The RAW vs JPEG discussion has been ongoing for, well, some time :)
I have occasionally shot both raw & jpg, but gave up on the raw processing as the end result never looked anything like the jpg, nor like the actual scene :(
I have heard all the hype about how much better it is to shoot in raw, I could however not see it and simply kept on shooting in jpg.
The thought of being able to do much more with raw files, was however not completely abandoned, and would occasionally shoot both raw & jpg.
One such day was back in March 2013, when I was woken by this nearby thunder storm, set up the camera and also decided to to shoot raw+jpg, just in case I need the raw file. Got a couple of lightning strikes, they had however, large blown out sections.
I managed to recover, from the raw file, significant sections that still contained data.
I shoot only raw.
Straight Out of Camera files (15s, f/8, iso200)
Straight Out of Camera filesThis is the Raw (.cr2) and the JPG files, as they are opened in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR)for the same exposure, the image shows the raw file being selected
Highlights recovered from the raw file:
RAWvsJpg - CR2_recoveryBy simply using the Highlights slider, data containing areas were recovered.
Same highlight recovery performed on the JPEG file:
RAWvsJpg - jpg_recoveryBy simply using the same Highlights slider, data containing areas in the JPEG file appears to contain less data, and is simply blown out much more than the RAW.