POLL: How often do you shoot raw images?

Started 7 months ago | Polls thread
djddpr
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,343
Like?
Re: Photographic evidence -- part 1 of 3, 2004 thru 2007
In reply to gardenersassistant, 7 months ago

Nick,

I am sorry to be tardy in replying to your prompt response to my request for information about the extent of editing of jpg files in your earlier post that shows jpg vs raw comparisons.

I have again reviewed your comparisons with your additional information.  My conclusions are:  1.  RAW post-processed vs. JPG SOOC --  RAW is superior in my opinion.  More detail and more natural-looking contrast and saturation.  2.  RAW post-processed vs. JPG post-processed -- too close to call, even in the 100% crops.  The principal question for me becomes the nature of post-processing applied to each.  I notice that where post-processed RAW has more natural-looking contrast and saturation, the difference could be significantly narrowed with better post-processing of the JPG. I base this conclusion on my experience with post-processing thousands of JPG's.

My overall conclusion is that your photographic evidence is good and valuable and is inconclusive regarding the relative merits of the results of RAW vs. JPG.  Or perhaps the correct conclusion from this sample is:  for a reasonably properly exposed photo, reasonably proper post-processing of RAW and JPG produce approximately equivalent results.

David Dollevoet

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