Reading mode: Light Dark

RAW VS jpeg

Go to last post
OK I did a quick and dirty irfanview sharpen to your jpeg crop and it's pretty darn close to your RAW crop now.

My eyes are not the best but this looks real close to me.

And keep in mind I'm sharpening a saved jpeg crop---that most certainly would produce more junk than the original out of camera jpeg at sharpness=2.
 
I'm sure you're probably wanting pics of people, places, etc. but I thought I'd give you an example of a picture I took, of the sun, today. The Before is the actual JPG generated by the camera (AWB, all else manual). It looked like a total loss but after some light PP the image was salvaged.



 
The "after" is the the result of PP on the jpeg? So what are you saying here? Confused, sorry. Neat shot btw!
 
Sorry, that was confusing. I'm shooting in RAW+JPG. The before is the camera generated JPG and the after is the RAW that I post-processed.
 
here is a quick test I did. both shots were given exactly the same post processing treatment in aperture. both were shot at ISO 800

raw



jpeg



not much difference and would probably print up looking the same

now look at the 100% crops

RAW



jpeg



see all of those nasty artifacts in the JPEG - The JPEG just cant be pushed as far without falling apart and I am sure if I really put the effort into it I could make the RAW image look much better

In great light when everything is perfect you would be hard pressed to see much reason for shooting RAW, but when things are not perfect or they just dont turn out the way you thought, shooting RAW can give you a huge safety net that will and that extra data to get a much nicer shot - JMO
--
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
 
cant shooting the sun kill the sensor?

--
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
 
The telescope had a high quality solar filter on it. We were able to look at it through the eyepiece and see, more or less, the before image (though not as orange.) I figured if it's safe enough for the human eye it can't be too bad for the sensor.
 
Nobody in this thread is doing RAW vs JPEG comparisons correctly.

If you are going to compare properly exposed shots - things in uniform light, high shutter speeds, low contrast scenes (light is even throughout the frame), and with light that is easily white balanced like daylight, then you will not see much difference. It still gives benefits but they are all fine detail - sharpening, subtle dynamic range, and color dynamic range (resulting from being able to use larger (and ANY) color space with a RAW image).

Also when you get into the realm of comparing out of camera JPEG vs RAW, then you're complicating matters by introducing another variable - proprietary processing from the manufacturer vs third party. Also camera with limited processing power vs computer (such as ever notice why JPEGs in camera are one file size, computer JPEGs can be double or more). These comparisons should only be done with the manufacturer's program, otherwise you the test is flawed.

And most people measure RAW in terms of how far it can be pushed, potential. In that case, you don't start with properly exposed shots cause there will be nothing to recover! If that's done see 1, you will instead only benefit with fine detail and subtle DR/color benefits. This is what you want to see (not my image, but it's in my reference folder)



In the end, I still use RAW even though most of my shots don't need extreme editing. Why? Because I like the fine detail benefits and having complete control over color management, AT MINIMUM white balancing with the temperature sliders to a white balance target, not curves. Also I hate Canon's picture styles. RAW subverts that. And even if you just save RAW as is, no tweaking, it should always be better than JPEG due to the fact that it has more information to start with.
 
yes... and that was what I was trying to say... its only valid if you compare a exported RAW to a jpeg... but that depends on how you process the raw file... I can either screw up a perfect RAW image and make it look a lot worse than the jpeg... or I can do a lot of fancy stuff to it and make it look way better.....

but I guess there are lots of example on this thread to show that already :D
Mark_McD said:
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/
Click to expand...
 
you have stated the advantages of RAW very well - If you shoot RAW you can make it look worse and if you have the skills and know your editing program you can make it better.

With out of camera JPEG's you are starting with less data because it was edited out when the information that the sensor captured was converted by the camera to a compressed format - - sure you can make the image better in post processing, but you can NEVER get back the data the camera threw away when it converted the sensor data to JPEG.

if you want everything the sensor captured the only way to get it is to shoot RAW. Just by the nature of what it is JPEG ALWAYS discardes some of the captured data

If you want to work with JPEG and you dont want to risk throwing away data - shoot RAW & JPEG, but accept the fact that you will get fewes shots on a card. Or just shoot RAW knowing you can save your pictures as JPEGs if you need them that way

Or - just shoot JPEG and accept the fact that you will never get the best out of your camera - face it a well processed RAW image will always have more dynamic range and more data than the best out of camer JPEg

I guess thats the main point - shoot RAW if you want every bit of data the sensor in the camera can offer. You may not need it all, but you have it

or - Shoot JPEG - 90% of the time it will be good enough - heck it might even be very good, But the fact is it will never give you all of the data to work with that shooting RAW would have given you
odobo said:
. I can either screw up a perfect RAW image and make it look a lot worse than the jpeg... or I can do a lot of fancy stuff to it and make it look way better.....
Click to expand...
--
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
 
turnstyle said:
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.
Click to expand...
Here's an example of mine illustrating this second point.
unprocessed RAW:





processed:



 
Yep, this bird shot provides a fine example of recovering blow-out highlights from RAW. I think it's fair to say there would have been nothing to recover if it had been a JPG.
 
Disclaimer: I shoot 10,000 RAW images a year.

RAW vs JPEG is one of those things where, if you have to ask, you should be shooting JPEG. 99% of RAWs advantages comes in the ability to post process. Especially when being done in the RAW converter itself.

If you're post processing, using PS, adjusting you best photos for the best results, try RAW. But if you're not, it's a little like driving a Lexus and a Toyota to the grocery store to tell which one is better.

I've never done a RAW vs. JPEG comparison despite shooting exclusively RAW. Why? RAW and JPEG, with default processing, look 90% the same.

But when salvaging vacation photos, or street shots, or anything that's hard to capture, difficult to repeat, RAW shines.
 
zackiedawg said:
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.
zackiedawg 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
Click to expand...
Great explanation.. Bravo..
 
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?

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
Click to expand...
Why not try it for yourself instead of asking others to describe it for you? Shoot RAW + JPEG and see the difference for yourself .

For my money it's a no-brainer, RAW is far superior in every way.
 
Chris59 said:
Why not try it for yourself instead of asking others to describe it for you? Shoot RAW + JPEG and see the difference for yourself .
Click to expand...
I like to ask questions and learn from what the experts here say. I also like to contribute a lot of hard work here too. You know, give and take?

What have have you contributed to this forum?

Nothing to see here; move along now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top