That RAW Troublemaker Again With Files

Started 10 months ago | Discussions
Gary Eickmeier
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,446
Like?
Re: ok, I gave 833 a shot...
In reply to Alan_S, 10 months ago

Alan_S wrote:

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Filedropper.com! Forehead slap! NOW you're talking! Try this:

http://www.filedropper.com/dsc00833

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

First your in-cam jpg (isn't this the one you started that entire other thread on, showing it was "better" than processed from RAW?):

...followed by results after a few seconds of basic slider adjustments in ACR:

which once again demonstrates why I don't waste card space on in-cam JPGs, even with casual snapshots like this one (if nothing else, look at the detail gained in the clouds!). As "good" as in-cam processing may be, I've always seen better results processing to my own liking.

-- hide signature --

- AlanS

Are you comparing your processed image with my unprocessed one?

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gary Eickmeier
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,446
Like?
Re: Or....
In reply to silentstorm, 10 months ago

silentstorm wrote:

Filedropper.com! Forehead slap! NOW you're talking! Try this:

http://www.filedropper.com/dsc00833

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

Downloaded this & have a quickie check. With everything set at default 0 & WB custom set to 5500K, the full pics look like this:

Photoshop ACR

The one converted with Sony IDC with DRO off & NR off & len correction off

Prelim results is that I see more colour hues from the IDC converted. Haven't really look deeper into the images, so that's a first glance

Do you have any images with more colour hues?

Might have - I have posted many images in the last couple of months - but I think the group is tiring of this subject right now.

Sorry I had to pull my files off the group but it looked to me like they were letting the world into my computer and making other files visible. Maybe it just happened that way on my computer because it got those other ones from offline, but still bothered me.

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JamieTux
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,769Gear list
Like?
So did I
In reply to Alan_S, 10 months ago

I stuck to my 3 minute rule - here's my attempt - if I were going to take more time on it I'd concentrate more on the sky still...

 JamieTux's gear list:JamieTux's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF2 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Claudio Galli
Regular MemberPosts: 368Gear list
Like?
Re: Or....
In reply to Gary Eickmeier, 10 months ago

Dear all,

while I certainly agree that starting from a raw file and having the necessary skills you can arrive at a better image than the OOC jpg, from all these debates JPG vs RAW I have the feeling that the RAW fans quite often start from the concept that once you shoot jpg you cannot do anything to improve your image.

I have right clicked on my mouse and downloaded the first image of Alan. With a quick adjustment of shadows and highlights in Photoshop, I have arrived at a final image that is quite acceptable, even starting from a downloaded and compressed jpg image.

By the way, how do people use their photos for? Only to see them at a computer screen at 100% zoom just to find every possible flaw? In my case I print a photobook every time I make a travel around the world. Believe me, looking at my pictures printed at even a double spread page, it is impossible (at least for me) to see the imperfections that I saw viewing them at 100% zoom on the computer screen.

My humble suggestion: do whatever you want with your pictures (JPG or RAW, it does not matter), but then relax yourself and find a way to enjoy looking at them without bothering too much about the technical aspects.

Best shooting and pixel peeping to you all!

Claudio

 Claudio Galli's gear list:Claudio Galli's gear list
Sony RX100 II Sony SLT-A77 Sony DT 11-18mm F4.5-5.6 Sony DT 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 Sony DT 55-300mm F4.5-5.6 SAM +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Alan_S
Senior MemberPosts: 1,399Gear list
Like?
Re: For what it's worth...
In reply to Gary Eickmeier, 10 months ago

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Alan_S wrote:

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Alan_S wrote:

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Alan_S wrote:

I grabbed two RAW/JPG files from the links you had posted briefly... Here's my quick rendition in Adobe Camera Raw (displayed at left in Photoshop at 100%, along with the same crop of your untouched JPG):

-- hide signature --

- AlanS

Well, different exposure choices, nice and sharp, but not a big difference from the JPG. Did you catch the 833 file that was the subject of the long thread?

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

No, saw the JPG version of the other one, but didn't find the RAW file.

Regarding your image above, this is typical of results I see from an average well lit snapshot (RAW vs JPG), and indicative of my earlier statement that I've always (no exceptions, none) gotten a better image processing the raw myself vs the OOC JPG. No, this is not a particular dramatic difference, but in comparison the OOC JPG is dull and muddy looking -- before processing the RAW I didn't even notice the reflected light on the side of the truck and could barely see the trailer number. Pull it up close and you'll see a lot more detail on the left image in the palm tree, the bricks, the vent grid on the brick wall, even the traffic lights. So, when even rather mundane "good light" samples like this show obvious improvements processed from RAW, I just cannot bring myself to waste the card space on in-cam JPGs. I want each image to look the best that it can, and I've found that the in-cam JPG almost never does that for me.

More challengingly lit scenes will provide even more flexibility to extract dramatically more detail, as in this example

-- hide signature --

- AlanS

Yep - that is what RAW is for all right!

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

Exactly... not for "fixing mistakes" (in my above example I purposely exposed mid-way between blown highlights and darkest shadows, so that I could extract the best of both from the RAW), but for getting the best possible from each image.

-- hide signature --

- AlanS

Fine, but have you heard about the a77 and a99's auto HDR? Works only in JPG mode.

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

Fine, if you you want to hand over all the control to the camera and accept the results, in a much smaller 8-bit file, with image compression applied, decided upon by the processor -- that may be your choice, usually not mine. Prefer having the full 16-bit file to process my way; this also demonstrates the fantastic dynamic range of the a99, less need to take those multiple exposures used by auto HDR.

-- hide signature --

- AlanS

 Alan_S's gear list:Alan_S's gear list
Sony SLT-A77 Sony SLT-A99 Sony 70-200mm F2.8 G Sony 16-35mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Sony 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Alan_S
Senior MemberPosts: 1,399Gear list
Like?
Re: ok, I gave 833 a shot...
In reply to Gary Eickmeier, 10 months ago

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Alan_S wrote:

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Filedropper.com! Forehead slap! NOW you're talking! Try this:

http://www.filedropper.com/dsc00833

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

First your in-cam jpg (isn't this the one you started that entire other thread on, showing it was "better" than processed from RAW?):

...followed by results after a few seconds of basic slider adjustments in ACR:

which once again demonstrates why I don't waste card space on in-cam JPGs, even with casual snapshots like this one (if nothing else, look at the detail gained in the clouds!). As "good" as in-cam processing may be, I've always seen better results processing to my own liking.

-- hide signature --

- AlanS

Are you comparing your processed image with my unprocessed one?

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

Not sure I understand your question (all JPGs have been processed, either by the camera or separately, from RAW)... you posted your RAW and your JPG files of 833, I downloaded both. The bottom image above is derived from your RAW file, which I processed in ACR. The top image is your JPG, untouched by me (it was derived from the same RAW file and processed on your end, either by you or your camera).

-- hide signature --

- AlanS

 Alan_S's gear list:Alan_S's gear list
Sony SLT-A77 Sony SLT-A99 Sony 70-200mm F2.8 G Sony 16-35mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Sony 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Alan_S
Senior MemberPosts: 1,399Gear list
Like?
Re: Or....
In reply to Claudio Galli, 10 months ago

Claudio Galli wrote:

Dear all,

while I certainly agree that starting from a raw file and having the necessary skills you can arrive at a better image than the OOC jpg, from all these debates JPG vs RAW I have the feeling that the RAW fans quite often start from the concept that once you shoot jpg you cannot do anything to improve your image.

I have right clicked on my mouse and downloaded the first image of Alan. With a quick adjustment of shadows and highlights in Photoshop, I have arrived at a final image that is quite acceptable, even starting from a downloaded and compressed jpg image.

By the way, how do people use their photos for? Only to see them at a computer screen at 100% zoom just to find every possible flaw? In my case I print a photobook every time I make a travel around the world. Believe me, looking at my pictures printed at even a double spread page, it is impossible (at least for me) to see the imperfections that I saw viewing them at 100% zoom on the computer screen.

My humble suggestion: do whatever you want with your pictures (JPG or RAW, it does not matter), but then relax yourself and find a way to enjoy looking at them without bothering too much about the technical aspects.

Best shooting and pixel peeping to you all!

Claudio

Agree with your words that one can choose to settle for "acceptable results" (for web viewing, etc. - however I could not make an acceptable large print of that processed jpg, therefore could never market it as such), or one can choose to "arrive at a better image than the OOC jpg" by processing the RAW. It is an individual choice :)! I didn't become what you call a "RAW fan" because I like a little extra work... I became sold on processing my own RAW files by seeing the dramatic flexibility and improved results I can get for large prints -- the control to do it my way! After seeing it for myself, I just can't bring myself to settle for second best.

-- hide signature --

- AlanS

 Alan_S's gear list:Alan_S's gear list
Sony SLT-A77 Sony SLT-A99 Sony 70-200mm F2.8 G Sony 16-35mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Sony 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Claudio Galli
Regular MemberPosts: 368Gear list
Like?
Re: Or....
In reply to Alan_S, 10 months ago

Dear AlanS,

with “RAW fan” I didn’t want to hurt anybody. I could have equally written “RAW expert”, “RAW enthusiast”, “RAW guru”, “RAW addicted” and so on. So please forgive me as English is not my mother language.

All the best and keep on good shooting!

Claudio

 Claudio Galli's gear list:Claudio Galli's gear list
Sony RX100 II Sony SLT-A77 Sony DT 11-18mm F4.5-5.6 Sony DT 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 Sony DT 55-300mm F4.5-5.6 SAM +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Clayton1985
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,795
Like?
Re: Or....
In reply to Claudio Galli, 10 months ago

Claudio Galli wrote:

Dear all,

while I certainly agree that starting from a raw file and having the necessary skills you can arrive at a better image than the OOC jpg, from all these debates JPG vs RAW I have the feeling that the RAW fans quite often start from the concept that once you shoot jpg you cannot do anything to improve your image.

I may have missed it but I didn't see anyone saying this... the original point made by the OP (with an example to show exactly what he considered better) was that "sometimes the jpg is better" or for the full sentence:

"Not sure what the moral of the story is except take a look at both when editing, and always shoot both, not just RAW. Sometimes the RAW can save your butt, sometimes the JPG is better."

I have right clicked on my mouse and downloaded the first image of Alan. With a quick adjustment of shadows and highlights in Photoshop, I have arrived at a final image that is quite acceptable, even starting from a downloaded and compressed jpg image.

By the way, how do people use their photos for? Only to see them at a computer screen at 100% zoom just to find every possible flaw? In my case I print a photobook every time I make a travel around the world. Believe me, looking at my pictures printed at even a double spread page, it is impossible (at least for me) to see the imperfections that I saw viewing them at 100% zoom on the computer screen.

No one is saying that you can't shoot jpg and can't get good results for your photobook.  Are you saying that you can get better results for your photobook shooting jpg?  Otherwise, I'm not sure how your comments are related to the original topic.  Or are you just trying to turn this into the usual raw versus jpg debate?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
VirtualMirage
Senior MemberPosts: 2,233Gear list
Like?
Re: For what it's worth...
In reply to Gary Eickmeier, 10 months ago

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Alan_S wrote:

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Alan_S wrote:

...More challengingly lit scenes will provide even more flexibility to extract dramatically more detail, as in this example

-- hide signature --

- AlanS

Yep - that is what RAW is for all right!

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

Exactly... not for "fixing mistakes" (in my above example I purposely exposed mid-way between blown highlights and darkest shadows, so that I could extract the best of both from the RAW), but for getting the best possible from each image.

-- hide signature --

- AlanS

Fine, but have you heard about the a77 and a99's auto HDR? Works only in JPG mode.

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

But if I am seeing it correctly, that shot isn't HDR.  It is a single shot.  If you do the auto HDR mode in the camera, it takes multiple shots (3 if I remember correctly).  For it to work well, you need to be sure you are on a tripod or holding the camera still (especially for low light situations).  Also make sure there are not a lot of moving subjects, otherwise you risk ghosting.

But this doesn't mean you can't do HDR with RAW.  And also remember, since you mentioned you shoot in RAW+JPEG, the auto HDR doesn't work in that mode either.  It only works in JPEG only setting.

Plus, with a properly exposed RAW file you can take advantage of its 12-bit or 14-bit color depth (per channel) to recover a lot of detail that would normally be clipped out.  From a single, properly exposed RAW file you can produce results that look close to HDR (but isn't true HDR). With JPEG its 8-bit color depth per channel, and compression you are facing an uphill battle to come anywhere close achieving similar results with a single exposure.

The other option is via multiple exposures and blending them together with an HDR plug-in/software.  HDR Effects by Google/Nik works pretty well.  You can start of with 3 shots, but you can do 5, or even 7 shots (the more shots can usually improve the results).  Like any type of blended shot that uses multiple exposures, ghosting will always be a potential problem.  But at least these types of software tend to be better at keeping ghosting under control, with exception to extreme examples.

-- hide signature --

Paul

 VirtualMirage's gear list:VirtualMirage's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony SLT-A77 Sony a77 II Sony 50mm F1.4 Tokina AT-X Pro 11-16mm f/2.8 DX +23 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Claudio Galli
Regular MemberPosts: 368Gear list
Like?
Re: Or....
In reply to Clayton1985, 10 months ago

Clayton1985 wrote:

Claudio Galli wrote:

Dear all,

while I certainly agree that starting from a raw file and having the necessary skills you can arrive at a better image than the OOC jpg, from all these debates JPG vs RAW I have the feeling that the RAW fans quite often start from the concept that once you shoot jpg you cannot do anything to improve your image.

I may have missed it but I didn't see anyone saying this...

I have only said that it was my feeling. Not that somebody said this.

the original point made by the OP (with an example to show exactly what he considered better) was that "sometimes the jpg is better" or for the full sentence:

"Not sure what the moral of the story is except take a look at both when editing, and always shoot both, not just RAW. Sometimes the RAW can save your butt, sometimes the JPG is better."

I have right clicked on my mouse and downloaded the first image of Alan. With a quick adjustment of shadows and highlights in Photoshop, I have arrived at a final image that is quite acceptable, even starting from a downloaded and compressed jpg image.

By the way, how do people use their photos for? Only to see them at a computer screen at 100% zoom just to find every possible flaw? In my case I print a photobook every time I make a travel around the world. Believe me, looking at my pictures printed at even a double spread page, it is impossible (at least for me) to see the imperfections that I saw viewing them at 100% zoom on the computer screen.

No one is saying that you can't shoot jpg and can't get good results for your photobook. Are you saying that you can get better results for your photobook shooting jpg?

Never said that

Otherwise, I'm not sure how your comments are related to the original topic. Or are you just trying to turn this into the usual raw versus jpg debate?

Far from me !!! Never ever !!!

Claudio

 Claudio Galli's gear list:Claudio Galli's gear list
Sony RX100 II Sony SLT-A77 Sony DT 11-18mm F4.5-5.6 Sony DT 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 Sony DT 55-300mm F4.5-5.6 SAM +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
VirtualMirage
Senior MemberPosts: 2,233Gear list
Like?
Re: Or....
In reply to Claudio Galli, 10 months ago

Claudio Galli wrote:

Dear all,

while I certainly agree that starting from a raw file and having the necessary skills you can arrive at a better image than the OOC jpg, from all these debates JPG vs RAW I have the feeling that the RAW fans quite often start from the concept that once you shoot jpg you cannot do anything to improve your image.

I have right clicked on my mouse and downloaded the first image of Alan. With a quick adjustment of shadows and highlights in Photoshop, I have arrived at a final image that is quite acceptable, even starting from a downloaded and compressed jpg image.

By the way, how do people use their photos for? Only to see them at a computer screen at 100% zoom just to find every possible flaw? In my case I print a photobook every time I make a travel around the world. Believe me, looking at my pictures printed at even a double spread page, it is impossible (at least for me) to see the imperfections that I saw viewing them at 100% zoom on the computer screen.

My humble suggestion: do whatever you want with your pictures (JPG or RAW, it does not matter), but then relax yourself and find a way to enjoy looking at them without bothering too much about the technical aspects.

Best shooting and pixel peeping to you all!

Claudio

It might look acceptable being that you downsized the photo to around .2 MP (yes, less than 1MP), but what does it look like at full size? Were you able to retain the detail and the subtle color changes and shadings? Or does it start to become a mess, which might be why you downsized it so drastically from its 5.2MP original size?

You may argue that we are pixel peeping and that it shouldn't matter. But frankly, it does matter to those of us that print big or work on 24"+ monitors with resolutions that equal or exceed 2MP. I print large and I have a large monitor, so it is valid to me. Your 560x373 image is barely even suitable for web only viewing. If I was to print that image, it would be no larger than a wallet size print (3.5"x2.5") if printing at 180dpi. And I usually prefer printing at 360dpi.

If you try to post something to prove us wrong or to show otherwise, you need to demonstrate it on the same playing field. Otherwise, you will have nothing to backup your claims since all people will see are the discrepancies between your comparisons. In this example, that discrepancy would be the tiny resolution of your images.

-- hide signature --

Paul

 VirtualMirage's gear list:VirtualMirage's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony SLT-A77 Sony a77 II Sony 50mm F1.4 Tokina AT-X Pro 11-16mm f/2.8 DX +23 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Claudio Galli
Regular MemberPosts: 368Gear list
Like?
Re: Or....
In reply to VirtualMirage, 10 months ago

As I have said, I have just right clicked on my mouse and downloaded the Alan image on my desktop, without looking at its size. I have opened this downloaded image in PS and corrected it. Saved and reloaded to the tread.

I do not think I have done anything wrong. I have processed a low res images (the only one I have been able to download), and obviously also the processed image is low res.! I do not think anything would have changed if I have used a higher res image.

In my humble opinion, showing how you can adjust the shadows and the highlights of an image has nothing to do with the size of the image you are working on.

Claudio

 Claudio Galli's gear list:Claudio Galli's gear list
Sony RX100 II Sony SLT-A77 Sony DT 11-18mm F4.5-5.6 Sony DT 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 Sony DT 55-300mm F4.5-5.6 SAM +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Alan_S
Senior MemberPosts: 1,399Gear list
Like?
Re: Or....
In reply to Claudio Galli, 10 months ago

Dear AlanS,

with “RAW fan” I didn’t want to hurt anybody. I could have equally written “RAW expert”, “RAW enthusiast”, “RAW guru”, “RAW addicted” and so on. So please forgive me as English is not my mother language.

All the best and keep on good shooting!

Claudio

No offense taken, Claudio - I appreciate your comments! Just wanted to clarify my choice to shoot RAW is 100% outcome/results oriented. I read these forum debates for years; am glad they intrigued me to give it a try but only became convinced after seeing my own results. Thanks for the input!
--
- AlanS

 Alan_S's gear list:Alan_S's gear list
Sony SLT-A77 Sony SLT-A99 Sony 70-200mm F2.8 G Sony 16-35mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Sony 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
VirtualMirage
Senior MemberPosts: 2,233Gear list
Like?
Re: Or....
In reply to Claudio Galli, 10 months ago

Claudio Galli wrote:

As I have said, I have just right clicked on my mouse and downloaded the Alan image on my desktop, without looking at its size. I have opened this downloaded image in PS and corrected it. Saved and reloaded to the tread.

I do not think I have done anything wrong. I have processed a low res images (the only one I have been able to download), and obviously also the processed image is low res.! I do not think anything would have changed if I have used a higher res image.

That mean you only captured the in thread image. That image is designed to scale for forum viewing purposes and is done automatically by DPReview's site. That is why when you click on the image, you see a different view that offers a loupe and 100% view. DPreview takes all images and converts it to multiple viewing sizes. Alan_S didn't upload that small image file, that was DPReview's doing.

What you want is the original file he uploaded to DPReview. That is the file I was originally viewing and most likely many others were viewing too. This can be found if you click the link under his photo called "original size". That will bring up the larger image.

In my humble opinion, showing how you can adjust the shadows and the highlights of an image has nothing to do with the size of the image you are working on.

Claudio

But it does!  It hides the limitations of JPEG versus RAW.  Since you are adjusting the shadows and highlights, in JPEG you are only adjusting them via an 8-bit scale (up to 256 shades).  Where as with RAW, you are adjusting the highlights and shadows based on a 12-bit (up to 4096 shades) or 14 bit scale (up to 16,384 shades).  The fewer pixels you have, the harder is to see subtle color transitions, clipping, posterization, and more.  Low resolution images hide flaws, plain and simple.  Why do you think people downsize their less than stellar images or even their noisy images? It's not always because they just wanted a smaller file or wanted it to be viewed easier on the web.

-- hide signature --

Paul

 VirtualMirage's gear list:VirtualMirage's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony SLT-A77 Sony a77 II Sony 50mm F1.4 Tokina AT-X Pro 11-16mm f/2.8 DX +23 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Claudio Galli
Regular MemberPosts: 368Gear list
Like?
Re: Or....
In reply to VirtualMirage, 10 months ago

Thanks for the clarifications.

Claudio

 Claudio Galli's gear list:Claudio Galli's gear list
Sony RX100 II Sony SLT-A77 Sony DT 11-18mm F4.5-5.6 Sony DT 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 Sony DT 55-300mm F4.5-5.6 SAM +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Atgard
Regular MemberPosts: 427Gear list
Like?
Re: For what it's worth...
In reply to Alan_S, 10 months ago

Alan_S wrote:

More challengingly lit scenes will provide even more flexibility to extract dramatically more detail from highlights, shadows and color, as in this example

Amazing work on that RAW conversion -- out of curiosity, could you possibly explain what you did (what settings you used)? (Even a screenshot of the history in LR or something.) If you think it would hi-jack the thread, maybe in a PM? I'm trying to learn PP (in Lightroom 4) and am starting to get the hang of it, but have never been able to achieve results that dramatic and that impressive.

Very well done, and thanks for showing a great example of the power of RAW processing, done well.

 Atgard's gear list:Atgard's gear list
Sony SLT-A37
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Allan Olesen
Senior MemberPosts: 2,148
Like?
Re: Or....
In reply to Claudio Galli, 10 months ago

Claudio Galli wrote:

Clayton1985 wrote:

I may have missed it but I didn't see anyone saying this...

I have only said that it was my feeling. Not that somebody said this.

"This" obviously refer to what follows below (which is very important for context):

the original point made by the OP (with an example to show exactly what he considered better) was that "sometimes the jpg is better"

In other words:

In the two threads started by Mr. Eckmeier, the topic is not the usual raw vs. JPG discussion which is usually centered around whether anyone needs the extra quality of raw, or whether this extra quality even exists. The topic here is much more controversial:

Can the JPG file in a raw+JPG set result in a final quality that would not be possible with the raw file from the same set?

My answer is: "Obviously no!". You can alway take the raw file, run it through Sony's raw converter and get a JPG file which is equal to the JPG from the raw+JPG set.

From that point you can do anything with this converted file that you would do with the JPG from the raw+JPG set and end up with the same final quality.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
gil
gil
Forum ProPosts: 16,510
Like?
When I look at an image, it was not because of the 256 or more...(more)
In reply to VirtualMirage, 10 months ago

shades or the extent of the DR or the fine details being shown or any other plus factors that could be derived from RAW. It was more on the impact of the image to me - it could be from cell phone, P&S or film camera. While shooting from RAW has many advantages; if the composition, theme, context or viewpoint sucks, nothing could save it. Of course same with doing it in jpg.

The presented image of discussion already has a problem that even at f16, I can't find the human subjects in focus. Of course with that small lens opening, other parameters should have adjusted automatically (if not done in manual mode) to give a usable exposure but I can't seem to detect it from the images used.

Anyway my overall point is that there should be no disputing whether one uses RAW or JPG as some are happy with RAW and some with JPG (like me). Also before tackling the differences between RAW and JPG, one should have validated first whether the images used were ideal or not. If the OP is happy with his JPG pics, so be it but to me, there is still a room for improvement in that picture beyond the file format.

cheers,

gil

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
gil - San Jose, CA
Cheap Lens, JPG and 100% Handholding Provocateur
Like happiness, photography is often better created than pursued.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mick232
Contributing MemberPosts: 753Gear list
Like?
Re: That RAW Troublemaker Again With Files
In reply to Gary Eickmeier, 10 months ago

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

OK I tried to put links to four files, but it led to links to all of my stuff in my computer - or it seemed like.

Still struggling with Google Drive.

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

Original JPG:

Original RAW conversion by OP:

Photo Ninja version:

Please make sure to compare the 100% images.

I see the following differences:

- shadow detail much better preserved in RAW (bushes in the background)

- highlights better recovered (shirt on shoulder)

- fewer sharpening artifacts (fence), I think the JPG is oversharpened and I deliberately kept sharpening to a lower amount

- there is more noise in my RAW version, but I kept the noise reduction at a medium setting to avoid the watercolor effect I see in the JPEG image (e.g. tree at the top, mast)

Overall, it is a matter of taste. And honestly, the JPG version in fact is quite good actually, except maybe for the lost details in the shadows.

Here is the full photo after RAW conversion:

 mick232's gear list:mick232's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-5 Sony SLT-A99 Tamron SP AF 70-200mm F/2.8 Di LD (IF) MACRO Sony 75-300mm F4.5-5.6 Sony 85mm F2.8 SAM +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads