Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BackdoorArts" data-source="post: 531150" data-attributes="member: 9240">OK, so I was PM'd and politely asked if I could demonstrate what I mean.Here's are two very underexposed shots taken with my D610 (no scientifically determined under-exposure - the meter was just pinned hard '-'):RAW[ATTACH]197718[/ATTACH]JPEG[ATTACH]197719[/ATTACH]In Lightroom I set the Exposure adjustment on each of these images to +5 yielding these results:RAW[ATTACH]197720[/ATTACH]JPEG[ATTACH]197721[/ATTACH]Here are the same images SOOC with the exposure adjusted in the camera for the same +5 EV:RAW[ATTACH]197722[/ATTACH]JPEG[ATTACH]197723[/ATTACH](Note: I had Active D-Lighting set to high, accounting for the difference in RAW v. JPEG.  Like I said, it was unscientific.)As you can see, the RAW files appear nearly identical regardless of whether shot at +5EV or adjusted to that value.  The same cannot be said for the JPEG.  Moral of the story, a perfectly exposed JPEG is almost always enough for most photographers, but RAW will save your booty when something goes wrong.I should also note that I attempted to replicate the blog post by creating two severely under-exposed images.  After boosting each +5EV they both still looked completely black (honest - don't make me post them).  What this tells me is that the original photos is "perfectly exposed black", meaning that all they're doing is amplifying a correctly exposed image and what you're seeing is the difference in noise generation and not recovered details.</blockquote>

Verification