RAW vs. JPEG

digidog · Apr 21, 2016

Old Greenlander said:
Digidog

you make me curious

I shot only jpeg, I take too many pictures and no time for PP

from time to time I take a few RAW but when I convert them I don't see an overwhelming difference from pegs

where is the DR hidden?

It's not hidden. Again, it's an attribute of the capture device and what you select, raw or JPEG doesn't change that. The rendering of the raw does! The camera creates a JPEG from the raw. How well or poorly it does, in terms of the rendering is the question, it's outside your control by and large. And then there's the 'compression' of tonal data I outlined in another post (http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57639418). So, IF your goal is to use all the DR the camera system can provide, you'll be shooting raw and processing the raw, rendering it to achieve as much DR as the system can produce.

Ysarex · Apr 21, 2016

Old Greenlander said:
Digidog

you make me curious

I shot only jpeg, I take too many pictures and no time for PP

from time to time I take a few RAW but when I convert them I don't see an overwhelming difference from pegs

where is the DR hidden?

--
Old Greenlander
"I show the world the way I see it"
35 years of photography and still learning

If I may jump in with a visual.

On the left is the JPEG the camera created. The highlights are already clipped but the overall appearance of the photo is still dark due to the dark shadows and extreme high contrast light. I didn't make use of the camera JPEG controls and arguably I could get an improved JPEG if I did, but there's no possible way to coax the image on the right from the camera software. My Fuji has a function to increase DR in the JPEG but it does so by underexposing. The image on the right takes full advantage of the sensor DR and so any reduction in exposure is giving up data that I used in the image on the right.

Highlights in the sensor were not clipped and so I didn't have to clip them in processing (the camera however did). I opened up the shadows rather dramatically (extending DR relative to the camera JPEG) -- compare the two truck grills. I opened up the shadows on the tires and in the wheel wells.

My photo on the right is now an 8 bit JPEG just as the photo on the left from the camera. The difference is in how the camera software used the data captured by the sensor compared with how I used it. I made the photo I wanted to make the way I wanted to make it and in this case I used all the DR the sensor captured. The camera didn't.

Old Greenlander · Apr 21, 2016

Ysarex said:
Old Greenlander said:

Digidog

you make me curious

I shot only jpeg, I take too many pictures and no time for PP

from time to time I take a few RAW but when I convert them I don't see an overwhelming difference from pegs

where is the DR hidden?

--
Old Greenlander
"I show the world the way I see it"
35 years of photography and still learning

Click to expand...

If I may jump in with a visual.

On the left is the JPEG the camera created. The highlights are already clipped but the overall appearance of the photo is still dark due to the dark shadows and extreme high contrast light. I didn't make use of the camera JPEG controls and arguably I could get an improved JPEG if I did, but there's no possible way to coax the image on the right from the camera software. My Fuji has a function to increase DR in the JPEG but it does so by underexposing. The image on the right takes full advantage of the sensor DR and so any reduction in exposure is giving up data that I used in the image on the right.

Highlights in the sensor were not clipped and so I didn't have to clip them in processing (the camera however did). I opened up the shadows rather dramatically (extending DR relative to the camera JPEG) -- compare the two truck grills. I opened up the shadows on the tires and in the wheel wells.

My photo on the right is now an 8 bit JPEG just as the photo on the left from the camera. The difference is in how the camera software used the data captured by the sensor compared with how I used it. I made the photo I wanted to make the way I wanted to make it and in this case I used all the DR the sensor captured. The camera didn't.

Hmm

that grille... it seems I must start working some RAWs

--
Old Greenlander
"I show the world the way I see it"
35 years of photography and still learning

Brad Bohland · Apr 22, 2016

Ysarex said:
On the left is the JPEG the camera created. The highlights are already clipped but the overall appearance of the photo is still dark due to the dark shadows and extreme high contrast light. I didn't make use of the camera JPEG controls and arguably I could get an improved JPEG if I did, but there's no possible way to coax the image on the right from the camera software.

The thread link I posted originally on this thread demonstrates clearly that processed JPEGs are almost as good as processed RAW images--no comparison with ooc JPEGs. Of course, the software processing program makes all the difference.

Ysarex · Apr 22, 2016

Brad Bohland said:
Ysarex said:

On the left is the JPEG the camera created. The highlights are already clipped but the overall appearance of the photo is still dark due to the dark shadows and extreme high contrast light. I didn't make use of the camera JPEG controls and arguably I could get an improved JPEG if I did, but there's no possible way to coax the image on the right from the camera software.

Click to expand...

The thread link I posted originally on this thread demonstrates clearly that processed JPEGs are almost as good as processed RAW images

I would dispute that as nonsense. I'd be happy to provide you with the full-res version of the above JPEG. To begin with how to deal with the fact that the highlights in the JPEG are clipped?

Brad Bohland said:
--no comparison with ooc JPEGs. Of course, the software processing program makes all the difference.

digidog · Apr 22, 2016

Ysarex said:
Brad Bohland said:

Ysarex said:

On the left is the JPEG the camera created. The highlights are already clipped but the overall appearance of the photo is still dark due to the dark shadows and extreme high contrast light. I didn't make use of the camera JPEG controls and arguably I could get an improved JPEG if I did, but there's no possible way to coax the image on the right from the camera software.

Click to expand...

The thread link I posted originally on this thread demonstrates clearly that processed JPEGs are almost as good as processed RAW images

Click to expand...

I would dispute that as nonsense. I'd be happy to provide you with the full-res version of the above JPEG. To begin with how to deal with the fact that the highlights in the JPEG are clipped?

Yup, once clipped, nothing will bring back that data. Data that DOES exist in the raw.

The posts here demonstrate easily that processed JPEGs are not as good as processed raws and as importantly, a major part of the photo processing, rendering the image, isn't possible.

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog

Home

Brad Bohland · Apr 22, 2016

Ysarex said:
Ysarex said:

The thread link I posted originally on this thread demonstrates clearly that processed JPEGs are almost as good as processed RAW images

Click to expand...

I would dispute that as nonsense.

Look for yourself. Example 12 in original size to get the toggle between ooc JPEG, processed JPEG, and processed RAW:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57617547

Ysarex · Apr 22, 2016

Brad Bohland said:
Ysarex said:

Brad Bohland said:

The thread link I posted originally on this thread demonstrates clearly that processed JPEGs are almost as good as processed RAW images

Click to expand...

I would dispute that as nonsense.

Click to expand...

Look for yourself. Example 12 in original size to get the toggle between ooc JPEG, processed JPEG, and processed RAW:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57617547

I looked and I went through most of what was posted to start the thread. I'm sticking with nonsense. The whole methodology is flawed from the start. In his comparisons he uses raw and JPEG files from the same exposure. If you're going to compare the best you can get from camera JPEGs versus the best you can get from a raw file you need to start with two different exposures. Just as in the example photos I posted. The camera ruined the JPEG because I correctly exposed the sensor for the raw file.

What's the point of comparing a camera JPEG or repaired camera JPEG with a raw file of the same exposure if that exposure isn't ideal for the raw file? In other words it's not a fair race if the raw file has to run with it's shoelaces tied together.

Here's a link to some notes I use in class: http://photojoes.net/class_notes/chapter04.html

Scroll down to where it says Option 1 and you see a photo of a chair and bookcase. Start reading at the 2nd paragraph if you like -- do the photo mouse overs. Make sure and read the box in red 3 paragraphs down.

brucet · Apr 22, 2016

I simply don't understand the debate. Simple fact. When a camera creates a Jpeg it throws away a lot of data. When it saves as a raw file is saves all the data. Anyone that has a reasonable grasp of a raw converter has a far better chance of producing a 'better' result than the ooc Jpeg.

Try doing the same edits to a Jpeg as you can do with a raw and see how 'good' the Jpeg really is.

regards

shaolin95 · Apr 22, 2016

brucet said:
I simply don't understand the debate. Simple fact. When a camera creates a Jpeg it throws away a lot of data. When it saves as a raw file is saves all the data. Anyone that has a reasonable grasp of a raw converter has a far better chance of producing a 'better' result than the ooc Jpeg.

Try doing the same edits to a Jpeg as you can do with a raw and see how 'good' the Jpeg really is.

regards

Iliah Borg · Apr 23, 2016

Consider this JPEG; looking at the histogram, it is obvious the shot is severely overexposed (the camera is set to low contrast, btw):

77093112e41c4df6a653c0d04c5b9e13.jpg.png

But the raw of the same shot is in fact slightly underexposed (1/3 of a stop):

018ddfa9cb1e4b829ea9b90a88d616ec.jpg.png

Now, if I'm after a well-exposed JPEG, the exposure goes down by 1.5 stops, from shutter speed 1/60 to 1/160:

d41d52a4447e4d0fa136d732499e33d8.jpg.png

And the histogram of the raw of the same shot shows a very signifiant underexposure:

daa32f85cc5f4722b630ab983cf86035.jpg.png

Given I'm already on ISO 800 (light is not too good, slight wind, handholding as there is no place for tripod, a macro tube), those 1.5 stops matter.

--
http://www.libraw.org/

brucet · Apr 23, 2016

Iliah Borg said:
Consider this JPEG; looking at the histogram, it is obvious the shot is severely overexposed (the camera is set to low contrast, btw):

But the raw of the same shot is in fact slightly underexposed (1/3 of a stop):

Now, if I'm after a well-exposed JPEG, the exposure goes down by 1.5 stops, from shutter speed 1/60 to 1/160:

And the histogram of the raw of the same shot shows a very signifiant underexposure:

Given I'm already on ISO 800 (light is not too good, slight wind, handholding as there is no place for tripod, a macro tube), those 1.5 stops matter.

--
http://www.libraw.org/

The raw has all the data. Your camera is making changes to get the jpeg that the manufacturer has set to satisfy the bulk of their customers. As I said in my above post, anyone with a good understanding of their raw converter will/can match and exceed the perceived quality of the ooc Jpeg.

regards

--
I thought I made a mistake once. But I was wrong!

500px

500px.com

b treloar

Explore b treloar’s 179 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

Iliah Borg · Apr 23, 2016

brucet said:
The raw has all the data.

The data for 1/60 and 1/160 is different. I do not understand how do you mean saying "the raw", 2 different raw files are here.

Toermalijn · Apr 23, 2016

Iliah Borg said:
Iliah Borg said:

The raw has all the data.

Click to expand...

The data for 1/60 and 1/160 is different. I do not understand how do you mean saying "the raw", 2 different raw files are here.

brucet · Apr 23, 2016

Iliah Borg said:
Iliah Borg said:

The raw has all the data.

Click to expand...

The data for 1/60 and 1/160 is different. I do not understand how do you mean saying "the raw", 2 different raw files are here.

Iliah Borg · Apr 23, 2016

brucet said:
My point is that regardless of how you present the evidence

IMHO it is important how it is presented.

brucet said:
raw always has the capacity to out perform a occ Jpegs. Period.

I'm demonstrating that optimal exposure is significantly different between raw and JPEG. Yes, I'm comparing 2 different shots, that's the whole point.

brucet · Apr 23, 2016

Iliah Borg said:
Iliah Borg said:

My point is that regardless of how you present the evidence

Click to expand...

IMHO it is important how it is presented.

Iliah Borg said:

raw always has the capacity to out perform a occ Jpegs. Period.

Click to expand...

I'm demonstrating that optimal exposure is significantly different between raw and JPEG. Yes, I'm comparing 2 different shots, that's the whole point.

digidog · Apr 23, 2016

Iliah Borg said:
I'm demonstrating that optimal exposure is significantly different between raw and JPEG. Yes, I'm comparing 2 different shots, that's the whole point.

A critically important point those who might shoot raw+JPEG (or raw alone) may not be aware of; optimal exposure for a JPEG is suboptimal for the raw data as we both know. Optimal exposure for raw data will almost certainly over expose the JPEG.

Toermalijn · Apr 23, 2016

digidog said:
Iliah Borg said:

I'm demonstrating that optimal exposure is significantly different between raw and JPEG. Yes, I'm comparing 2 different shots, that's the whole point.

Click to expand...

A critically important point those who might shoot raw+JPEG (or raw alone) may not be aware of; optimal exposure for a JPEG is suboptimal for the raw data as we both know. Optimal exposure for raw data will almost certainly over expose the JPEG.

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

That's certainly the conclusion you can draw from the discussions and examples here in this thread.

Furthermore, if you shoot raw, you can extract the jpeg from the raw if you need it but you'll have a way beter exposed image then shooting raw + jpeg.

You can extract jpegs from raw with this tool:

http://michaeltapesdesign.com/instant-jpeg-from-raw.html

Brad Bohland · Apr 24, 2016

Ysarex said:
Brad Bohland said:

Ysarex said:

Brad Bohland said:

The thread link I posted originally on this thread demonstrates clearly that processed JPEGs are almost as good as processed RAW images

Click to expand...

I would dispute that as nonsense.

Click to expand...

Look for yourself. Example 12 in original size to get the toggle between ooc JPEG, processed JPEG, and processed RAW:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57617547

Click to expand...

I looked and I went through most of what was posted to start the thread. I'm sticking with nonsense. The whole methodology is flawed from the start.

Here's a link to some notes I use in class: http://photojoes.net/class_notes/chapter04.html

Scroll down to where it says Option 1 and you see a photo of a chair and bookcase. Start reading at the 2nd paragraph if you like -- do the photo mouse overs. Make sure and read the box in red 3 paragraphs down.

Thanks for taking the time to check it out.

I'll look into your link.

RAW vs. JPEG

digidog

Guest

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

digidog

Guest

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

digidog

Guest

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts