is Raw format better than Jpg?

please refer to the following pic, the 2nd is raw and the 3 rd is jpg, taken from the 1st pic red box without any modify and no resized. the raw always seem blurer than the jpg,, even like watercolor painting.



RAW



JPG



--
Wee with Panasonic FZ30

The raw file is always capable of getting better results from if you know how to process it properly...
--

If I have uploaded an image don't hesitate to de-noise it, correct the WB, clone out dust and dead pixels, saturation, USM, resize, print and send me the result..
Also advice and criticise.

Kind Rgds

Heath

(The Amateur amateur in training)
Latest addition the amazing Finepix F30
LX1
FZ30
S7000(in sons hands now(sometimes))
Tcon17
Raynox DCR 150 & DCR 250 Mcon40
Nikon SB24+omnibounce
Tripod
CamCane

Oh no . . .

Here we go again . . .

--
J. M. Daniels
Denver, Colorado
Panasonic FZ10, FZ50 & Fuji S602Z owner & operator

MusicDoctorDJ said:

Oh no . . .

Here we go again . . .

Click to expand...

Another very helpful comment from you...

MusicDoctorDJ said:

--
J. M. Daniels
Denver, Colorado
Panasonic FZ10, FZ50 & Fuji S602Z owner & operator

Click to expand...

--

If I have uploaded an image don't hesitate to de-noise it, correct the WB, clone out dust and dead pixels, saturation, USM, resize, print and send me the result..
Also advice and criticise.

Kind Rgds

Heath

(The Amateur amateur in training)
Latest addition the amazing Finepix F30
LX1
FZ30
S7000(in sons hands now(sometimes))
Tcon17
Raynox DCR 150 & DCR 250 Mcon40
Nikon SB24+omnibounce
Tripod
CamCane

Again?

You can't directly compare raw and jpeg files. If you do, jpeg wins everytime... BUT that's not what a raw file is for. You're trying to compare a box of radio parts (raw) to a half built radio (jpeg) and tell which one sounds better.

The only way to directly compare the two is to process each (completely build both radios) and then see which one is better. Unless you do that, you're only comparing how 2 different file formats are saved, not picture quality.

(Course the quality of the raw file processing depends on the human element. Raw may be "better", but you have to make it better...)

Copusmaximus said:

MusicDoctorDJ said:

Oh no . . .

Here we go again . . .

Click to expand...

Another very helpful comment from you...

Click to expand...

What is it with you , anyway?

I have never done or said anything to you here to give you that attitude.

I've helped lots of people on this forum and others . . .

This 'RAW vs. JPEG' gets argues a thousand times a day here!

All one needs to do is look through the topics to find them . . .

And it is the same old hash every single time.

--
J. M. Daniels
Denver, Colorado
Panasonic FZ10, FZ50 & Fuji S602Z owner & operator

Goofup said:

Raw may be "better", but you have to make it better...

Click to expand...

And that's the end of the story.

--

• markE

http://www.wingsoflight.com

'Good wildlife photography is a controlled accident,
a vision of preparation and surrender materialized.'

haha, i am sorry to know that this is a very old and appeared daily topic!

ok, thank you very much for all information, i will try to further my PS knowledge, to experience how the "parts" of radio to be built into a well perform radio. ^^

thanks again!

--
Wee with Panasonic FZ30

understand that RAW is a totally unprocessed image, basically "raw" data for the finished photo.

When you use jpg format, the RAW data is processed in the camera according to your pre-sets for contrast, sharpness etc. The camera does the processing. If shooting RAW format, "you" do the processing out of camera and have much finer control.

So, when viewing/comparing RAW be sure that it is processed
--
‹(•¿•)› Dave in NW Louisiana

Also . . . RAW eats up memory card space, and you can't get them printed anywhere unless you convert them to a jpeg or tiff file first.

Plus, you HAVE TO post process each and every single photo you want to use, where with jpegs, nine times out of ten you can use the photo straight off of the memory card without even touching a computer.

--
J. M. Daniels
Denver, Colorado
Panasonic FZ10, FZ50 & Fuji S602Z owner & operator

Hi,

Basically, any properly taken and PP'd RAW image will be better than a .jpg image from the same camera!

The camera actually initially captures everything in RAW - it's only when you select .jpg or TIFF that the camera settings come into play! By choosing say .jpg or TIFF as your format, you are asking the in-camera processor to do the PP'ing as opposed to doing it yourself in a RAW converter etc!

TIFF format is far superior to .jpg as it is un-compressed unlike .jpg - if you use TIFFs instead of .jpg's then you will see a marked difference in quality. However, the downside is that TIFF's use up more memory space but if the shots are important, then it would be foolish not to use TIFF as memory these days is relatively cheap.

Another point to avoid when editing .jpgs is that every time you edit a shot ( such as altering levels etc) and save it - NEVER save it as the same file name! Rename it by maybe adding an 'a', 'b'.... onto the end of the file name! Otherwise you will find you get artifacts being left behind each time it is saved which degrades the image!
Regards..
Tony

Just a note to the OP..that PP (post processing) can be a simple in some programs as 'process using the camera's settings'

My motto: Photographers should be seen and not heard.
FZ50, UZI, B-300