RAW Troublemaker Again

Started Aug 30, 2013 | Discussions thread
VirtualMirage Veteran Member • Posts: 3,956
Re: RAW Troublemaker Again

I fail to see how your example makes a valid argument in favor of the JPEG.

  • You used only crops instead of displaying the full image.
  • Both are cropped differently.
  • It is unknown if the crops have been enlarged, downsized, or 1:1.
  • You don't explain what RAW converter you use.
  • You don't explain what settings were done, if any, in the RAW converter.

The example, I am afraid to say, is a terrible representative and I don't understand why you are backing this particular JPEG.

With this JPEG, the contrast and saturation have been bumped way up and the noise/noise reduction has destroyed a lot of detail. It also looks like in camera sharpening is too high too. The pin striping is all but gone on the shirt (especially the color), it looks more like noise and aliasing than it does striping. There is haloing everywhere and the leaves in the bushes are gone too.

The RAW file looks like there was little to no effort put into it with all setting zeroed out, even ones that are usually pre-adjusted by default. You do not, I repeat, DO NOT use RAW files this way. At least the details missing or destroyed in the JPEG are visible in the RAW despite it being poorly handled.

While the in-camera processing did take care of the CA, this could have been easily fixed in post processing. Only few instances have I seen it to be a challenge (purple fringing on a glittery purple shirt, for example), but not impossible.  Lens corrections is possible too, whether it is from canned presets or manually.

Film negatives don't look print ready out of the camera, why expect RAWs to? Even the prints didn't come from the negatives untouched. Either a computer or person added saturation, contrast, etc. People forget this, choosing to ignore the "man behind the curtain".

If you fail to understand this, then by all means stick to JPEGs. JPEGs can produce great images, I am not arguing that. But the idea that you can't make the RAW picture look as good or better than the in camera JPEG is just ignorant. Remember, the JPEG you are seeing came from the same RAW image you are deeming as inferior. The in camera JPEG doesn't have more information or detail than the RAW. In fact, it has less.

Sorry, it's a terrible example making a poor argument.


Other than to stir the pot, why must people continue to bring this topic back up?

If you do decide to bring this debate back up, at least put some effort into it and have the evidence to back it. Also try and contribute something new that hasn't been discussed before.  Put a different spin or perspective on it.

-- hide signature --


 VirtualMirage's gear list:VirtualMirage's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony a77 II Tokina AT-X Pro 11-16mm f/2.8 DX Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD +18 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow