Newbie question SD14: Raw vs. JPG

[Reinald]

Hi Folks,

I finally got it - a nice set of the SD14, 18-200 Lens and EF-500 DG Super flash for an unbeatable price!

After playing around and reading through some forums, lots of users seem to prefer RAW images ofer super-hi JPG resolution. But, when playing around with the settings, I found the super-hi JPG to show more details over a Raw Shot, and scaling up the raw image afterwards with the Sigma Software didn't bring it to the same detail level.

From what I understood so far, it should be possible to do the same postprocessing as the camera on the RAW images afterwards in the software, but I don't see the same results. So where is my mistake here?

Any hint is highly appreciated,
Reinald

 

[DaSonyGuy]

Hi Folks,

I finally got it - a nice set of the SD14, 18-200 Lens and EF-500 DG
Super flash for an unbeatable price!

After playing around and reading through some forums, lots of users
seem to prefer RAW images ofer super-hi JPG resolution. But, when
playing around with the settings, I found the super-hi JPG to show
more details over a Raw Shot, and scaling up the raw image afterwards
with the Sigma Software didn't bring it to the same detail level.

From what I understood so far, it should be possible to do the same
postprocessing as the camera on the RAW images afterwards in the
software, but I don't see the same results. So where is my mistake
here?

Any hint is highly appreciated,

Look at deep shadows and you will see that RAW captures a lot more detail than in-camera JPG's do.

--
DSG
--



--
http://sigmasd10.fotopic.net/

 

[SandyF]

Based on my experience with the SD14 (since March 22) RAW gives me more/crisper detail than JPEG when all else is equal (I've shot JPEG and RAW side-by-side as experiments) Plus this is important: more latitude for post processing improvements (for example in white balance). Also try just JPEG Hi resolution rather than Super Hi: smaller file sizes and I think about the same detail as Super Hi. I'm not a techie, so can't explain it, but there isn't much advantage in shooting Super Hi JPEG. I'd recommend you try RAW or JPEG Hi.

Also if you're new to RAW processing, note that you have some options for RAW processor in addition to Sigma PhotoPro 3 (or SPP2.2 for Mac). See other thread for my comments on Photoshop Elements v5/ACR4.1 ( not v4) vs SPP3: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=25606188

There are other software options too; ask questions, also depends upon Mac vs PC and cost (ie advanced editing/post processing vs inexpensive software)
Again: bottom line recommendation: shoot RAW
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann

 

[convert]

don't have an sd14 but....

A raw file is all a jpg comes from in the first place. It is impossible for a Jpg to be 'sharper' than raw.

They can appear so because of software extrapolation which in the case of double size sd14 jpg's (someone correct me when I am wrong please) is what happens. The 'pixels' are simply doubled and the software guesses what they should look like.

More likely is that the Jpgs have had some 'sharpening' thrown in as part of the processing. Edges look more defined but the image actually loses fine detail.

I do this sort of thing a lot with my sd10 images via photoshop. One final "unsharp mask" before posting to flickr. Detail is actually lost, i would never do this to an image that I wanted a print from.

Andy
--
just me, sigh
Andy

 

[SandyF]

don't have an sd14 but....
A raw file is all a jpg comes from in the first place. It is
impossible for a Jpg to be 'sharper' than raw.

Let me try to add some specific JPEG vs RAW examples from this summer; please see http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman/sigma_sd14&page=3 Any photo .JPG is a straight in-camera unedited SD14 JPEG. Any photo.... SDIM.... edited is RAW, processed through Photoshop Elements v5/ACR4.1 usually with minimal editing; I sometimes bump up the contrast or up/down the exposure slightly, rarely do any sharpening other than what the program may do in default.

Look at the wagon photos in the garden of the Botanic Garden; good example I think of how RAW gave me more latitude to easily improve the photo. Ditto Chihuly glass sculptures.

Now on the photos of Joanne Shenandoah during the Natl. Museum of the American Indian concert: at various concerts I experimented JPEG vs RAW, or SD10 vs SD14 or even SD9 vs SD14.... Again, RAW gives me slightly 'better' photos, slightly sharper, clearer out of the camera/processor with little effort vs the JPEGs. BUT many of them taken seconds apart, I would have to look at the EXIF detail to see which was which (JPEG vs RAW) in side-by-sides in PSElements v5/ACR4.1. Slightly more or crisper detail on the face, skin, jewelry in RAW.

BTW, the SD10 was much less capable at these dusk concerts, and the SD9 even less so.
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann

 

[Ed_S]

Reinald,

I basically concur with the opinions of my senior colleagues. I have occasionally taken jpegs which I preferred over my post processing of my RAW images. But, as has been duly noted, all of the available information is in the RAW image and thus it's up to the photographer and the conversion/post processing software to "tease" from the source what is desired and possible in the final version.

I tend to shoot RAW most of the time except when I'm shooting volumes of less critical images and don't want to spend a lot of time with the RAW images (e.g., an event - I am after all an amateur and not relying on my pro bono work for income), website shots, simple "records" of some situation with moderate IQ acceptable, or (mea culpa) snapshots - the kind of things that will only be seen as an on-screen or as a 4x6 inch photo of a holiday gathering, routine vacation scenes, etc. Taking my cue from SandyF I usually shoot in Fine mode in these latter cases.

Regards,
--
Ed_S
http://www.pbase.com/ecsquires

 

[Reinald]

Hi,

yes, that's exactly the point - all the information is in the RAW picture. but how can I get it processed so I get the same detail level as the superhi jpg directly processed in the camera?

that's exactly my problem...

Reinald