From the outset, let me say that I'm emphatically not interested in opinions on whether RAW or JPEG are better choices to shoot with. We've gone round that countless times and, since this is my thread and I've got a senior moderator cape, I'll happily zap any post that falls into that rut, so don't waste your typing time!
However, I am interested to get some ideas from those who regularly capture RAW images. When I was on holiday a couple of months ago, I took a couple of shots of this rusting VW Beetle. Below is the JPEG version, which you can view full size on Flickr:
That is an unmodified image, except for what the camera has done automatically. I rather like it although I suspect I could improve it with a little post-processing. At the same time, I also took an almost identical shot using the RAW mode of my D40, producing a Nikon .nef file. I have put this file online and invite you to
download it (5.2MB).
Displayed in iPhoto, I can see that it
does have more detail in the shadows. However, if I processed it, I think I would probably bump the contrast and lose most of that additional information anyway. If some of you who are more expert with RAW files could run it through your digital darkroom and share the results (and a note of the choices you made along the way), I would be fascinated to see what you come up with.
I would also be happy if anyone wants to apply some processing to the JPEG version. If we can avoid getting carried away with arguments about what is better or worse and let the results stand for other readers to judge for themselves, that might be a positive contribution to future debates and would certainly assist me in deciding whether I am ready to do start shooting more in RAW mode.
Thanks,
Wulf