Contents
Raw versus jpeg mode has been the source of a lot of debate across the internet. The truth is that both formats have their place in a photographer's bag of tricks. This article will examine a very common scenario - extreme contrast - where "raw" mode can be a spectacular help in landscape photography.
35 mm print film is graceful with highlights and overexposure, but doesn't hold so much shadow detail. Modern digital cameras are the opposite. But neither can record the full gamut of brightness levels in one exposure. 
Let's see what raw mode brings to the table.
To the right is a standard conversion of a raw file from a D60, with the exposure as shot, and everything else set to the default. This was processed in Photoshop CS 2 with Adobe Camera Raw ( "ACR" ) and is as close as it comes to an original.
Deep shadows make a third of the photo invisible. But most of the image is exposed as it should be: the mountains, trees in the sunlight, and the sky look like real life. The clouds aren't overexposed. Using a slower shutter speed would have sacrificed highlight detail, especially in the aspens, and come with its own set of challenges.
Instead, we'll use this as a starting point, and extract two more versions of the same capture, each with more post-exposure compensation. These new interpretations will be added as layers, and all but the deepest shadows will be hidden behind a mask.
Note: At this point, the question is whether the same treatment could be applied to a jpeg file. The short answer is that having access to the 12 bits of tonal range the sensor captured, instead of the 8 that can be recorded in a jpeg, is a real advantage. The section below will show why this is important.
Below are the two "filler" extractions; they're pretty ugly, but they have a specific job.