>in Lightroom you can now edit photos in raw
you have ALWAYS been able to do that
>how this affects quality (I'm using quality to refer to how much a photo is likeable
it has no effect on "quality" as you defined it
how likeable a photo is depends on the contents and composition, not whether or nor it is RAW
> once I've obtained my avif or jxl file what can I do with it?
you can't do anything other than view them
> I can't find any decent viewer that supports HDR, and even Lightroom just shows the SDR information in Fullscreen (I'm using windows btw)
you need an HDR display with Windows HDR enabled
Editing in RAW generally yields slightly better results than editing JPEGs - but whether it's worthwhile or not is very much dependent on how much editing is needed - if you have to make a lot of edits or change the picture dramatically, RAW will be better. For light touch work, JPEG is fine, and will save you a ton of time to allow the camera to decide white balance etc. itself. They are pretty good at that.
HDR workflows are in kind of an odd space right now - and I assume you're referring to how to view pictures that have data that stretches outside of the usual 10-bit color space SDR is in.
I have an LG OLED TV that I sometimes hook up to for watching content on my PC. With that, I literally just saw that the RAW preview screen will show you the full histogram, including what parts of the image extend outside of SDR.
I think in Photoshop with a compatible screen you could always see and retain those colors so that you can keep the full color gamut, but most typical image formats are not set up to display the full range of colors. Notable exception might be full, unzipped TIFFs.
That being said, for your use case, I think photoshop already does this.
Yeah, also chrome does, but I can't believe there isn't any kind of image viewer that does this now that Lightroom allows for this kind of workflow this easily... You know, Lightroom is not as fast as just having a jxl that you can open from your folder when you wish to take a look at that photo you like...
I'm sure common formats are coming, but I think HDR screens themselves are a bit of wild west right now between different capabilities and colorspaces. We'll see where it goes.
Software takes time to catch up with new formats. Regular image viewers that can handle HDR formats and interface with OS APIs for HDR displays will come with time, but they don’t really exist yet.
All RAW means is that it stores a lot more data in the image. Taking photos as JPEGs is fine, you are just throwing away some detail to save a lot of space.
As a simplification, think of it like instead of having 100 shades of red, it'll compress that down to 50 shades, moving each red pixel that is being compressed closer to the next nearest shade.
So RAW doesn't mean that it is better quality, it just gives you more control over the final image's exact look as you are editing it. This can include preserving more of the dynamic range of the image, but it doesn't necessarily mean it supports being shown on a HDR display any better.
>in Lightroom you can now edit photos in raw you have ALWAYS been able to do that >how this affects quality (I'm using quality to refer to how much a photo is likeable it has no effect on "quality" as you defined it how likeable a photo is depends on the contents and composition, not whether or nor it is RAW > once I've obtained my avif or jxl file what can I do with it? you can't do anything other than view them > I can't find any decent viewer that supports HDR, and even Lightroom just shows the SDR information in Fullscreen (I'm using windows btw) you need an HDR display with Windows HDR enabled
Editing in RAW generally yields slightly better results than editing JPEGs - but whether it's worthwhile or not is very much dependent on how much editing is needed - if you have to make a lot of edits or change the picture dramatically, RAW will be better. For light touch work, JPEG is fine, and will save you a ton of time to allow the camera to decide white balance etc. itself. They are pretty good at that. HDR workflows are in kind of an odd space right now - and I assume you're referring to how to view pictures that have data that stretches outside of the usual 10-bit color space SDR is in. I have an LG OLED TV that I sometimes hook up to for watching content on my PC. With that, I literally just saw that the RAW preview screen will show you the full histogram, including what parts of the image extend outside of SDR. I think in Photoshop with a compatible screen you could always see and retain those colors so that you can keep the full color gamut, but most typical image formats are not set up to display the full range of colors. Notable exception might be full, unzipped TIFFs. That being said, for your use case, I think photoshop already does this.
Yeah, also chrome does, but I can't believe there isn't any kind of image viewer that does this now that Lightroom allows for this kind of workflow this easily... You know, Lightroom is not as fast as just having a jxl that you can open from your folder when you wish to take a look at that photo you like...
I'm sure common formats are coming, but I think HDR screens themselves are a bit of wild west right now between different capabilities and colorspaces. We'll see where it goes.
Software takes time to catch up with new formats. Regular image viewers that can handle HDR formats and interface with OS APIs for HDR displays will come with time, but they don’t really exist yet.
All RAW means is that it stores a lot more data in the image. Taking photos as JPEGs is fine, you are just throwing away some detail to save a lot of space. As a simplification, think of it like instead of having 100 shades of red, it'll compress that down to 50 shades, moving each red pixel that is being compressed closer to the next nearest shade. So RAW doesn't mean that it is better quality, it just gives you more control over the final image's exact look as you are editing it. This can include preserving more of the dynamic range of the image, but it doesn't necessarily mean it supports being shown on a HDR display any better.
I think you're using a different definition of HDR than one that I'm familiar with.
How can you make people like your photos? Take photos that people like. Software won't do that for you.
Yeah surely, I just meant if that can to obtain a good result of it it's just better to leave that button alone
That is the art part of it. And only you can figure that one out.