glitched: Nobody in this thread is doing RAW vs JPEG comparisons correctly .
That's ridiculously negative and inaccurate. What you
could reasonably say is that you want to add an
additional way to compare Raw vs JPEG results, that you believe is useful. Which indeed you have done, your extreme raw example is instructive and fun to look at.
glitched: If you are going to compare properly exposed shots -...then you will not see much difference.
For example, completely disagree. Many of us find that JPEGs from the Nex tend to be needlessly smoothed and/or have needlessly exaggerated colors. Even when the images are "properly exposed" of non-challenging scenes.
glitched: It still gives benefits but they are all fine detail - sharpening, subtle dynamic range, and color dynamic range
You're understating the case. My own experience (example below) is that even ordinary scenes where sharpness is not the main point are rendered with a different overall look (one might find it nicer, or find it worse) from RawTherapee than was ever seen from a JPEG.
glitched: ...comparing out of camera JPEG vs RAW, ....complicating...another variable - proprietary processing from the manufacturer vs third party.
Don't see the point of writing this. Yes, JPEGs and 3rd party raw processing are real different. That's not a problem in this discussion, rather it's a reason why we're having this discussion.
glitched: Also camera with limited processing power vs computer
That's not a problem corrupting our discussion of raw results vs JPEG, it's a reason why raw has an inherent advantages over in-camera JPEGs.
glitched: These comparisons should only be done with the manufacturer's program, otherwise the test is flawed.
Can't follow your point. Why would we only want to compare Sony software raw output with Sony camera firmware JPEG output? Am hoping you can re-state this point in a clearer way.
glitched: And most people measure RAW in terms of how far it can be pushed, potential.
Would agree that thinking about pushing extreme images to the limit is
part of why people use raw. But can't understand your confidence in your speculation. For example my own speculation is that it's just as likely that people use raw on
all their images, because they super need raw for
some of their images, and who the heck wants to bother having more than one kind of workflow? In which case it's relevant and instructive to post examples in this forum of raw processing on quite ordinary images.
glitched: In that case, you don't start with properly exposed shots cause there will be nothing to recover!
Could just as easily argue that it's not so important to talk about how great raw is at rescuing messed-up exposures, because (a) it's an unimportant case, because most exposures aren't messed up and (b) messed up images are not an obvious source of our most likely treasured "keepers".
glitched: ...In the end, I still use RAW even though most of my shots don't need extreme editing...AT MINIMUM white balancing with the temperature sliders...Also I hate Canon's picture styles.
Wait a minute, do you even have or regularly use a Sony Nex? Have you regularly compared your NEX JPEGs with what you got from many a 3rd party raw processor? If you haven't used a Nex, that changes how many a Nex forum reader is going to assess your thoughts about how best to compare Nex raw files to Nex JPEGs.
Ideally you would have prefaced criticizing remarks you have to make, on a Nex forum, with the fact that you don't have any experience with the Nex. In the interest of clarity.
) posts up a beautiful sharp jpg capable of convincing me it's not necessary.
