RAW is way More Better than JPG ...

... it's that simple ! ...

Discuss (or perhaps Disgust): ...

Better or way more better, discus.

Carl

Is discus way more better than javelin?
--
Flickr photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pjwatters/

...

Wait, is this a trick question? I think I see some branches covering a hole in the track just ahead..heh heh heh...
--
Kevin Coppalotti
http://maxhr.zenfolio.com/

... IQ ...

Granted that raw carry more quality and can be manipulated more, how much more work is needed to make this worthwhile; i can work with lots of jpgs quite fast, since there is no conversion needed, and often i give them directly from card to users

Since raw takes longer to load and edit, it is important to see whether lens corrections might be corrected in jpg or automatically in photoeditors; i have been using lightZONE, yet they are slow to include the lx5 raw, and i hezitate about lightROOM since that would need importing and locking into databases

So the quality can be better, yet the overall achievement can be less, also since the raw takes a lot of space on the sd card, where you could have taken many more jpgs, using more compositions!!
--
Collected user advice for dp1 and dp2 (including s and x)

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ARddveJWxIl_ZGZuN3Y0ZG1fMTA1ZmRyOHNkaHE&hl=en_GB )

... dirt cheap $$$ ...

... some extra time and effort ! ...

well my poor old puter get's the hickups from eating all these RAW so for now to stimulate puters digestion problems i feed it COOKED.
--
maarten

... nutritious ! ...

... 12 ways ! ...

... accept no substitutes ! ...

I like my sushi raw

Only drawback is shot to shot speed is 2x longer (on my LX5) which may mean missed shots.
For operational speed nothings beats JPG combined with AF lock or manual focus.

Depends somewhat on the camera. On FZ18, FZ28, FZ35 the jpg was good enough and the advantages of using the EZ-zoom made jpg the way to go. On the FZ100, the noise reduction engine is too aggressive and there are too many artifacts in jpg, so raw only. I can correct a lot of problems in raw, whereas if the detail is eaten by the jpg engine, there ain't a thing you can do!!! Noise in the raw is a problem, but for me nowhere as bad as totally gone detail in jpg. Not an elitist, just practical.

Assuming that time is money JPEG should be better, but shooting RAW you can earn theoretically more money, so the choice depends on you .
--
Best regards, swnw.

... well, there's the hassle of cutting it and serving it but still, I'd rather have the whole pie.
--
http://fotoman99.smugmug.com/

I suppose that your premise could be defended.

But I have never seen any convincing photo which would serve to prove it. Not a string of numbers - convincing photographic evidence - with a similar amount of processing applied to both the 'raw' and the 'jpeg'.

The comparisons seem virtually always to be with totally unPP'd jpegs, and heavily processed 'raws'. Usually the jpeg has had sufficient processing in-camera, and the 'raw has been PP'd a lot, and a tweak or two can bring the jpeg up to whatever superiority the 'raw' is supposed to show.

Essentially, the term "RAW" seems to be the factor which makes it desirable. People just like the sound of it, seems to me from all the talk I've read about it over the years. Sort of like the call for "Complete camera control" from folks who don't know what "Aperture" is or why it (might) matter - and that's been seen often enough!

As far as I can see, 99% of the PP done to "raw" files is an attempt to replicate the JPEG which the camera's engineers have provided, and any improvements can very well be replicated by relatively simple PP work on the JPEG, if such difference be worth the bother.

There is supposedly a great improvement in highlight rendering. The 'multiply' function in PSE can and does make remarkable improvements in highlights whenever actually needed.

Of course, that's my "IMHO", obviously you don't agree or you wouldn't have started this thread.but, since you brought the subject up, it's yours to prove.

It's essentially a matter of opinion; of detail.

And, if "better", it's not " 'Way More better"

-Erik
--
DP Review Supporter.



'He who hesitates is not only lost - he's miles from the next Exit.'
http://www.flickr.com/ohlsonmh/

Erik,

I presume you comment is actually to Detail Man since you say "started this thread".

As to my own comment, notice that I did not make a global comment. With some cameras, jpg may be about as good as you can get. Some of the Olympus dslr's fall in this category and little is gained by doing the work of developing a raw image. In the case of the FZ100, however, I do see enough of a difference in detail on the pattern of scales on reptiles and feathers on birds to make it worthwhile to use raw. I could post the pics I posted a lot of months ago of an iguana with both jpg and raw. However, it is probably not worth it, since some at that time could absolutely see the loss of detail in the jpg with areas smoothed out that clearly had detail in the raw image and other's perhaps saw it, but were not bothered by it. In many images there is probably not that much difference, and thus you can question the value of the extra work for raw images.

Be careful about comments that some people do raw just because they like the sound of it, or that they are elitists. There is a damn good reason that the majority of professional wildlife photographers shoot raw and choose not to throw away half the data the camera collects; they want control of ever bit of data to absolutely bring out the maximum datail and do not want to depend on the camera making a decision as to what is detail and what is noise. Likewise, there is a damn good reason that many press photographer shoot jpg's exclusively, namely speed and smaller file size and images that work for what they do. Choose according to your needs and whether it makes a difference for the photographs you take AND the particular camera you are using. Neither raw or jpg's are always way"More Better".

Erik Ohlson said:

There is supposedly a great improvement in highlight rendering. The 'multiply' function in PSE can and does make remarkable improvements in highlights whenever actually needed.

Click to expand...

ALthough multiply, used judiciously, can provide a pleasant darkening of the image, it can't correctly guess what information might be missing: featureless will still be just that.

I'm not a raw zealot and have seen many competent photographers achieve great shots with proper exposure and JPG settings, but it's hard to argue with either the highlight recovery or nearly-lossless white balance tweaking of raw conversions.

Case in point re: highlight recovery from a recent FZ150 review (bottom of page

--
http://fotoman99.smugmug.com/