A Follow Up On The Ken Duncan Post

[Cage]

Your RAW file will capture colours and detail that you cannot see.

Have a look at this thread of the Milky Way http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...Photography-PP

The first shot is straight out of the camera, purposely overexposed to pick up as much faint detail as possible.

If you scroll down, you will see the various iterations of just what the sensor captured. There were no colours added-in in Photoshop, just a process of teasing out the colours that the RAW file had captured.

The last one was an exercise to see how much red I could bring out in the shot. That colour was captured in the RAW file and the procedure is useful in processing astro shots as unmodified camera sensors are not very helpful in capturing the almost invisible reds in the H-Alpha range.

[Mark L]

Your RAW file will capture colours and detail that you cannot see.

and I'm still learning how to make what's in the RAW file appeared as I saw.
But I'd rather try and do that on a computer than let a little processor thing in my camera do it as it converts to JPEG.

[Steve Axford]

Your RAW file will capture colours and detail that you cannot see.

It doesn't make any sense to say that the RAW file will capture colours that you cannot see. The RAW file may capture more colours than a jpeg, but each pixel is still only one colour. There are no hidden colours under that one colour. Post processing may change that colour to some other colour, but it doesn't reveal a hidden colour.