>>4481100In my opinion, what the final product looks like is what matters.
RAWs SooC are a tool to help you get there. Unedited raws will always be seen with some programs jpg profile and almost never look good without editing, but there's a lot of information there.
When I shoot, as much as I can consciously be aware of it, I try to make sure the RAW has data for all the shades in a scene, unless it's just completely unlikely one of the two will not be usable - eg a dark figure against a broad daylight backdrop. One of those two is going to be unusable, either the highlights will end up blown out, or the dark part will be so underexposed that when you go to lift it in post, you will get a ton of noise.
Which brings me to an important part - Choosing the right camera and knowing its limitations in the context of dynamic range. There is no magic formula for this, you will just need to use it. I know, for instance, I can get away with a lot more on my R6 II than I could have on my T6i.
I have begun to think about ISO a completely different way. When I started out, I took ISO as a way to lighten photos. Too dark? Add ISO at the expense of adding more noise. Instead, I think of it differently. When approaching a scene where I may need to raise the ISO, I think of it as a benchmark. "What sort of exposure do I need to hit, to get a nice exposure at an ISO I know my camera will still produce a strong image at" - Again this is where knowing the hardware comes in handy. I will go to 800 on my T6i without thinking too much about it, whereas I am comfortable with 3200 or even 6400 on the R6II.
cont.
