RAW VS jpeg

This may be asking a lot but perhaps someone already have samples that would answer my question: How much better is RAW over JPEG?

Does anyone have two shots of the same subject, one taken RAW then PP and the other JPEG where I could see the difference?

I've never even tried RAW--I would like to see if the difference is worth the extra time.

The Sony software on the disk (I never even looked at it) has what I need to get going with RAW right? Is it good software or a waste of time?

Thanks

I don't have a JPEG vs RAW comparison, however I do have an untouched raw vs mildly PP'd raw comparison shot:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_mcd/6047475455/in/photostream

--
-mark

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_mcd/

Hi Alupang!

I had the same question as you, so I thought of giving a try one day to the JPEG + RAW shooting mode. Every pic I took was shot in both RAW and Jpeg, so all shooting and framing parameters were the same between the RAW and the JPEG.

For RAW development I used the freeware RAWTHERAPEE (thanks to RussellInCincinati and his excellent post about the Amaze algorithm, a truly great contribution).

In the end, I found out that my RAW development are not as good as they should be, however, in the hands of the skillfull RAW has more potential.

Here are two shots to see for yourself.

My jpeg settings: Color: Vivid, Saturation:0, Sharpness: +2, White balance set to daylight with a +1 option (slightly warmer color).

In the RAW file a slight sharpening level is applied (check the details on the ship)

JPG:





RAW:

Alupang said:

This may be asking a lot but perhaps someone already have samples that would answer my question: How much better is RAW over JPEG?

Click to expand...

It's not a matter of being 'better' - it's about how editable, variable, correctable, and changeable it is.

A well-taken JPG with good camera settings and perfect exposure CAN look just as good as a nicely processed and converted RAW.

The biggest difference is in the editing phase - JPGs are limited as to how much they can be altered - minor corrections or changes are possible, but not major or wholesale changes. RAW on the other hand can be massively changed, because it contains significantly more information than the JPG - it hasn't thrown out anything yet - all the resolution, color information, white balance information, etc is waiting to be accessed...so you can make very significant corrections to a poorly taken photo, or make large scale changes to things like color, white balance, and contrast, much greater retrieval of information in shadows, much more leeway to pull back blow highlights.

The difference CAN be worth the extra time IF: you like editing photos, you make mistakes when shooting the photo, you are unhappy with the way JPGs are processed out of the camera, or you are shooting in difficult conditions that are beyond the ability of the camera to correct for, such as extremely challenging indoor white balance conditions.

But again, a well shot, well exposed, mistake-free JPG CAN be just as nice as a well-processed, well converted RAW shot.

Alupang said:

The Sony software on the disk (I never even looked at it) has what I need to get going with RAW right? Is it good software or a waste of time?

Click to expand...

Most would agree the Sony software is minimal, and will not give you the best access to a RAW file's editing capabilities.

--
Justin
galleries: http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg

what do you mean by how much better? If I look at a raw image on LR without any processing and export it looks awful compare to jpeg..... but if you process it and compare to jpeg it will depend on your pp skill and how creative you can get..... right?

Thanks so much. I don't see any significant difference here. Both look great to me.

Nice read and I appreciate your thoughts.

More tinkering potential with RAW but jpegs can look fine too. Got it.

I honestly don't know; that is why I asked.

odobo said:

what do you mean by how much better? If I look at a raw image on LR without any processing and export it looks awful compare to jpeg..... but if you process it and compare to jpeg it will depend on your pp skill and how creative you can get..... right?

Click to expand...

A jpeg is processed, a raw file is not.

To be direct, shooting in raw lets you decide what you want done in terms of processing. Shooting jpeg makes the camera do the processing.

As a matter of control, you can process the image with more flexibility with raw.
As a matter of speed, jpeg mode will do it all for you.

If you're not comfortable with PP, jpeg is the only alternative, although there are a list of "easy" raw converters, like dXo pro optics, which is quite nice and does allow a lot of the work for you.

If you want to try it out for yourself, take a couple shots with raw+jpeg and download a trial or free raw converter and give it a shot.

I think arguing which is "better" isn't really a very worthwhile topic, as both are outright different.

--
-mark

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_mcd/

Unless I am using one on the modes like sweep pano that can only be done in JPEG I always shoot RAW and I process my images in Aperture. I find the results I can get with the RAW files are noticeably better than JPEG especially high ISO shots.

I always process all of the images I plan on using and I like the extra data I get to work with when using RAW. also,because of the way Aperture applies certain defaults to RAW files based on the camera being used I find the amount of adjustment required by me in most shots is no more than I would apply to a JPEG file anyway - a little levels and a little edge sharpening is usually all it takes

--
My kit - D200, 10.5mm f/2.8D, 35mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.4G & 70-300VR
NEX-5 18-55 OSS

Lenses worth mentioning owned and sold 12-24 f/4, 17-55 f/2.8, 35-70 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4D, 60mm f/2.8D, 85mm f/1.8, 105mm f/2D-DC, 180mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4D-ED

jpeg crop 100% (only exposure adj, no other pp, nex standard settings)



raw crop 100% (acr, standard sharpeniing, wb and ex adj)



Full picture, taken with Sanky Kohki 135mm 2.3 at f4.8



My cheapest 65 year old mf lens. No visible ca or bokeh ca.

http://blog.dpreview.com/editorial/2009/01/raw-headroom.html

hth,

--
Villebon

Yes and no.

With the NEX standard setting DRO AUTO there is some highlight recovery in the NEX.
Usually I can recover only a liitle more in the highlights with raw.

Here's why I like RAW:

1) Before a JPG is rendered, some noise reduction is applied to the file. The noise reduction looks somewhat like a mild blur. So, when you shoot RAW, you have the choice of how much (if any) noise reduction you want to apply.

2) You have more play to alter white balance and recover blow-out details. For example, I have plenty of shots where something appears totally white (and would be totally white in a JPG) in which I can tinker and get detail to show up. And I don't really think much about white balance when I shoot, as I can tweak it later.

Hmmm...yes the RAW looks sharper but you sharpened the RAW crop and left the jpeg on standard. I assume that to be sharpness 0, right?

I shoot jpegs at sharpness=2. I think at that setting, your crops would be closer in sharpness.

Nice samples thanks!

Yes, sharpening 0 for the jpeg. I have changed my setting leter also to +2.

In the jpeg you can see some moiré artefacts in the whiskers of the cat, less visible with the sharpened raw.

Gr.

GuyMckie's 100% crop comparison is representative of the typical difference between raw and JPEG. There are a zillion variables that make any such comparison non-scientific, such as what raw demosaicing algorithm you use in your raw image processor, tons of post-processing options, etc

But the GuyMckie sample feels about right to me as approximating the resolution part of the difference. I.e. showing that yes, there's a difference in ultimate resolution in favor of Raw, but it's not a difference that shows in normal print sizes of a full frame image.

My own use is now 100% raw because of the great job RawTherapee does (instead of the Sony raw developer software), with all its defaults no less, in cranking out accurate-to-life images in terms of contrast and brightness and color. When you've set the white balance accurately in your Nex, off a white card, before exposing. And you expose just enough so that the right hand edge of the Nex live histogram display pixels are close to, but not touching, the right-hand border of the graph. In addition the images are noticeably sharper as Mckie has demonstrated, though with Mckie's sample there is no need here to exemplify ultimate sharpness.

Thanks to Pictus on this forum for suggesting Amaze demosaicing in the context of moire reduction, which led in due course to the finished, non-beta version 3 at http://RawTherapee.com . Should have realized how great RawTherapee is upon seeing how much Photozone uses it.

I believe you. This is exactly what I wanted to know. Thanks.

with my nikon I always used to use nikonview to convert RAW, now that I have the Sony I use Aperture for everything - its easier to stick with one program. I have not personally used Rawtherapee, but jusdging from this comparison I am not impressed

http://alphawhiskey.co.uk/blog/?p=1127

I guess you cant beat it for free and I am sure by the time you were through processing the image it would be fine. but it looks as if it starts you at a point that would require more work to get to a final product
--
My kit - D200, 10.5mm f/2.8D, 35mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.4G & 70-300VR
NEX-5 18-55 OSS

Lenses worth mentioning owned and sold 12-24 f/4, 17-55 f/2.8, 35-70 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4D, 60mm f/2.8D, 85mm f/1.8, 105mm f/2D-DC, 180mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4D-ED

That is a sharp picture! Which lens and settings?