gdanmitchell wrote:
That’s a big part of the power of raw file based editing — the underlying file is never changed, only interpreted non-destructively.
So, just correcting a few minor -- maybe semantic-- issues. Both RAW and JPG files are interpreted nondestructively (i.e., they are not altered when they are processed by software such as Lightroom, Capture One, Photoshop, etc).
JPG and RAW files can both be edited nondestructively -- for instance, Lightroom does not edit any imported files, it saves sidecar files alongside the original unedited files and then permits the user to apply those edits into an exported file (usually a JPG).
The difference in the latitude of editing RAW files over JPG files just comes down to the fact that JPG files discards anywhere from 30-50% of the luminosity data from the sensor, and that cannot be recovered.
I think the issue with the DR mode, which others have already pointed out, is that it causes the software to process the RAW file in a way that might not be reversible.
If you want to maximize the sensor's dynamic range then you probably do not want to use DR at all because it forces you to use a higher ISO. Not that it matters since we’re all pretty much doing some amount of baseline noise reduction in the first place.
gdanmitchell wrote:
That’s a big part of the power of raw file based editing — the underlying file is never changed, only interpreted non-destructively.
So, just correcting a few minor -- maybe semantic-- issues. Both RAW and JPG files are interpreted nondestructively (i.e., they are not altered when they are processed by software such as Lightroom, Capture One, Photoshop, etc).
JPG and RAW files can both be edited nondestructively -- for instance, Lightroom does not edit any imported files, it saves sidecar files alongside the original unedited files and then permits the user to apply those edits into an exported file (usually a JPG).
The difference in the latitude of editing RAW files over JPG files just comes down to the fact that JPG files discards anywhere from 30-50% of the luminosity data from the sensor, and that cannot be recovered.
I think the issue with the DR mode, which others have already pointed out, is that it causes the software to process the RAW file in a way that might not be reversible.
Even in Lightroom, upon import, a RAW image at DR400 will be underexposed by about 2 stops compared to DR100, upon import. So, you'd have to look at the histograms of a DR file and a non-DR RAW file with exactly the same exposure to see if they match. It’s possible that they do, or it’s possible that the exposure adjustment will introduce noise into the photo. (Not that it matters since we’re all pretty much doing some amount of baseline noise reduction in the first place).
gdanmitchell wrote:
That’s a big part of the power of raw file based editing — the underlying file is never changed, only interpreted non-destructively.
So, just correcting a few minor -- maybe semantic-- issues. Both RAW and JPG files are interpreted nondestructively (i.e., they are not altered when they are processed by software such as Lightroom, Capture One, Photoshop, etc).
JPG and RAW files can both be edited nondestructively -- for instance, Lightroom does not edit any imported files, it saves sidecar files alongside the original unedited files and then permits the user to apply those edits into an exported file (usually a JPG).
The difference in the latitude of editing RAW files over JPG files just comes down to the fact that JPG files discards anywhere from 30-50% of the luminosity data from the sensor, and that cannot be recovered.
I think the issue with the DR mode, which others have already pointed out, is that it causes the software to process the RAW file in a way that might not be reversible. It’s not like adding a mask or changing white balance. Those two settings can be reset to “as shot”.
Even in Lightroom, upon import, a RAW image at DR400 will be underexposed by about 2 stops compared to DR100, upon import. So, you'd have to look at the histograms of a DR file and a non-DR RAW file with exactly the same exposure to see if they match. It’s possible that they do, or it’s possible that the exposure adjustment will introduce noise into the photo. (Not that it matters since we’re all pretty much doing some amount of baseline noise reduction in the first place).
gdanmitchell wrote:
That’s a big part of the power of raw file based editing — the underlying file is never changed, only interpreted non-destructively.
So, just correcting a few minor -- maybe semantic-- issues. Both RAW and JPG files are interpreted nondestructively (i.e., they are not altered when they are processed by software such as Lightroom, Capture One, Photoshop, etc).
JPG and RAW files can both be edited nondestructively -- for instance, Lightroom does not edit any imported files, it saves sidecar files alongside the original unedited files and then permits the user to apply those edits into an exported file (usually a JPG).
The difference in the latitude of editing RAW files over JPG files just comes down to the fact that JPG files discards anywhere from 30-50% of the luminosity data from the sensor, and that cannot be recovered.
gdanmitchell wrote:
That’s a big part of the power of raw file based editing — the underlying file is never changed, only interpreted non-destructively.
I think the issue with the DR mode, which others have already pointed out, is that it causes the software to process the RAW file in a way that might not be able to be reversed. It’s not like adding a mask or changing white balance. Those two settings can be reset to “as shot”.
You’d have to look at the histograms of a DR file and a normal RAW file with exactly the same exposure to see if they match. It’s possible that they do, or it’s possible that the exposure adjustment will introduce noise into the photo. (Not that it matters since we’re all pretty much doing some amount of baseline noise reduction in the first place).
Feb 03, 2026 at 12:02 PM
Previous versions of mdude85's message #16979632 « DR100% vs 200/400% »
