POLL: How often do you shoot raw images?

Started May 1, 2014 | Polls thread
phototransformations Senior Member • Posts: 2,846
Re: POLL: How often do you shoot raw images?

djddpr wrote:


Thank-you for your photographic evidence. I see noticeable differences between the jpg and raw versions: 1. There is more saturation in the post-processed raw and I suspect more natural colors as well. The jpg version appears to have a yellow color cast. 2. The jpg version is out of focus.

Overall, not a fair test. The jpg version should start with focus equivalent to the raw version -- any comparison with one version of obviously worse focus will not be fair. After equalizing on focus, the jpg version should be post-processed with equal vigor as the raw version, includeing removing the yellow color cast

You indicate: "By the way, I haven't noticed any combative RAW proponents in this thread, though there were a couple of combative posts from the "other side."" Really? I have accumulated enough figurative scars over the last 12 months to dispute your claim. For multiple reasons, please read sherman_levine's reply to my post.

I make to you the same offer that I made to Sherman Levine: I use and recommend, when dynamic range is extremely high, compensating by simply setting camera contrast to its minimum value and post-processing the jpg file to restore some/all of the dynamic range (standard procedure with any editing software that supports multiple transparent layers). For years I have used this procedure to good effect, as the few photos I submitted earlier indicate. And I can submit as photographic evidence hundreds or even thousands of such examples. How much photographic evidence would you like me to submit for your review? In making your decision, please be prepared to respond in kind and amount with your photographic evidence.

David Dollevoet

The file I posted was from a RAW+JPEG set - same exposure, focus, etc. What you are seeing as out of focus is lost detail due to the JPEG engine trying to reduce noise in this ISO 800 file. With the RAW processor, I was able to preserve detail in the bushes, trees, seaweed, and water that I could not preserve in the JPEG. That's what convinced me to "go RAW," though I also keep the JPEGs because they are often sufficient and occasionally have a quality I prefer to the RAW. As for removing color casts, etc., that's not what I was trying to test in this particular sequence; I wanted to see if there was more detail in the RAWs. There is, as others have also illustrated. In both cases, post-processing was limited to trying to get the JPEG to look as much like the RAW as I could. I could bring back the lost saturation, but not the detail.

I'm not interested in making you a RAW convert, David. We have nothing to prove to each other. I am, however, interested in seeing if your claim that simply turning down the contrast, NR, and sharpening gives as workable a file as shooting RAW does and will look into it. Perhaps in the spirit of investigation, you could also shoot a few RAW+JPEG examples of high dynamic range, high ISO images and see if your JPEGs can preserve as much of the dynamic range and fine detail as the RAW files. We might both learn something.

As for combativeness, I see that, in this thread, only from one poster. Except for that poster, this has been a relatively civilized RAW vs JPEG thread compared to others I've read on other forums.

- David

 phototransformations's gear list:phototransformations's gear list
Samsung TL500 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G3 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +25 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow