In a shot like this it probably will not make a big difference. It is when you encounter challenging lighting conditions you will see the benefits of raw. You will be able to bring back overexposed highlights and open up dark shadows that you just cannot fix if you only shoot jpg. Having said that, there is a limit to how much you can tweak a RAW file from a compact camera with a small sensor (such as the FZ and TZ Panasonic cameras).
It is a steep learning curve and it takes time to find a RAW workflow that works for you, but when you get there you will never shoot jpgs again :-)
Here is an example of what you can do with RAW on a small sensor compact. The first is the edited RAW file and the second one is the jpg from the camera.
@helstor That is amazing Helge, thanks for the example. I might be a bit old to learn new tricks, especially if it is a steep learning curve. I will try a few more and then decide. Thanks so much for your advice and input, I really appreciate it very much.
This is such a great question to have posted. What I've learned over the years (a personal, not a technical response) is that it's all about having the most data/information from your image, so that if you have an idea of what the image is supposed to look like, you have a better chance of achieving it when processing/editing. With jpg, the camera has already made some choices for you about what information to save and what to delete, so you lose a fair amount of control. Sometimes it matters, others it doesn't. If I'm shooting documentation types of shots (a birthday party, graduation) I use .jpg, but if shooting other types of scenes (more for the art of it), I use RAW.
I am lucky that my camera has two card slots so I can dedicate a slot to each format. Like Taffy, I use my JPEG photos for the documentation type photos that I do not necessarily want to edit but then use RAW for my photos that I do want to play with. (although I am really just learning how to process)
@granagringa It has been bugging me for some time now! I am actually too old to start learning new tricks. When I opened the raw image, I got quite a shock. Then tried my normal edit procedure, it was not easy to achieve a good result at first. It is time consuming (which I have too little of) and needs more space as the files are bigger. I will try again though 😉
I edit in Lightroom which applies some edits to the raw file automatically. This means the Raw file looks much the same as a jpg when first imported. I can then decide how far I want to edit with the benefit of all the raw data in the background.
@ludwigsdiana I have found with practice lightroom editing gets faster. I usually just look at the histogram to start. I set my white balance, then look to see what the histogram curve shows. Once I get exposure, I drop the black slider to just shy of lighting that arrow in the histogram and then I pull up the whites to what I like. If my highlights are too bright I'll drop them a bit, and if my shadows are too deep then I lift them. Then it's off to the tone curve where I tend to darken shadows a bit and lift whites a bit there. That's pretty much my start and covers most of the edit. Sometimes I play with the filters, but that's most often with extreme lighting discrepancies in my landscapes. I do like lots of the other features, but that came after years of picking up lightroom hints here and there. I would actually use these same edits on a jpeg, but they don't produce the same results as the jpeg has much less data in the image to work with. It really all comes down to what is most enjoyable for you.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
It is a steep learning curve and it takes time to find a RAW workflow that works for you, but when you get there you will never shoot jpgs again :-)
Here is an example of what you can do with RAW on a small sensor compact. The first is the edited RAW file and the second one is the jpg from the camera.
https://365project.org/helstor/365/2015-04-24
http://365project.org/helstor/extras/2015-04-24