color management and graphics use Tiff?

If you do no processing to an image, and just print, I would bet
in most cases one could not tell the difference from a raw versus
a jpeg captured image. But if you process, like brightening
shadow detail, then it can be a major difference between
raw and jpeg images. But there is no simple all in one answer.
How much the jpeg loses depends on the camera and the sensor
noise characteristics. See:

Digital Camera Raw versus Jpeg Conversion Losses
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/raw.versus.jpeg1

On this page are how much one loses in a high end DSLR, a mid-range
DSLR and a point and shoot camera. The "loss factor" in the
plots means how much is lost in signal-to-noise. For example,
a loss factor of 2 is a reduction in the signal-to-noise ratio
by a factor of 2. Note that at higher ISO, jpeg losses are
small compared to raw. Also, because of the higher noise
of P&S cameras, the jpeg losses are small also.

Note too that a standard gamma conversion of 12-bit raw data also
has losses in the high end.

On my 1D Mark II, I use raw when I want the highest quality and
I'm imaging at low ISO. Above ISO 200, I use raw less often, unless
I am doing astrophoto work where I need linear output.

Roger
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 10:48:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 12:37:20 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:

>John A. Stovall wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 15:20:03 -0500, Jim Townsend <not@real.address>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>John A. Stovall wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>That's the beauty of JPEG and that's the reason it has endured
>>>>>for so many years. The only information that is 'lost' is subtle
>>>>>differences in color. In low compression 'fine' mode, artifacts
>>>>>aren't an issue.
>>>>
>>>>Color is an issue why reduce your color gamut on purpose by using a
>>>>format which does that?
>>>
>>>But you can't *see* the reduction. That's why it's not an issue..
>>
>>
>> Can you prove that one "can't see" it? Why do people who are
>> seriously into color management and graphics use Tiff?
>
>If you do no processing to an image, and just print, I would bet
>in most cases one could not tell the difference from a raw versus
>a jpeg captured image. But if you process, like brightening
>shadow detail, then it can be a major difference between
>raw and jpeg images. But there is no simple all in one answer.
>How much the jpeg loses depends on the camera and the sensor
>noise characteristics. See:
>

Of course I do that I want the best image so why would I not want to
processes them.

I want the best image not a compromise, so why settle for the
compromise of the camera's jpeg?


*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 10:48:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John A. Stovall wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 12:37:20 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username
> to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:

>>If you do no processing to an image, and just print, I would bet
>>in most cases one could not tell the difference from a raw versus
>>a jpeg captured image. But if you process, like brightening
>>shadow detail, then it can be a major difference between
>>raw and jpeg images. But there is no simple all in one answer.
>>How much the jpeg loses depends on the camera and the sensor
>>noise characteristics. See:
>>
>
>
> Of course I do that I want the best image so why would I not want to
> processes them.
>
> I want the best image not a compromise, so why settle for the
> compromise of the camera's jpeg?

In some cases, shooting raw can be limiting. For example, in the case
of action shots, cameras generally have a larger number of
images in the buffer as jpegs versus raws. If you are shooting ISO400
then there is little loss, and a big advantage. With the 1D MarkII
at 8.5 frames per second, one can get a lot of interesting action,
and I have been in situations where the action was very lengthy
and extraordinarily interesting. For example, shooting at iso 400 I
I got this image as a jpeg of 2 grizzly bears fighting:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear/web/b...

It is one of many in the fight sequence. But there was so much action
with over a dozen grizzly bears in photographic range in a 270 degree
field of view, it was often a challenge swinging the lens from one action
opportunity to the next. If I was shooting raw, my buffer would
have been full many times and I would have lost many great images.
Also, if I was shooting raw, my cards would fill faster, with potential
loss while changing cards.

On the above image, click the next button 3 times to see 3 additional
fight photos (129 images in a short few minutes). About half of the
images in the sequences are similar in quality to the ones shown.
And I just don't hold the shutter down, as that would just fill the
buffer needlessly. I anticipate action and try to image at peak
action when the composition, lighting and the animals' faces are
best positioned.

I knew I had exposure and color balance correct, so in the above
situation, I felt jpegs where the best option allowing me to to get the
best photos, and with negligible loss from raw. From my study on
jpeg losses, I lost a couple of percent signal-to-noise at the low
end (I didn't have shadows I needed to bring up), and only 50% or so
at the highest end (the water drops are the brightest parts of the
scene, and because they are spots, the signal to noise is plenty
high, so no practical loss either). In the mid range tones, which
is most of the image, there is effectively zero loss over a raw
file for these ISO 400 images.

Roger
!