RAW vs. JPG: Recovering From Extreme Underexposure

RAW vs. JPG is the biggest debate in the world of digital photography. The anti-RAW tenet can be distilled down to this quote from Ken Rockwell: "Raw is a waste of time and space". The pro-RAW side claims that RAW offers more flexibility and a better chance at recovering ruined shots in post-processing. They therefore say that RAW is worth the extra time and space. Furthermore, they state that when done intelligently there is very little extra time required, and as for the space issue, price per megabyte continues to plunge, while capacity grows exponentially. I'm not going to say which format YOU should shoot with. But for me, RAW is the only way to go. Mr. Rockwell says that a good photographer will "get it right the first time". Amen to that. But I'm not a good photographer. I'm getting better and would like to someday take perfect shots that don't require post-processing. That would definitely make my wrist happy! But that day has not yet arrived. I often under/overexpose my shots by much more than 1/2 a stop. RAW allows me to save what would otherwise be a ruined photograph. I'd like to point out that I don't take photos thinking, "I don't care about my exposure settings, I'll let RAW+Lightroom take care of it". I genuinely want to create a great shot "in the camera", but that's not always possible. Sometimes I shoot in very low light situations and do not want to use flash, because it will disturb the people around me. I watched The Muppet Movie at Dolores Park in San Francisco a few evenings ago. I popped off this deliberately underexposed shot so that I could compare how much of the scene could be recovered from the RAW and JPG files. I shot it in RAW+JPG mode. I post-processed the first four photos in Lightroom: +4 stops of exposure (max allowed), +30% fill light, +100% highlight recovery (max allowed). I also increased the brightness of the fourth photo by 150% in a last ditch effort to recover the JPG. They are displayed in descending order of preference (the first photo is my favorite). The final two are the original photos. RAW: JPG created in Lightroom from RAW: JPG created in camera: JPG created in camera: Original RAW: Original JPG created in camera: It's jaw dropping how much more detail is recovered from the first RAW photo. The colors and highlights look a lot better. Sure, it's grainy, but I underexposed the scene by at least two full stops, so that is expected. In conclusion, this little test is enough to convince me to always shoot in RAW. The upside far outweighs the downside for me. I don't shoot thousands of photos at a time, so including the extra step of processing the RAW files in Lightroom adds very little time to my workflow. Second, memory is cheap and plentiful. Look for rebates and sales. But wait! There's more. Proponents of RAW claim that RAW files allow for more accurate adjustment of white balance. I will be testing this claim soon. You can also see the photos on flickr.