LX3 Raw VS Jpg

Started 6 months ago | Discussion thread
Jeffery1987
Regular MemberPosts: 242
Like?
Re: LX3 Raw VS Jpg
In reply to griddi, 6 months ago

griddi wrote:

​Well maybe there's a reason for that. It's because you already made your mind up about JPEG vs RAW, you make presumptions about people based on incomplete facts then bait people into arguments. You assume people who shoot RAW as being 'RAW obsessed' and don't spend as much shooting. This is how all the arguments in this place starts, so why don't we just be a bit mature about our own opinions?

Aah..... here we go again.......

Does this not works two way's ? The RAW shooter's have made up their minds, that only RAW is better....

The fact is RAW has superior image quality but requires time, JPEG is fast and smaller but has inferior image quality. Each format's strength is the other's weakness, it comes down to what compromise you like. When people argue it's not about RAW or JPEG, it's about one party trying to convince the other that their choice is bad. You go around accusing people of being 'RAW obsessed' and don't go out and shoot much, what do you think is going to happen?

The simple fact is there is no easy way to extract the best image quality without spending time. JPEG's image quality is good enough for some people but it's not for everyone.

It also depends, if one likes to impress other people with their photo's ( apart if one want to sell etc. ) or if one takes photo's for their own enjoyment, and I belongs to these, so, as I see no difference anyway, why bother?

No one here has tried to convince anyone else to shoot their format of choice.

Great fantastic, there´s nothing wrong with shooting JPEG. But you can´t deny the fact there is a difference between the two and it´s quite significant for some of us. The other issue is whether people know what to look for to see a difference. The difference is there, even in OP´s sample images.

Perhaps your eyes are better than mine, but I truly don't see any difference between a good JPEG and a RAW photo......

The RAW files are sharper with less digital artefact and it simply looks less digital. With even more setting tweaking you get rid of all that and still maintain the sharpness.

What ?????

Alright here's a quick comparison just for you. I made this quite big so you can see it better, view the images at 'original size'. The RAWs were ACR converted with default settings:

ISO 80

Can you see the letters 'ACER' retains the line textures much better than the JPEG? The RAW however does show more noise. This effect is amplified with the absence of details or textures, and under low light. There is a tiny hint of colour noise and smudging effect, but not enough to be a problem.

ISO 1600 no NR

Now at ISO 1600 the difference is now massive. Amazingly the letters still retains it's line texture but the noise is now amplified in both photos. BUT the important thing to note is the noise characteristics. You see how in the RAW file the grain are well defined, pointy and no colour noise? It could almost pass off as a film photo. Whereas in the JPEG everything has been smudged due to heavy NR and compression. Heavy NR and compression is what gives it that digital look.

The fact that the letters still retained the texture shows you how incredible the LX3's sensor is. This is what I meant by JPEG not doing the sensor justice.

ISO 1600 + NR

Lastly, let's apply some NR to the RAW and slight curve adjustment. Just to keep things balanced the curve adjustment was also applied to the JPEG file (but no NR). You see what the fuss is all about now? RAW retains the details, black still looks like black, no smudging, no colour noise, much better sharpness, better colours, and best of all, it doesn't give a digital look.

Hope this helps.

Jeffery

--
www.jefferywen.com

Edited 6 months ago by Jeffery1987
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow