RAW vs JPEG (PIC)

Daniella68313 said:

Daniella68313 said:

I'm not one at all who things that if you shoot jpg, your photos
are going to look like garbage.

Click to expand...

really? that's the impression that I got from reading your post at
the beginging

Click to expand...

I think that's your PAST experience with other posters coloring things here. I can see a difference but that doesn't mean I think my jpg photos are unsuitable for printing.

If you can't see a difference, then there's no reason for RAW -- for you. For me I can bring out a nice "punchy" photo from raw quicker than I can from jpg -- which has as much to do with the work flow of the raw converters than it does the format differences. There's no reason they can't create a jpg editor that has the same kind of work flow.

I don't do THAT many prints, compared to how much I shoot, and most of my prints are 4x6. There is no "amazing superiority" of a raw file in that situation. I am quite satisfied to shoot jpg and print right out of the cameras.

Daniella68313 said:

Nor do I think that someone is

Daniella68313 said:

inferior in any way for choosing jpg.

Click to expand...

interesting that you mention it, because that was my next
impression

Click to expand...

Not me, sister I get bugged by folks who claim that you have to post process your photos. To get "the best" out of them, sure. But if you nail your exposure, and boost up the settings a bit, you can get printable jpgs right out of the camera.

Daniella68313 said:

Daniella68313 said:

There is, though, real merrit to the fact that having a RAW file
gives you MUCH more lattitude for bringing out the best in a photo
than a jpg file.

Click to expand...

there is in deed, but I woudl not give up the .jpg for the raw..If
I ever start to shoot RAW, I will still shot the RAW + jpg to get
both of them.

Click to expand...

First, when I was shooting the 300D, it was too slow to shoot RAW and keep up. Second, before I had 7gigs of CF cards I could run out when shooting RAW. And I did start out shooting RAW+JPG thinking that I'd just keep the jpg's and only use the raw on the few photos that needed exposure correction.

As it turns out, I really do like what I get out of the RAW converters, and find that I can get that result quicker than anything in jpg, except, untouched jpg's. And since space is still an issue, I forgoe the JPG part.

Now, about the only time I shoot RAW+JPG is when I'm on vacation. My laptop is not that powerful, so I shoot RAW+small jpg so that I have the small jpg's to look at while I'm on vacation.

Daniella68313 said:

If only there was a way to convert the raw exactly
as the in-camera jpg, I woudl stop shooting .jpg but so far no luck.

Click to expand...

If I wanted the exact same jpg, it wouldn't make sense to shoot RAW. But as I want a BETTER jpg, and sometimes NO jpg -- I shoot raw

Daniella68313 said:

And while the advantage isn't QUITE as obvious

Daniella68313 said:

when you start with a perfectly exposed and wb'd jpg file -- such
perfect exposure are not THAT easy to come by

Click to expand...

I guess it depend on your shooting conditions. I shoot the in the
same lighting pretty much so it is quite predictable.

Click to expand...

I shoot a lot of indoors shots, and even with an expodisc, it's hard to nail the wb as the lighting changes. Even outoors you have clouds and shade and shooting into the sun or away from the sun etc. At least when I'm shooting.

I love your work, and clearly you know how to get great photos from jpg's -- and getting great photos is the point, isn't it? I doubt that I'll ever get to your quality even when I shoot raw I have tens of thousands of raw shots to convince me , that I get better results shooting RAW.

Lee

Phil said:

The test would have to be taking a image of great tonal range like
some of your Big Sir water fall shots in both RAW to TIFF and large
fine JPEG and send them for professional printing at a vendor who
can work in 16 bit.

Click to expand...

hmm I just looked at my PSD files that I used to do the test and they were 8bits not 16 bits. I will give it another try in 16 bit and see if there is a diffrence. although I am pretty happy with the quality I get from the 8 bit, i will see if it is worth it. The thing that I am concerned with is that if I cannot manage to get the same nice colours out of the way I convert the raw file, then I will still like the jpg version better. In other words, what'S the use of the larger gammut if I don't like the gammut itself better? I still have to work with raw converter and see if I can get better at this.

Phil214757 said:

The fact that the professional reviews but the DIGI II output #2
behind the PSCS2 conversion but ahead of the next 3 RAW converters
should be enough for anyone.

Click to expand...

really? now that's interesting to know. which 3 raw converters would that be? RSE, C1 and Canon DPP?

Phil214757 said:

It says unless there is a specific reason like WB correction issues
one is better off using the JPEG unless you've invested in PSC2,
and even then you may not see why you are using the more complex
work flow except on rare occasions.

A more useful thread would be to explore 8 bit vs 16 bit
definnition for various output applications. Or maybe "Is seeing a
JPEG like listening to music on AM radio?"

Click to expand...

nah... no way I would prefer AM radio but I do prefer the .jpg often.

Phil214757 said:

--
Phil Agur

350D - Full equipment list in profile, taste in neon from sailing
the tropics below.

Click to expand...

--



Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.

Daniella68313 said:

I will give it another try in 16 bit
and see if there is a diffrence. although I am pretty happy with
the quality I get from the 8 bit, i will see if it is worth it.
The thing that I am concerned with is that if I cannot manage to
get the same nice colours out of the way I convert the raw file,
then I will still like the jpg version better.

Click to expand...

You have to realize that there's no reason you can't get "as good" at least, if not better, with the RAW converter. Just not using the "as shot" parameters. Boost up the saturation, contrast, twiddle with the WB and the exposure. The goal isn't to get "what I got with jpg" but "the best I can get from this photo".

Lee

Have a look at the printing on the batteries, right edge. The printings are sharper on the Jpeg images. However, the RAW images, the top left letterings on the package cardboard are sharper.
Did you use save the files as RAW + Jpeg?

LeeBase said:

If you can't see a difference, then there's no reason for RAW --
for you. For me I can bring out a nice "punchy" photo from raw
quicker than I can from jpg -- which has as much to do with the
work flow of the raw converters than it does the format
differences. There's no reason they can't create a jpg editor that
has the same kind of work flow.

Click to expand...

do you have a comparison 100% crops of both? what are your .jpg settigns in-camera?

LeeBase said:

LeeBase said:

interesting that you mention it, because that was my next
impression

Click to expand...

Not me, sister I get bugged by folks who claim that you have to
post process your photos. To get "the best" out of them, sure.
But if you nail your exposure, and boost up the settings a bit, you
can get printable jpgs right out of the camera.

Click to expand...

I hear you brother

LeeBase said:

First, when I was shooting the 300D, it was too slow to shoot RAW
and keep up. Second, before I had 7gigs of CF cards I could run
out when shooting RAW. And I did start out shooting RAW+JPG
thinking that I'd just keep the jpg's and only use the raw on the
few photos that needed exposure correction.

Click to expand...

I think I am at that level right now..shooting raw + jpg just in hope that I can squeeze more out of the RAW eventualy.

LeeBase said:

LeeBase said:

LeeBase said:

If only there was a way to convert the raw exactly

Click to expand...

as the in-camera jpg, I woudl stop shooting .jpg but so far no luck.

Click to expand...

If I wanted the exact same jpg, it wouldn't make sense to shoot
RAW. But as I want a BETTER jpg, and sometimes NO jpg -- I shoot
raw

Click to expand...

It seems that the 300d software can extract or convert the raw the same way the DIGI processor would, but the XT does not give the same results one bit. sad. I wish I could just shoot raw and batch process and get the same as in-camera DIGI II processing..it does not look like it's possible.

LeeBase said:

LeeBase said:

I guess it depend on your shooting conditions. I shoot the in the
same lighting pretty much so it is quite predictable.

Click to expand...

I shoot a lot of indoors shots, and even with an expodisc, it's
hard to nail the wb as the lighting changes. Even outoors you have
clouds and shade and shooting into the sun or away from the sun
etc. At least when I'm shooting.

Click to expand...

I go for the colours that I prefer instead of trying to mimic reality faithfully.

LeeBase said:

I love your work, and clearly you know how to get great photos from
jpg's -- and getting great photos is the point, isn't it? I doubt
that I'll ever get to your quality even when I shoot raw I
have tens of thousands of raw shots to convince me , that I get
better results shooting RAW.

Click to expand...

thanks but I would have liked to see one of your comparison. so far most people seems to get the same more or less result or better with jpg..since you get better result with RAW I would love to see some of your comparison of you have that.

LeeBase said:

Lee

Click to expand...

--



Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.

LeeBase said:

You have to realize that there's no reason you can't get "as good"
at least, if not better, with the RAW converter.

Click to expand...

I don't know. I can't usualy get the same as the .jpg file and I prefer the .jpg file colours. I have tried. CS2 has a tool for adjusting all the channels separatly, but it does not have the possibility to sharpen presicely. RSE has the detail increase feature wich seems to do a better job and PS CS2 to bring out the detail, but it does not have control for each channel saturation. so when I boost the saturation, it boost it all over. looks bad. DIGI II seems to knwo what colour to enhance to get the best looknig pic. a littel like the Velvia does a good job at enhancing certain colour for film.

Just not using

LeeBase said:

the "as shot" parameters. Boost up the saturation, contrast,
twiddle with the WB and the exposure. The goal isn't to get "what
I got with jpg" but "the best I can get from this photo".

Click to expand...

I only used the "as shot" parameter to see if I could get the same .jpg image as the in-camera conversion. well, it does not work and of course it is far from the best settings to convert the raw. I spent a great deal of time doing lots of tweaking on some of the RAW files and there is always a little something that I like more in the .jpg.

I think I suck at RAW conversion.

LeeBase said:

Lee

Click to expand...

--



Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.

no he did not and I pointed the same thing out. he is using the 300d and unless he has the hack installed and the custom function 08 set to RAW + large fine jpg, he cannot get both files at the same time. when you have the hack installed on the 300d you can do that and extract the .jpg later with EVU.

Homl said:

Have a look at the printing on the batteries, right edge. The
printings are sharper on the Jpeg images. However, the RAW images,
the top left letterings on the package cardboard are sharper.
Did you use save the files as RAW + Jpeg?

Click to expand...

--



Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.

LeeBase said:

Any test that runs a raw converter with "no parameter changes"
against a jpg is NOT going to show any supeority to the RAW format.

Click to expand...

why is that?

surely even if you open a file in a RAW converter, some parameters come into play (usually the shot settings), so therefore it is being changed --- I thought (very simply put) that "pure" RAW had all the info, and converting it (be it in camera or via a RAW prog.) simply selects which bits of info you are going to use for the image

correct me if I am wrong, but you can't use RAW without changing it -- is that right?

interesting test daniella, the colours are very different, esp. the white of the chair

I also really like the way DPP works, but the results aren't as good as they could be (maybe I will use EVU from now on)... I have been using it because RSE is too complicated for me to get good results quickly (need to practice I guess) and RSE adds strange "pixel" noise to images sometimes, whereas DPP adds "noise" (esp at higher ISO, even at 400, but I have to test whether this comes out on normal 10x15cm (4x6")prints)
--
AJ
http://www.pbase.com/manjade

comparing a RAW DPP) file and the imbedded JPEG (see the first post), you can see a lot of what I would call "noise" -- maybe the correct term is artefacts from the sharpening, but the end effect is an image which seems to have more noise

RSE doesn't add this amount of "noise" but does add a more pixel-like noise, esp. to the edges ... EVU adds very little, as does RIT (just as a comparison)

I want to do a RAW converter comparison with some shots, so I will have a look into that
--
AJ
http://www.pbase.com/manjade

I see there is a little more detail in RAW at iso1600.
But I have a couple questions that I hope someone can answer.
Why there is a color difference between RAW and JPEG?
And how to set a camera or Photoshop to match same colors as JPEG?
I get this with all the cameras.
--
http://aphoto.smugmug.com/

Look more carefully and you will see that RAW does have more detail.

