Oct 24, 2014, 14:38
I would be curious to know how you can edit a jpeg at 16 bits when to my knowledge, a jpeg only contains 8 bits to begin with. Correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, this simply stretches the color and tonal values that you can work on with the image due to the 8-bit to 16-bit conversion but still the original file already has lost some detail due to the in-camera jpeg conversion. It is also my understanding that making an incorrect exposure and then using jpeg as your preferred file could result in clipping either in the shadow or highlight areas. I would agree that if your capture is reasonably accurate (exposure & white balance wise) then modest 8 bit edits will probably be fine. If you're making large corrections to the captures (especially to levels) then you're probably going to see degradation no matter which bit depth you process in (you can't reveal information that isn't there).
I think it would be interesting to try your experiment with an image that has a very high contrast range to see if you can still recover the image details such as you have demonstrated with your shed example.
I still stand by my position as Ed has said in his way - it all depends on what you want to do with the final product - "to each his own." For those who are content to capture jpg images and edit them to produce their final result then that is their decision, and as long as they are happy with the results then that is all that counts. For those, like me, who prefer to capture raw images and process them then that is their decision and they, like me, must be prepared to live with any extra post-processing required.
We could continue this and beat it into the ground more than we have already. I choose not to continue this discussion and simply let any readers decide which way they wish to go when it comes to choosing raw or jpeg, or both. There are advantages and disadvantages for both approaches and as long as the individual is prepared to live with these, then that is really all that matters.
WesternGuy
WesternGuy
I think it would be interesting to try your experiment with an image that has a very high contrast range to see if you can still recover the image details such as you have demonstrated with your shed example.
I still stand by my position as Ed has said in his way - it all depends on what you want to do with the final product - "to each his own." For those who are content to capture jpg images and edit them to produce their final result then that is their decision, and as long as they are happy with the results then that is all that counts. For those, like me, who prefer to capture raw images and process them then that is their decision and they, like me, must be prepared to live with any extra post-processing required.
We could continue this and beat it into the ground more than we have already. I choose not to continue this discussion and simply let any readers decide which way they wish to go when it comes to choosing raw or jpeg, or both. There are advantages and disadvantages for both approaches and as long as the individual is prepared to live with these, then that is really all that matters.
WesternGuy
WesternGuy