Why Should I Shoot Raw?

Raw simply has the best tools, and certainly the greatest capability, by far. Easier tools, but more powerful because they are specifically designed for exactly what camera photos need, even for the extreme shifts like just shown on previous page. Instead of being same as regular photo editors, Raw editors are designed specifically to offer what camera images need (with controls named White Balance and Exposure, etc). Raw images are not committed to some prior bad choice of camera settings, instead we can still choose anything we want anytime later. Of course, a reasonably proper exposure is always needed the camera, but the great beauty of Raw is that the most important and most necessary adjustments become trivial to fix later. 12-bit Raw data has the greatest range for it. The camera settings were not likely perfect every time, as there are other factors, the actual light may not exactly match the setting in most situations - for various reasons, things happen. You can just simply select Flash or Daylight or Cloudy or Incandescent White Balance later, whatever you see it obviously needs, better than the camera could do it. But simply clicking the White Card works best of all, white is white every time. You include the known card in the scene for your first setup picture, with that setting good for all the following similar lighting situation images of that session.

The Common Fallacy About Raw Processing

Some people imagine they would not tolerate shooting Raw, because then they would have to Edit (Gasp! Oh horror! That scary word Edit) all their pictures first. Which is true in some degree, at least it must be first converted from Raw to RGB (JPG or TIF) to use it. But they must not realize this is what makes everything be so easy, or the big advantages it offers. OK, it is an extra step, which can be very minimal (just a file conversion), but the real big deal is "you can first easily fix your pictures to be like you wish they would be". Maybe it is like being given a check for a thousand dollars is not a bad thing either, even if you do have to drive to the bank first. The reward makes it very easy to deal with.

If you have never seen just how easy and useful and handy and powerful the Raw concept is, here is a YouTube video to show what Raw can offer (select 720p and full screen).

It is absolutely awesome to actually see the picture first before deciding what it needs, and also to still have the full range data to work on. Think of it as correcting instead of editing, since that is the necessary job. Whether JPG or Raw, many pictures will need a little more work. We know editing numerous JPG files is a formidable job, so you might imagine Raw must take a lot of time too, but the full opposite is true of Raw - Raw saves much time, and does it better, mostly because the tools are so much better. And in many cases, we can work on many images at once. This doesn't require any special skill, on the contrary, Raw helps those that don't always get it right in the camera (and who can?) I started doing darkroom work way too many decades ago, but it seems I'm not good enough to shoot JPG out of the camera. Too many surprises in White Balance and Exposure, the camera tools are not that precise, JPG is too hard to deal with, limited data does not respond well, regular color tools too poor, job too tedious if handling many images. But instead, Raw is a tremendous help, makes it Day and Night easy to get great results. Those dissenters obviously just must not understand the situation yet. If they are saying that they don't care about fixing their pictures, then maybe an attitude adjustment is necessary. : Raw processing is extremely popular for those that have tried it, and know and care. We can't tolerate JPG now. :) I will try to explain why.

This Raw idea is not a radical concept. Digital cameras only take Raw images (so you are already doing it, like it or not, but possibly without any advantage to you). Then the camera computer processor converts it to RGB color, and applies White Balance processing, and compresses it as JPG (Gamma encoding is of course added too, but it's invisibly automatic no matter what, so no need to mention it now). All of this happens anyway, unseen, under control of automation.
Or,   we can instead choose to output the Raw image directly, and simply select White Balance in the Raw software instead (Adobe menu at right), using stronger and more versatile PC software to do the same processing steps. And since we can now see the result in real time, AFTER we are able to see what it actually needs, the huge advantage is that we can simply fix it then too. We still have the full range to do it, and the tools are better too, and did I mention that of course we can actually see it first too? We can fix White Balance, and we can also fix the exposure, and bypass JPG artifacts, and process many files simultaneously. This is a really really big deal, extremely useful.

As for the "extra work" involved, at barest minimum, we always have to at least look at all of the pictures we took, an inspection pass. That is what Raw "editing" is, it is our first look at them (and the viewing is much of the "work"). It is just a file conversion (from Raw to RGB), but we really ought to look at them once to see what we got. Then the beauty is, while we are here, then if we see they need little tweaks, like White Balance correction, or exposure correction (and many of mine do, + 1/4 stop is shown below), or straightening, or tighter cropping (all the things I can easily screw up) - then we simply tweak it in as we go, in this first view pass. We can do this so easily AFTER we are able to see what it actually needs. If first glance shows it is a little dark, or a bit pink, then for Pete's sake, simply just fix it, then and there. Why wouldn't we? The camera tools are simply not good enough to help us always get this right. Much improvement opportunity is still possible, and Raw is overwhelmingly the easy way. And the fast way. We can simply give the image a tweak as we go by looking, which only takes a few seconds each. So easy, just slide the little Exposure slider thingie with your mouse, one way or the other, maybe watch the histogram, until the image looks right, like you want it, like you intended it, after you see it, after you know how it came out instead.

No one can always get white balance and exposure right in the camera. Any varied situation will see some surprises. Even for flash, white balance varies with flash output level. And then after this first viewing pass fixes it, then a click or two to output them all to JPG, and you have the same thing the camera would have output, except now, much improved pictures, with everything fixed. I must admit, Raw makes me a little lazy. I do always try to give exposure close attention, but it is almost impossible to always get it just right in the camera, and so easy to fix in Raw (so it becomes no big deal if it was not exactly right). I don't even think about White Balance in the camera (except in mixed lighting situations), since it simply doesn't matter (except on camera rear LCD, which is an embedded JPG thumbnail). Camera Auto White Balance is not always great, but it is good enough for the camera LCD, then White Balance can be ignored and corrected later. Since it often needs correcting anyway, this is really not an extra step. It is instead the easy and fast way. White Balance of course always needs attention, but Raw lets us do it leisurely anytime later, when we can actually see it.

Regular photo editors are intended for any general image, maybe like scanners, prepress, or even graphics or documents. But camera Raw software is specifically designed for camera images, and provides camera specific tools, like White Balance with specific settings like say Flash White Balance (can be one click). Exposure adjustment is also a very important tool, and Saturation is a popular tool. We choose this AFTER seeing what it needs, what would actually help it.

And a big deal, certainly for any fixed session (any time applicable, processing many images all with same lighting), this white balance correction is easily applied to all or many images simultaneously (which is lightning speed). And other problems too, exposure of course, or maybe the horizon is not level, and it needs straightening, takes only a couple of seconds. Probably we want to crop it better, another couple of seconds. This is all stuff that simply must be done anyway (it seems unimaginable not doing what is needed), and the Raw tools are so good, and so fast. And Raw of course can also bypass the JPG artifacts, and preserve the original. Certainly White Balance is a major biggie, no tools are better than this, and JPG simply does not have the range of Raw (to do it well later).

Raw software does not need anything of course, but you can install the free Nikon NEF Codex so that Windows utilities like the file explorer can show thumbnails for the Nikon Raw files... They cannot show the edits, but can show the original image. Or, Microsoft has a free codex that recognizes Raw files from several camera brands.

The Adobe ACR module (Adobe Camera Raw software) looks like this (in Photoshop CS5): Elements and Lightroom also use the same ACR module, but Lightroom changes and embeds (integrates) the user interface to do the same thing. Elements leaves out some ACR features.

The best part is that the Raw tools are so good, and so specific to cameras, and so easy, and even more so, easy definitely also includes the Select All button (top left). We can (if appropriate, if same situation, same lighting, etc), select several or all of our images in this session, maybe a hundred or two of the same session images, and apply the same White Balance correction to all (all in the same lighting). We can simply select Flash White Balance one time, or simply click this white card one time. Then this same "edit" goes into every selected one of the images, at the same time, one click, instantly. Same with Exposure adjustments, or cropping, or any adjustment, same goes into ALL selected images, one click. The necessity to handle a few hundred images is the BEST reason to use Raw, certainly not any reason not to. If dealing with many files, you will slave for hours doing the same few minutes of work otherwise.

Or really, of course the very best part is that whatever settings you make, you obviously can make them in the Raw software AFTER seeing what you have, after knowing what it actually needs, and you can see the result after you do it, and decide how much, and if it is what you want. Viewed on your large calibrated computer monitor, instead of the little three inch LCD. And you have the best tools, and the most range, to do it then. This is so easy, so fast, and so good. The JPG alternative is to make the setting in the camera before you even take the picture, maybe before you even arrive at the scene, and hope for the best (wishful thinking). Yes, we ought to get the exposure near right in the camera, but anything else, especially including White Balance, seems better done later, after we can see it and judge it, and have the tools to deal with it.

There are so many best parts of Raw. A big one is that it eliminates any thought of JPG artifacts, your images remain pristine until the last final save as JPG, one time (which can be then discarded, and fixed again in Raw and output again, when any additional change is necessary). Another is that it is lossless editing, which means, no matter how you might screw it up, your totally unmodified Raw image is still always present. Nothing is ever lost, unless you delete the file. You can always have a fresh new start from the real original. Raw "editing" never changes the original Raw file, but instead, simply saves a short "list" of the specified adjustment steps, and applies them at every output (only any output sees the changes). If you modify the edit later, it only changes the list, not the Raw file (changes a 8KB edit list file, instead of the 11MB image file) - so... you can literally uncrop it for example. Speaking of Adobe, the Raw processor can also edit JPG files in the same exact way, lossless JPG editing with lists, meaning the unmodified JPG original straight out of the camera is always still available, same way. Which is good, but JPG does not have the same range that Raw has, you will want to use Raw.

There is more too

There are many types of edits possible - see the row of tab icons below the histogram? First Basic tab is selected above, but the middle Lens Corrections tab is selected here. The tab contents are shown below it. Where Photoshop mostly provides generalized image tools, for graphics, for publishing, for scanning, and photos too, Raw provides specialized camera-oriented tools for photography, specifically to correct white balance and exposure, lens vignetting, lens distortion, lens chromatic aberration (color fringing), noise reduction, etc - stuff camera photos need. Other standard stuff like Curve and Sharpening is also in there, but I leave sharpening until last, after resampling smaller for print or view.

Vignetting here:

This picture was with Nikon D800, 14-24mm lens, f/2.8 and 14mm at ISO 4000 and 30 seconds (too much, I backed it off a little here). Vignetting in first picture is very apparent (in the top corners, bottom is cropped). This is simply what lenses do. Distortion is present too, but maybe not apparent here (because there are no lines to show it), but you know about distortion. This step fixes both. The picture on top is from the camera (out of the lens), and the copy below it simply also applied Adobes default Vignetting and Distortion controls for this specific lens model, from its profile data base (lens was selected automatically from the Exif). Notice the top corners are made full bright again. The stars around the corners and edges are also moved a bit to correct distortion.

The editing effort here consisted of simply clicking the Enable checkbox, no big deal (I think this feature is one that is not in Elements). The correction is made from a stored profile of this specific lens design, what this lens needs at this focal length and aperture. Adobe ACR has a big list of specific lens profiles, seems like all of them, and it already knows what each lens needs in this regard (and you can add others). Most lenses have some vignetting and distortion, especially wide lenses. Or of course, this can be ignored if you choose. There are Auto modes for WB and exposure, etc, if you cannot be bothered, but there seems less point then, the camera can do that much. I am usually on the first Basic tab, which is absolutely essential - White Balance and Exposure are the most important to get right. White balance was tough here, there is orange incandescent coming up from the ground in the distance onto thin wispy clouds. I decided the black sky and white stars ought to be neutral, so I just lined up the three channels in the histogram. This is all so easy with the right tools. Edit is not a scary word, this is totally easy. You just see and judge the result immediately, and tweak it if it needs it. The point is NOT that you have too... the point is that you CAN FIX IT NOW! The camera is not going to help, human help is necessary. And it is so easy too, it goes extremely fast, during your first inspection of the images, which you have to do anyway. You do have to consider, maybe you are missing out big time. :)

Or, if desired, you can also intentionally add vignetting, next tool tab over.

It is true that any settings you make in the camera, like Saturation or Contrast or Sharpening, etc, are ignored, are not implemented in the Raw file (Nikon software sees it, Adobe does not, because I think Nikon considers our image data is its proprietary data). But this is unimportant, Raw is Raw, what the camera sensor saw, and includes none of those settings. You get to see it first, before having to decide what it needs. The camera exposure settings are already done of course, and Adobe Raw does pick up the White Balance setting from the camera, and these can be used as a starting point (the camera rear LCD shows that White Balance too). Otherwise all camera settings, are ignored in Raw, but if desired, similar settings are available in the Raw software, so you simply make the settings there, after you see what you've got, what it needs, and if you like it. If you want Incandescent White Balance, you simply set it now, it does not matter what the camera did (because the camera did even not do it to Raw). But you can see it now, so you probably fine tune it closer than that coarse try. You probably made most of those camera settings several months ago, they were not even about THIS scene anyway (so it might be good to get rid of them anyway). In Raw, you can simply do the same settings later, at home, at your leisure, after you can see the result, and see what it needs. You could even save those settings as the default in Raw, to be automatically applied to all images, same as the camera does it. Seems better to actually see the image first though, but if in Raw, it can always be backed out later.

And the Raw software has a Auto White Balance settings, and even Auto Exposure (Adobe ACR CTRL U, or a Preference menu), same as the camera does Auto. Which is maybe not the best idea for these to always be automatic default in Raw of course. You can, but it seems bad because then you will lose sight of the pictures you are actually taking. Bad because for example, maybe you are always underexposing a stop or two, but you never see or know it, if the Auto Raw stuff always corrects for you first. It's surely better to realize such problems, so we ought to look at the pictures we actually take. But even then, either way, you are still able to change it easily after seeing the results. Those that do just want something automatic, and won't dare ever change anything, might as well stick with JPG. But if your goal is good correct images, the best possible, and you're not afraid to help a little, you will love Raw, because it is so powerful, so easy, and makes so much difference. The settings in the camera really don't matter if we have to redo them anyway, so it is easier and better to do them last, when you can see and judge it (and Raw allows backing them out too, anytime, if we change our mind).

At output from Raw (which is the conversion from Raw to RGB, i.e., a copy to JPG or TIF), there are choices of when/how to do it - one of which is the Save Images button at bottom left of ACR. It will save all that you selected, as JPG or TIF files, wherever you want them, and will offer file renaming options at the time (like MarysBirthday001.jpg). OK, maybe saving a couple hundred files will take a few minutes, but you can go get coffee. And then, you can have what you would have had if you shot JPG, except now the quality can be stunning (after your chance to see and correct them). Isn't good pictures pretty much the whole idea? Realize that these JPG become only temporary and expendable copies, for whatever purpose at the time, and the original Raw remains your archived master copy (the previous edit list is saved too), and you go back to it next time you need different output. The link at bottom center (ACR screen above) offers setup options about output size and printing dpi and sRGB, etc. And there are of course other output options, the Open Image button sends one or more of them (all that are selected) to Photoshop (the same ACR is more embedded into Lightroom, but my knowledge is about Photoshop). Using Raw means you don't have to add JPG artifacts until that one last final save as JPG for whatever purpose. I treat the JPG as expendable, and discard it, and output again, rather than to ever edit JPG again. I often use a batch menu in Photoshop for output, which accesses and converts all Raw files in a folder, and offers wider resample options, and can also apply other Actions at it goes. You have to love Raw, it offers so much.

What is the downside? Well, unless your stuff already has it, you will have to buy some good Raw software. The Raw files are at least double size of JPG. And Raw files cannot be distributed or used as such, so there is an extra step to convert Raw to JPG or TIF files. But the opportunity and advantage of Raw is so great. The editing tweaks are so easy, and so good, and the tools make this be the fastest and best way to do what is always needed anyway.

Both Adobe Elements and Lightroom use this same Adobe Raw module (ACR), at much less cost than Photoshop. Trial versions are available that you can check out ( www.adobe.com/downloads ). Elements normally does omit some features (here seems a good comparison ). Adobe only updates the current version of ACR for new cameras, so that latest version may be necessary for the newest cameras. Or, for Nikon cameras, the Nikon Capture NX2 Raw software (developed by Nik Software, bought by Google now, trial copy at www.capturenx.com ) has fans, but it was just not the same experience for me. Nikon can see and honor all of the camera settings (like Vivid, Contrast, Sharpening, etc), where Adobe Raw does not (I think this data is considered proprietary). Some appear to equate this with higher quality results, but I see no evidence of it. Having to choose before we can see it is what we are trying to avoid, and my own notion of "quality" instead comes after we can see it and fix it, knowing what it needs first. Nikon also offers their free ViewNX2 Raw software (only for Nikon NEF raw files). This version is free.

Otherwise, don't be confused by some regular photo software which can also open Raw files. For example, Faststone is free, and a decent standard editor, but it is NOT a Raw editor. Yes, it can open the Raw file, and yes, you can see and edit it, but only with regular 8-bit photo tools, not with any camera Raw tools, and not with the same range. Yes, you can save that edit as JPG, but the paths part then, it does not affect the next time you open that Raw file. It only saves the result, not the edit steps, so you have to start over next time you open the original Raw file. And you cannot back the changes out of the JPG, it is not lossless editing. Faststone is a decent photo editor, but it is NOT a Raw program, and it offers no Raw advantages (everything is 8 bits). So in this case, you ain't seen nothing yet. :)

FWIW, I timed a test... 154 12-megapixel D300 Raw images, 1.51 GB. A studio portrait session like above, all frames very similar. Opening them all at once in ACR. Then selecting All, clicking the white card in the first one, and adding +0.25EV Exposure (for all), and cropping all a bit smaller to 5x7 shape took maybe 20 seconds - total. This did not look at any but the first few (I knew what they were). Realistically, then individually viewing and checking 154 images and scooting the crop box a bit on some, is maybe five or ten seconds each (which is a relatively long time, now that White Balance and exposure is fixed). For 154 images, this should have taken maybe 25 minutes. So here, only a check for cropping still needs this pass, but we really ought to at least look at all of our pictures. A few could be deleted as we go. At Close, the 12 megapixel Raw files are NOT Saved and rewritten again (they are never changed) - instead only about 8KB of each edit instruction file is saved, no big deal time wise. Then using a Photoshop batch to resample all to 5x7 inch printed size (3 megapixels), an i7 computer and a 500GB disk took eight minutes to output all (to apply these adjustments and resample and output 154 JPG files) as smaller JPG Quality 9 (5 minutes if not resampled smaller). That is the one and only Save as JPG these images ever saw. They will never be edited - if any change is wanted, they will be discarded and output again. 12GB of memory, but it only used about 3GB for the entire system. So for a session of 154 similar images, maybe 35 minutes can make such a major improvement (including individual verification of each, in this fixed situation). You can't give 154 of your images that much time? You have to look at them regardless. What is the alternative? Random pictures require more individual attention, but consider that alternative. My notion is that NOT doing this same work is simply unacceptable, regardless if JPG or Raw. What was the point if we don't? Raw just makes it easy and fast and good. And of course, if you really are so good that all of your pictures are always perfect, then this viewing pass won't take long at all.

A certain amount of "edit" simply must happen in any possible case. Not because it's Raw, but because no one can always get exposure and white balance, or even cropping, exactly correct (our camera tools, and our own attention, are simply not that good). Your JPG always needs this same editing work, Raw just makes this attention be very easy (and results very good). I shoot 100% Raw, because it is so worthwhile, like day and night, especially handy in any batch environment (handling many images in same lighting).

An example story: My wife is not into photography, but takes pictures depending on her little automatic point&shoot camera, and then on me to make it right. Now and then she brings me her memory card, with maybe craft or women's group stuff, or from one of our cruises, sometimes a few hundred images. She wants 6x4 inch prints. The Adobe Camera Raw software works on JPG too, so the first thing I do is open all her JPG in it, because the tools are so much better. JPG is still only 8 bits of course, but the Raw software tools are easier, stronger, and oriented for camera images. Also Adobe Raw software offers the same multiple file editing, and the same lossless editing for JPG as for Raw (avoiding accumulation of JPG artifacts from multiple times). The original JPG data is never modified, instead edit instructions are stored, and applied at any output. Other programs cannot see this edit in this file, they only see the original JPG, until you "output" from Adobe, into a finished JPG they can see.

Anyway, then just I select "All", and crop the first one of the 4:3 compact camera format to full frame width at 3:2 (to match the 6x4 paper). Basically one click, crop All is as fast as one. Then while quickly looking at each one (which must be done regardless), I might scoot that individual cropped frame up or down to better center the subject on the paper - just a nudge, a touch, as I go. A few will individually need straightening, or tighter cropping to be an effective picture, eliminating side distractions, etc. Her little camera cannot use bounce flash, so many need red eye correction, just some simple clicks. And some need to tweak exposure or white balance, just tweak a slider or click something white (more or less). Do what you see it needs. JPG does not have the same range as Raw, but small tweaks are usually satisfactory, and any try is certainly better than not fixing it. All this is done as I go by looking, very fast. Some need nothing more, so it averages only a few seconds each frame - done by eye, to make it look better, all so easy. This quick pass is really pretty much the same effort as any first look at them, but it offers awesome tweaking capabilities as I go, just putting the ideas into actions as I go.

A few may need a little more work, removing glare on eyeglasses, or something important that needs touch up with regular edit tools (Clone tool, Healing Brush, etc)... Especially in serious studio portraits, ladies love the touchup. These are then output as TIF for editing in other editors. The number of repeated TIF Saves doesn't matter (lossless), which also allows coming back to them later if necessary, if something difficult. Meanwhile, at completion, I run a resample batch that sizes them all to 1800x1200 JPG for uploading and printing 6x4 inches (Specifically, "Fit To" 1800x1800, so that the crop and aspect ratio handles any portrait or landscape). Doing JPG in Adobe Raw is lossless - this batch accesses the original JPG, applies the corrections, resamples, and outputs as only one more JPG save. You can of course upload your large file, the printer people can handle it if the cropped aspect ratio is right, but I resample them smaller, and only upload what is needed for that one specific print job. She just saves the print, and the original file (and edit instructions) is the archived master copy.

So this can be a total of only two JPG saves and artifacts, one from the camera, and the final output for upload to be printed, both of the two at high JPG quality. Much of this processing was simultaneous on all, or at least on several, but each frame has had a few seconds of individual attention (the alternative is not to correct them, which is unacceptable). Then during her own first look, she might delete a few before printing, but she thinks her little camera is fantastic, it takes such really good pictures. Working on Raw files is easier, pretty much same procedure (the quick inspection pass), except that wider Raw range is capable of much more, and omits the cameras JPG artifacts.

A summary of benefits of Raw mentioned here:

• You don't worry about white balance until later at home, after you can see it, and evaluate it, and still change your mind. Even if you simply set Flash WB in your camera, you can simply set Flash WB here too, same thing, but you can do greatly better, and get it right. A test shot with a white card will be a big help.
• You can easily tweak individual exposures too, later, after you can actually see results, to know what it actually needs - and still change your mind.
• Raw tools are specialized to be ideal for cameras and photography (powerful and easy).
• You can apply edits, like white balance, exposure, cropping, whatever, to many or all images in the same click (great for similar work).
• No JPG artifacts are ever added, until the one last final output and save as JPG for your goals purpose.
• Editing Raw is lossless, no change is ever made to the original source Raw file. Any and all changes can be losslessly backed out later.
• Even JPG and TIF files too, if done in ACR, the original data is never modified (your original source is always available, no additional JPG artifacts due to editing). When edited in ACR, this is always lossless editing which can be backed out without any effect.

These are all pretty big deals, important, really helpful. I probably overlooked something, and OK, so I am guilty of proselytizing, but facts are facts, and during that fast first look at your images, in that few minutes (hardly more than the time to just look at them once), you can optionally do a few quick necessary corrections, so much, so easy, so good, on so many files, with so few clicks, when you can actually see it to know what it needs, which will make such a tremendous difference in your images. The simple fact is, Raw is the easy and fast and good way. I would be very crippled without it. There are really good reasons Raw is so popular, it makes it be so easy, and good, and fast.

Adobe Camera Raw Exposure slider tools

The best help for the Adobe software is to simply search Google for the specific term, for example, like: Adobe Raw Recovery. There is vast amounts of this online, most of it pretty good.

Exposure slider is just the Levels tool White Point (histogram right end point). Levels Input White Point can only move down, increasing intensity (much the same as higher ISO would increase exposure). Levels also has the Output Levels which will decrease intensity. This Raw Exposure slider combines them, so it can slide both ways, to be both more or less exposure. If reducing exposure (shifting left), the white end may have no data if previously clipped in one or more channels. The Recovery slider helps to restore (fake) that clipped channel data to some extent, when reducing exposure.

Blacks slider is just the Levels tool Black Point (histogram left end point). It shifts the Black Point up, making higher brighter points be zero (black), so it shifts towards darker. But specifically, it makes the blacks be black, without affecting whites.

Fill Light slider seems like the Levels center point, raising the curve, brightening mostly the lower and middle zones, without affecting the end points to avoid clipping or changing image contrast. The effect is to make it brighter, not unlike providing flash fill. After Exposure is correct and if the histogram is already near the right end, this is likely better than increasing Exposure.

Contrast and Brightness are sort of dumb tools, like in any editor, but not the best tools. Which is opinion, but Contrast just moves both end points inward (Exposure and Blacks) by the same amount, increasing contrast by making whites whiter and blacks blacker. Which is sometimes good (esp for B&W pictures), but always best done individually when looking at the actual histogram data to know what it needs, and can bear. Brightness just adds a constant to all values, simply shifting the histogram up, possibly clipping whites and leaving blacks as gray (hurts contrast). After Exposure is correct, then raising the center of the curve (Fill Light here) is the better way to brighten, to avoid affecting the end points and ruining contrast.

The point of bringing this up here: Note that both Exposure and Blacks works with the ALT key (in Windows, and I think Option key for Mac) the same as it works in Levels... Holding down ALT key while moving them will change the preview display, to now show only the actual pixels being clipped in the image, so you can know which pixels are being clipped as you move it. This is a very key tool, like for portrait facial highlights, etc. Some things don't suffer when clipped, but some things do. Faces do matter.

Recovery, Fill Light, and Brightness - are in the process of disappearing from latest versions. There is much discussion online.