(Oct 14, 2014, 22:03)Pegger3D Wrote: [ -> ]My point was that with RAW and 16 bit, there are double the options in Photoshop to adjust a shot that is not perfect (and they seldom are)...
http://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/16-bit/
That statement might be (unintentionally) misleading. In fact, all the editing options available in imaging software can usually be used with
8-bit image files, but it is sometimes the case that some options are not available for 16-bit files, and so the software reverts to 8-bit. However, there is no doubt that 16-bit offers more data, giving more leeway in editing, and enabling finer gradations to be achieved when excessive adjustments are needed.
Again I would suggest that, in almost all real world scenarios (image captured fairly close to the desired outcome, modest adjustments required to achieve the aim, image to be viewed in a normal way), the output produced by editing an 8-bit best quality JPEG is unlikely to be noticeably inferior to that produced from a 16-bit Raw edit.
The linked article is yet another that over-states its case, by using a very extreme example of image adjustment. If the described procedure is followed, but the adjustments are to a more realistic 30/225 rather than 120/140, the output images from 8-bit and 16-bit editing are very close indeed.
However, some people might not know that a Raw file is not a prerequisite of 16-bit editing. An 8-bit JPEG file can be opened, even into PS Elements, as a 16-bit file. Just open it by File - Open As - Camera Raw, and the JPEG will open in Adobe Camera Raw. All the sliders there can be used to adjust the image, and/or the now 16-bit image can be transferred into the PS editor for further adjustments.
That simple procedure was used to convert the small JPEG of the beach ball, downloaded from the linked article, to be a 16-bit image in PSE 10. The extreme editing procedure was then followed exactly as described in that article to produce the following result:
[
attachment=3749]
Compare that not only with the author's 8-bit JPEG edit, but also more significantly with his 16-bit edit, bearing in mind that he will probably have started the latter from his full Raw file, rather than a small JPEG download. Again, for me, the case for recording Raw for
every image seems rather weak, when 16-bit editing from a JPEG file is possible and so effective.
But, as you so rightly quote -
(Oct 14, 2014, 22:03)Pegger3D Wrote: [ -> ]To each his/her own.
For your information regarding this point -
(Oct 14, 2014, 22:22)Pegger3D Wrote: [ -> ]If your camera is saving the RAW information, IMO it is actually taking both formats each shot.
What I wrote in my previous post is correct. My DSLR (a Pentax K-5II) is set up to record only the best quality, maximum pixel size, JPEG files. However, after each shot has been recorded as a JPEG file, the camera gives the option to save the Raw data for that image. So the image and its histogram can first be viewed on the rear screen and then, if deemed necessary, one can choose to save the Raw file in addition to the JPEG. A neat feature, I think!
Cheers.
Philip