Daniella said:

LeeBase said:

Who argues that there is some superiority to a raw file that is
processed with "no settings changed"?

Click to expand...

Lee, many people argue that you get more resolution and better
detail with the raw..problem is, they failed to prove it.

I think we all agree that when there is a problem in exposure, then
the RAW would give better latitude to save it. We all know that
too.

I guess what I and a few other people are trying to find out is, is
there a real advantage to shoot raw for a well exposed
pics..meaning is there a read advantages for each photos that we
shoot, not only the bad ones?

it is still interesting test to also compare RAW converter
program..see how different they are.

Daniella68313 said:

It's when you DO need to adjust wb, or exposure that you see the
advantages.

Lee

Click to expand...

--



Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send
them to me via email instead! thanks.

Click to expand...

--
http://aphoto.smugmug.com/

Quest21 said:

Why there is a color difference between RAW and JPEG?

Click to expand...

I have never liked DPP with my 300D RAW files, as it gives me a slight magenta cast.

--
'You can kiss my shiny metal ass'
C3PO

The samples comparing Raw v JPG really don't demonstrate the differences between the 2 formats bar the effects of in camera processing (converting 36bit colour range to 24bit + compression etc). Or putting it another way, if I show you 1 colour it can be in 1bit or 128bit but it will still be the same colour as it's not outside either bit range scope.

To get a better idea of the limits of RAW / JPG dynamic ranges you need to at least take a photo showing the max values. The easiest way is to include sunlight (ie Indoor shot with sunshining through a window or sunny landscapes etc) as this will use all of the 36bit colour range.



--

Manjade said:

Manjade said:

~ My 300D Gallery... http://www.jlmay.f2s.com/

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I don't really think there is an advantage in using RAW when you can expose properly. I used all JPEG for my Auto Racing gallery and IMO they turned out nice. I also received accolades from quite a few forums so I think RAW would have been a waste of precious memory. I don't own 8 gig cards, after all. heh.

Daniella said:

LeeBase said:

Who argues that there is some superiority to a raw file that is
processed with "no settings changed"?

Click to expand...

Lee, many people argue that you get more resolution and better
detail with the raw..problem is, they failed to prove it.

I think we all agree that when there is a problem in exposure, then
the RAW would give better latitude to save it. We all know that
too.

I guess what I and a few other people are trying to find out is, is
there a real advantage to shoot raw for a well exposed
pics..meaning is there a read advantages for each photos that we
shoot, not only the bad ones?

it is still interesting test to also compare RAW converter
program..see how different they are.

Daniella68313 said:

It's when you DO need to adjust wb, or exposure that you see the
advantages.

Lee

Click to expand...

--



Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send
them to me via email instead! thanks.

Click to expand...

--
My Gallery: http://www.cdi-ink.com/

I'm not being rude, but I seriously doubt there are 36bits of colour in this picture.

That's 68719476736 colours (2^36)

Finally, all this chatter about RAW vs JPEG has me at a loss.

JPEG is a lossy compression format, it acheives its considerable reduction by removing data from the file.

By definition it will contain less information that RAW and thus less 'quality'

If you see an improvement in the picture, it is likely the jpeg compression smoothing or abstracting the image.

The arguement shouldn't be about which looks better, but rather are you willing to trade storage vs quality

Frankly another 8MB of lost space isn't worth it for me, and I suspect most people.

Daniella68313 said:

I think I suck at RAW conversion.

Click to expand...

I would conclude that as well. Only from seeing how breathtakingly beautiful your jpg photos are. The only conclusion I can come to is that "you suck" at converting raw.



I tried and rejected raw several times before finally getting to where I could really get better photos from the raw. But frankly, when I see your work I'd say "why bother"?

Lee

I'd shoot all RAW just in case.

Since I'm poor, I use smaller cards and shoot JPG.
--
My Gallery: http://www.cdi-ink.com/

Daniella68313 said:

thanks but I would have liked to see one of your comparison. so
far most people seems to get the same more or less result or better
with jpg..since you get better result with RAW I would love to see
some of your comparison of you have that.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't have "the proof". Every example someone gives is subject to the same criticisms -- mine too. "You could get that result by processing the jpg". Most of the "see how better this raw photos is" is compared to a really bad jpg shot with inexpert attention to getting the best from it.

Just like this thread started with a TERRIBLE test that didn't prove anything.

Also, every photo I could show you would have to be done using a jpg file. The biggest problem with "shooting jpg" is the jpg format. So if I shoot RAW and convert to jpg in order to show how much better raw is -- then I'd lose the very advantage I'm trying to show.

You know me...you've seen my posting for a couple years. You probably saw me struggling with my "soft" soccer photos. I wouldn't be going through shooting raw and converting a couple hundred photos Sat. in and out, if I could get as good a results with jpg....in the same amount of time.

I'm certainly open to the same conclusion about my "jpg processing skills" that you are with your "raw processing skills" -- mabye "I just suck at processing jpg".

Do your "shoot to the right"? You know, checking the histogram and aiming for your exposures to snug up agains, but not touch the right side...as so many sites suggest? I do. The reason given is that there is far more data captured at that end of the signal. But I hadn't been adjusting down later. So I had all of these photos that were over exposed...not blown out, mind you, just over exposed.

I learned this with camera RAW because I could see the 3 color histogram and found out that even the the "total sum" of colors was not over exposed, I frequently blew out the red channel. As I back to the left with the exposure slider "pop" goes my skin tones that I'd been struggling for so long.

AND -- I learned that I could change color spaces and watch those "blown out reds" all of a sudden NOT be blown out -- with no changing of the exposure slider.

I can't prove it to you. I can't look at your photos and say "wow, if only you shot that in RAW, it really could have been good" -- because your photos are excellent. I can say that I have been convinced, not because people told me so -- but because I can see it myself.

But really -- a well done jpg photo can produce a great print and I don't debate that. Just as I understand that "L glass" is better, but the kit lens CAN produce excellent photos as well.

Lee

Manjade said:

Manjade said:

Any test that runs a raw converter with "no parameter changes"
against a jpg is NOT going to show any supeority to the RAW format.

Click to expand...

why is that?

Click to expand...

Because the advantage to shooting RAW is two fold:

• adjusting exposure and wb after the fact while still having all the photo data
• never going to jpg so that you end up with a file that has all of the data

If you convert with "as shot" settings, then you aren't taking advantage of having the RAW files extra information in order to get the best result.

If you convertto jpg AT ALL, then you are subject to the same 8bit lossy compressed file.

Manjade said:

I thought (very simply put) that "pure" RAW had
all the info, and converting it (be it in camera or via a RAW
prog.) simply selects which bits of info you are going to use for
the image

Click to expand...

Exactly. If you "let the camera do it" -- you lose the ability to control 'which bits'. If you let the "raw converter" and don't actually take control of "which bits" -- then you've lost that advantage.

Plus if you convert to jpg at all, then you have the limitations of jpg -- whether you did it "in camera" or in your convertign software.

Manjade said:

correct me if I am wrong, but you can't use RAW without changing it
-- is that right?

Click to expand...

Settings have to be applied. Whether you go with "as shot" settings, or whether you hand tweak the settings. But if you don't "hand tweak" the settings, why would you expect a superior result?

Lee