Charles Haacker wrote: ↑
Fri Jan 26, 2018 2:11 pm
minniev wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 25, 2018 8:29 pm
Dusk at Hopewell Rocks, 2008 June. In those days i was still capturing raw+jpeg, not yet trusting that I would know what to do with the jpeg, so here's both.
Thank you, Minnie! That is a wonderful picture! Beautiful natural framing, a person for scale, great detail in the sky, and a spot of sun dapple on the trees. Have you ever tried processing the jpeg for detail? When I started and for (too) many years thereafter I worked thousands of jpegs. My first cameras didn't even output raw so it was jpegs or nuthin'. The detail is there, just not all the raw data for its nuance. You should have plenty to work with as you did not overexpose it. Raw tolerates a good deal more overexposure than jpeg. It would just be a curiosity thing. Since shifting to all-raw I don't even bother to make a jpeg. I don't feel I need them taking up space, but they might have usefulness as a guide.
Once I got my first DSLR, I moved to raw-only within 2 months. I shot both for the first couple of months because I didn't trust myself, but once I found out how easy it was, and how much less noise and artifacts went with the raw as opposed to the jpeg, I never shot jpeg again except once when my camera got stuck on jpeg-only on a trip. It was one of those once in a lifetime scenery days, so I just exposed with extra special care +bracketing, accepted what jpeg gave me and ended up with some great pictures. Modern jpeg engines are very good. But because I like to play hard with my photos, I still shoot raw only.
To specifically answer your question, I once processed one of the Hopewell Rock images and posted both on one of those endless raw vs jpeg arguments on The Forum That Can't Be Named as a comparison, and there was noticeable difference in noise and smoothness of detail especially in the trees. Probably wouldn't matter unless looked at at 100%.