G7 X portrait details/sharpness @ 100mm, f/2.8 - JPEG vs RAW :)

Greynerd said:

Have you tried processing the out of camera JPEG. I am getting the impression here that this is the old mantra that JPEG images are cast in stone and only RAW images can be processed. I find there is a great deal of latitude in JPEG images and their only real weakness is White Balance which is correctable but not to a great extent.

Click to expand...

Member said:

I do not think it is valid to compare out of camera JPEG with RAW as of course the latter will be more to your liking as it has to be processed. Post processed JPEG against processed RAW would be a valid comparison and of course RAW will win but is it really worth all the trouble.

Click to expand...

Member said:

I think your RAW image gives a better analysis of the subject's skin blemishes but seem overcooked to me. I think the JPEG's are more tuned to the camera and if you enjoy doing it your own way fine and if done well will produce great results. For most of us the camera probably does a better job and it can still be corrected later.

Click to expand...

brianj said:

Yes, I may have over reacted, but its in response to this type of exageration to show that raw is better. My current thought on these examples is that if the raw was tidied up and the jpg appropriately given the right contrast and sharpening that the difference would be so little as to not matter.

Having said that, it matters little, because I also agree with you that it is ok for all of us to use whatever method we like to get the result that we like.

Brian

Click to expand...

boogisha said:

brianj said:

Yes, I may have over reacted, but its in response to this type of exageration to show that raw is better. My current thought on these examples is that if the raw was tidied up and the jpg appropriately given the right contrast and sharpening that the difference would be so little as to not matter.

Having said that, it matters little, because I also agree with you that it is ok for all of us to use whatever method we like to get the result that we like.

Brian

Click to expand...

I think the bold part is the main cause of misunderstanding - I never said/claimed that, I just wanted to show that details are not lost with G7 X at 100mm, f/2.8, even though the original JPEG may suggest differently, and I found RAW to be a better place to start looking for details, not because there are none inside JPEG, but just because there are more (maybe even a bit here, but more nonetheless) inside RAW. Yet you saw something else, and overreacted to that, and I may as well caused that by not being exactly clear in the beginning

No hard feelings, otherwise I do agree with you.

(after replying, I`m about to post processed JPEG vs processed RAW comparison)

Click to expand...

boogisha said:

jonrobertp said:

Jpg w the same tedious massaging that was done to this raw would be nearly indistinguishable from ea other except at 100%. Both are viable.

Click to expand...

But the point here IS looking at 100% crops, so we get to see all the possible details Details-wise, if image is down-sampled (as it usually is), it doesn`t really matter that much. But the point was to show that the details are there, even at 100mm, f/2.8, and RAW was a better starting point to recover and show those details.

boogisha said:

Do what u like. Just don't tell someone who has sold tons of images professionally that raw is the only option. It's one option. There are 2. I've used both.

Click to expand...

I think you missed the point of the topic big time here, as no one said that RAW is the only option (and I even explicitly said I few times that JPEG vs RAW bashing is not welcome here), but just that it will provide more details - not that much more for this specific image as it`s pretty good already, but for some scenes it will be invaluable. And even that is not important here, just that RAW was better to start with, as already said.

It`s good for you that you have used both, and that you`ve sold tons of images professionally, it`s just bad for the discussion that you have such an aggressive approach, even though I think you have no real reason to do so.

Click to expand...

jonrobertp said:

boogisha said:

jonrobertp said:

Jpg w the same tedious massaging that was done to this raw would be nearly indistinguishable from ea other except at 100%. Both are viable.

Click to expand...

But the point here IS looking at 100% crops, so we get to see all the possible details Details-wise, if image is down-sampled (as it usually is), it doesn`t really matter that much. But the point was to show that the details are there, even at 100mm, f/2.8, and RAW was a better starting point to recover and show those details.

jonrobertp said:

Do what u like. Just don't tell someone who has sold tons of images professionally that raw is the only option. It's one option. There are 2. I've used both.

Click to expand...

I think you missed the point of the topic big time here, as no one said that RAW is the only option (and I even explicitly said I few times that JPEG vs RAW bashing is not welcome here), but just that it will provide more details - not that much more for this specific image as it`s pretty good already, but for some scenes it will be invaluable. And even that is not important here, just that RAW was better to start with, as already said.

It`s good for you that you have used both, and that you`ve sold tons of images professionally, it`s just bad for the discussion that you have such an aggressive approach, even though I think you have no real reason to do so.

Click to expand...

And your point is ?

Click to expand...

boogisha said:

MarioV said:

For a jpg that has been properly exposed with good optics, sure a jpg will often produce a very good result.

But if you seek maximum detail, or maximum scope to "massage" the image, then raw is the most sensible option. When isnt it the most sensible option? When you have Failing eyesight, Low expectation or low requirement for maximum image quality, a Preference for downsized resolution and smaller file size, Cant be bothered, or dont know how.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with this. Unfortunately for the discussion, as it managed to slip off a bit, the specific JPEG image is actually already good enough, so RAW processing doesn`t provide such a dramatic improvement over the processed JPEG, just that I didn`t expect it to get so much attention and drive the discussion in another direction.

Yet, the mere point was to show that G7 X can produce sharp images at 100m, f/2.8

Click to expand...

brianj said:

I would be interested to see a comparison of a pair of good clean final images from both modes.

Brian

Click to expand...

brianj said:

Earlier I tested some sharpening on the jpg of the teeth and it will take a lot before any halos occur, and look much better than the way it has been presented, so I am not sure that I agree that 'the specific JPEG image is actually already good enough' I dont think this is the case at all.

Brian

Click to expand...

boogisha said:

brianj said:

I would be interested to see a comparison of a pair of good clean final images from both modes.

Brian

Click to expand...

I would like to see those, too, but I`m afraid I may not be the best person to provide those, as I`m still an amateur and it might be better for someone more skilled to do the processing and show us what G7 X is really capable of

Click to expand...

boogisha said:

brianj said:

Earlier I tested some sharpening on the jpg of the teeth and it will take a lot before any halos occur, and look much better than the way it has been presented, so I am not sure that I agree that 'the specific JPEG image is actually already good enough' I dont think this is the case at all.

Brian

Click to expand...

I`m afraid you misunderstood me again - I didn`t mean "good enough" as it can`t be post processed to be improved, but "good enough" as that it holds enough data to be recovered from post processing JPEG itself so there is not a huge advantage in processing the RAW file instead

Click to expand...

boogisha said:

Sometimes, when lightning is harsh (or exposure is plain wrong), JPEG may be missing valuable pieces of information, especially about the colors (or details, if ISO is high and noise reduction kicks in), and then RAW processing shows (much) more visible advantage. This is not the case for this specific image, thus JPEG processing may also do the job.

Click to expand...

boogisha said:

Regarding some harsh comments, I don`t get offended, I know that while we can all have different opinions, we`re not all capable of well worded and calm, constructive thought sharing, or criticism, even, why not. And this is Internet, after all...

Click to expand...

boogisha said:

Steven Wandy said:

I do agree with the concept that you can probably get more detail out of the RAW files for a lot of cameras, but a lot also depends on the in-camera processing. I have been shooting with two Olympus cameras before the G7X - an EM10 which is obviously a larger camera with better overall lens quality, and the Stylus 1, which I sold when getting the G7X. And in both of those cameras (even the Stylus 1 which has a smaller sensor than the G7X and a larger zoom range of 28-300 eq) I felt that the OOC JPEGs were for the most part fine for me. Now that might be partially because I was not in love with the way that Apple's Aperture converted the RAWS, but it was also because since both Olympus cameras gave me the option of turning Noise Filter (what they call their high ISO noise reduction) OFF, which Canon does not allow. That allowed - for me - a lot of the detail to be retained, even in the JPEGs. Not saying that with proper processing I could not get better results from the RAW files, just not enough improvement for my purposes.

Perhaps titling my response "Well..." was wrong and I was not implying that I did not agree with what you saw. What I was saying is that to my eyes (and monitor) the JPEGs looked very smudgy - don't know what settings the tester was using - and the RAWs looked a bit too sharpened.

Regards, Steve

Click to expand...

I do agree with you, and no hard feelings, of course As you said, JPEGs can be just fine most of the time (especially as we rarely use images as 100% crops, so down-sampling hides imperfections), where it`s nice to know that you can get something extra out of RAW in case the JPEG didn`t come out as good as expected.

As I already mentioned, I shoot JPEG+RAW myself, where I usually (RAW) process just part of the images I want to get that extra bit from.

The portrait image I posted is not the best one for comparing JPEG and RAW possibilities, as I find RAW invaluable not that much just to recover details in otherwise pretty fine images, but in those with pretty bad exposure due to harsh scene lightning, where RAW usually keeps much more info of otherwise washed highlights/shadows in JPEG.

And the main point - I seem to like the lens sharpness of G7 X, no matter the compromises

Click to expand...

boogisha said:

Ok, as we discussed it yet no one posted anything so far, here`s a comparison between the processed JPEG and processed RAW. Both original JPEG and RAW processed JPEG can be found in the original post (start of the topic), so I`m only going to provide a processed JPEG, and comparison images.

Please do note that JPEG may now clearly seem over-processed (even for my own standards), but for comparison sake, it`s all the same settings applied to RAW file, just copied over to JPEG (which may also show the difference in the level of details available in JPEG and in RAW, where there isn`t that much of a difference for this specific image).


Processed JPEG, a bit too harsh, but for comparison sake the settings are copied over from RAW processing

And here are the previous comparison points, 100% crops:


Eyes - processed JPEG (upper image) / RAW (lower image), same processing applied


Forehead - processed JPEG (upper image) / RAW (lower image), same processing applied


Mouth, beard - processed JPEG (upper image) / RAW (lower image), same processing applied

As to be seen, RAW does show a bit more details (for example, notice the lack of some skin pores on the forehead comparison image), yet JPEG did manage to hold quite well (even surprisingly well for my expectations). JPEG is clearly over-processed, as it just can`t stand that much of a processing torture as RAW can, but it has a lot of potential nonetheless, especially comparing it to the original, pretty soft and smudged JPEG.

Yet, it wasn`t a point of this topic to discuss about JPEG vs RAW differences and personal preferences, first of all because this specific image isn`t appropriate for such comparison as JPEG is quite good by itself, but to show that G7 X can provide some really nice and sharp results, even at 100mm, f/2.8, and even though the initial, original out-of-camera JPEG does look soft.

RAW file was simply used as it seemed as the most natural starting point, having in mind that it will provide more details (even if just a little more in this specific case), but the point is that details are still there, and I think we may now conclude that, if we didn`t know it already

(in the end, for those interested, for additional, real JPEG vs RAW differences/improvements discussion, you may want to check this post with some more appropriate images to discuss about)

Click to expand...

boogisha said:

Ok, as we discussed it yet no one posted anything so far, here`s a comparison between the processed JPEG and processed RAW. Both original JPEG and RAW processed JPEG can be found in the original post (start of the topic), so I`m only going to provide a processed JPEG, and comparison images.

Please do note that JPEG may now clearly seem over-processed (even for my own standards), but for comparison sake, it`s all the same settings applied to RAW file, just copied over to JPEG (which may also show the difference in the level of details available in JPEG and in RAW, where there isn`t that much of a difference for this specific image).


Processed JPEG, a bit too harsh, but for comparison sake the settings are copied over from RAW processing

And here are the previous comparison points, 100% crops:


Eyes - processed JPEG (upper image) / RAW (lower image), same processing applied


Forehead - processed JPEG (upper image) / RAW (lower image), same processing applied


Mouth, beard - processed JPEG (upper image) / RAW (lower image), same processing applied

As to be seen, RAW does show a bit more details (for example, notice the lack of some skin pores on the forehead comparison image), yet JPEG did manage to hold quite well (even surprisingly well for my expectations). JPEG is clearly over-processed, as it just can`t stand that much of a processing torture as RAW can, but it has a lot of potential nonetheless, especially comparing it to the original, pretty soft and smudged JPEG.

Yet, it wasn`t a point of this topic to discuss about JPEG vs RAW differences and personal preferences, first of all because this specific image isn`t appropriate for such comparison as JPEG is quite good by itself, but to show that G7 X can provide some really nice and sharp results, even at 100mm, f/2.8, and even though the initial, original out-of-camera JPEG does look soft.

RAW file was simply used as it seemed as the most natural starting point, having in mind that it will provide more details (even if just a little more in this specific case), but the point is that details are still there, and I think we may now conclude that, if we didn`t know it already

(in the end, for those interested, for additional, real JPEG vs RAW differences/improvements discussion, you may want to check this post with some more appropriate images to discuss about)

Click to expand...

damian5000 said:

To my eyes, looking at these crops, I can't see why anyone would bother with RAW. I've got to wonder how much of it is placebo effect. IMO, at 100%, its half dozen or 6 - Let alone at normal viewing sizes.

Click to expand...

boogisha said:

damian5000 said:

To my eyes, looking at these crops, I can't see why anyone would bother with RAW. I've got to wonder how much of it is placebo effect. IMO, at 100%, its half dozen or 6 - Let alone at normal viewing sizes.

Click to expand...

As already mentioned a few times, when original image is already near as good as possible, RAW may not even be needed (yet it still may provide some additional details), BUT, when original is flawed for a variety of reasons (wrong exposure, or high dynamic range, or excessive JPEG noise reduction being some of them), then RAW is an absolute savior, and the more original JPEG is compromised, the more RAW file can help recover lost data.

As it`s always good to support words with examples, here are the images - (1) out-of-camera JPEG (underexposed on purpose to see what RAW recovering is capable of), (2) out-of-camera JPEG processed to mimic the real scene as much as possible, (3) RAW processed JPEG, and (4) out-of-camera JPEG processed in the same way RAW file is processed (settings just copied over).


(1) Out-of-camera JPEG, underexposed on purpose to test recovery possibilities


(2) JPEG processed to try to mimic the real scene, recovering as much data as possible


(3) RAW processed JPEG, recovering the most amount of details otherwise lost in original JPEG


(4) JPEG processed with the same settings used for processing RAW, for comparison sake

From examples provided above, we can clearly see the difference RAW file can make. Even heavily processed JPEG (image 2) is no where near RAW processed JPEG (image 3) in terms of details (just pay attention to the sky (highlights) and the shirt (shadows)), and color accuracy (JPEG looks washed-out in comparison to RAW processed image, where you could fiddle each color separately, but it`s no way near as convenient as simple RAW processing where all the data is still retained).

I won`t provide straight 100% crops this time as I have no time to do so, but you may feel free to open each image (as they`re all full-sized) and see for yourself

Again, I have nothing against JPEG shooting (heck, even I shoot JPEG+RAW as JPEGs do have their purpose), but it`s just good to know what RAW can be used for / is capable of.

And again, the purpose of this topic was to show that G7 X`s lens seems to be pretty sharp, yet some post-processing is needed, and not to solely compare JPEG vs RAW possibilities, but hey, the discussion went the wrong way, and it`s partially my own fault as I wasn`t more clear in my initial post what the real intention was.

Never mind, I hope this may conclude it, though please feel free to discuss

Click to expand...

damian5000 said:

damian5000 said:

damian5000 said:

To my eyes, looking at these crops, I can't see why anyone would bother with RAW. I've got to wonder how much of it is placebo effect. IMO, at 100%, its half dozen or 6 - Let alone at normal viewing sizes.

Click to expand...

As already mentioned a few times, when original image is already near as good as possible, RAW may not even be needed (yet it still may provide some additional details), BUT, when original is flawed for a variety of reasons (wrong exposure, or high dynamic range, or excessive JPEG noise reduction being some of them), then RAW is an absolute savior, and the more original JPEG is compromised, the more RAW file can help recover lost data.

As it`s always good to support words with examples, here are the images - (1) out-of-camera JPEG (underexposed on purpose to see what RAW recovering is capable of), (2) out-of-camera JPEG processed to mimic the real scene as much as possible, (3) RAW processed JPEG, and (4) out-of-camera JPEG processed in the same way RAW file is processed (settings just copied over).


(1) Out-of-camera JPEG, underexposed on purpose to test recovery possibilities


(2) JPEG processed to try to mimic the real scene, recovering as much data as possible


(3) RAW processed JPEG, recovering the most amount of details otherwise lost in original JPEG


(4) JPEG processed with the same settings used for processing RAW, for comparison sake

From examples provided above, we can clearly see the difference RAW file can make. Even heavily processed JPEG (image 2) is no where near RAW processed JPEG (image 3) in terms of details (just pay attention to the sky (highlights) and the shirt (shadows)), and color accuracy (JPEG looks washed-out in comparison to RAW processed image, where you could fiddle each color separately, but it`s no way near as convenient as simple RAW processing where all the data is still retained).

I won`t provide straight 100% crops this time as I have no time to do so, but you may feel free to open each image (as they`re all full-sized) and see for yourself

Again, I have nothing against JPEG shooting (heck, even I shoot JPEG+RAW as JPEGs do have their purpose), but it`s just good to know what RAW can be used for / is capable of.

And again, the purpose of this topic was to show that G7 X`s lens seems to be pretty sharp, yet some post-processing is needed, and not to solely compare JPEG vs RAW possibilities, but hey, the discussion went the wrong way, and it`s partially my own fault as I wasn`t more clear in my initial post what the real intention was.

Never mind, I hope this may conclude it, though please feel free to discuss

Click to expand...

Okay, I can easily see it here. But I think this is an unrealistic example. Who would take a shot like this? Regardless, it does show there is a theoretical use for RAW.

Click to expand...

brianj said:

damian5000 said:

brianj said:

damian5000 said:

To my eyes, looking at these crops, I can't see why anyone would bother with RAW. I've got to wonder how much of it is placebo effect. IMO, at 100%, its half dozen or 6 - Let alone at normal viewing sizes.

Click to expand...

As already mentioned a few times, when original image is already near as good as possible, RAW may not even be needed (yet it still may provide some additional details), BUT, when original is flawed for a variety of reasons (wrong exposure, or high dynamic range, or excessive JPEG noise reduction being some of them), then RAW is an absolute savior, and the more original JPEG is compromised, the more RAW file can help recover lost data.

As it`s always good to support words with examples, here are the images - (1) out-of-camera JPEG (underexposed on purpose to see what RAW recovering is capable of), (2) out-of-camera JPEG processed to mimic the real scene as much as possible, (3) RAW processed JPEG, and (4) out-of-camera JPEG processed in the same way RAW file is processed (settings just copied over).


(1) Out-of-camera JPEG, underexposed on purpose to test recovery possibilities


(2) JPEG processed to try to mimic the real scene, recovering as much data as possible


(3) RAW processed JPEG, recovering the most amount of details otherwise lost in original JPEG


(4) JPEG processed with the same settings used for processing RAW, for comparison sake

From examples provided above, we can clearly see the difference RAW file can make. Even heavily processed JPEG (image 2) is no where near RAW processed JPEG (image 3) in terms of details (just pay attention to the sky (highlights) and the shirt (shadows)), and color accuracy (JPEG looks washed-out in comparison to RAW processed image, where you could fiddle each color separately, but it`s no way near as convenient as simple RAW processing where all the data is still retained).

I won`t provide straight 100% crops this time as I have no time to do so, but you may feel free to open each image (as they`re all full-sized) and see for yourself

Again, I have nothing against JPEG shooting (heck, even I shoot JPEG+RAW as JPEGs do have their purpose), but it`s just good to know what RAW can be used for / is capable of.

And again, the purpose of this topic was to show that G7 X`s lens seems to be pretty sharp, yet some post-processing is needed, and not to solely compare JPEG vs RAW possibilities, but hey, the discussion went the wrong way, and it`s partially my own fault as I wasn`t more clear in my initial post what the real intention was.

Never mind, I hope this may conclude it, though please feel free to discuss

Click to expand...

Okay, I can easily see it here. But I think this is an unrealistic example. Who would take a shot like this? Regardless, it does show there is a theoretical use for RAW.

Click to expand...

Yes, it helps out poor photographers. LOL

Brian

Click to expand...