Raw versus JPG Side by side. no contest

Started 9 months ago | Discussions thread
jackdan
Contributing MemberPosts: 892
Like?
Re: Raw versus JPG Side by side. no contest
In reply to Ron AKA, 9 months ago

Ron AKA wrote:

jackdan wrote

1. As others have pointed out you are comparing a processed RAW image with an unprocessed JPEG, so that alone pretty much kills any true comparison.

Well, I pretty much stopped reading after that first sentence in the first point destroyed your credibility. Of course you compare an unprocessed JPEG to a processed RAW. This is what it is all about.

I know you think I totally destroyed my credibility, so there may be no point in continuing, but I don't think I got a fair shake so I will try to politely respond.

I see it as a difference of opinion rather than a case of one of us being right and the other being wrong. I see what you are saying and that perspective did not occur to me, so yes you have a valid point. I am not even going to attempt to convince you otherwise, but I do want to share my perspective.

Without more information I am assuming sleepwalker's JPEG was taken with the default JPEG settings. My limited experience with the default settings for JPEGs is that they tend to be very middle of the road and are far from producing the best JPEG. With all the possible combinations of settings many different JPEGs are possible from one camera. So what we have with an unprocessed JPEG is just one such JPEG from just one camera. Surely nobody thinks that particular JPEG tells us anything significant about JPEGs from other cameras, especially across brands. Even for the camera it came from that particular JPEG does not reflect what the camera is capable of. Plus you don't know how good the JPEG can be if it is not PP and it certainly will be better after it is processed.

A properly processed RAW on the other hand is considered something that can be meaningfully compared with such RAWs from any other cameras. All I am saying is that for the JPEG to have any comparative value it to needs to be processed to it's ultimate quality also. One OOC JPEG from one set of unoptimized JPEG settings can be compared with a processed RAW and that would be of interest to the camera's owner and if the JPEG settings were known possibly to other owners of the same camera, but why would anyone else care? You are saying that is what it is all about and for sure that is true for sleepwalker, but he is putting it out for the world to see and is saying it proves RAW is better than JPEG. Surely everyone by now is convinced that RAW gives you the best quality possible and of course a processed RAW will be better than an unprocessed JPEG and why should I care what his camera's OOC JPEG looks like?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow