Why this JPEG shooter is now a RAW convert!

[Phixel]

I have had my DSLR for over a year now and have been shooting JPEG almost exclusively, but now I see why shooting RAW and doing a conversion to JPEG in my computer results in much better images.

I shot this JPEG and forgot to change the white balance from the shade. The resulting color shift is obvious.

JPEG photo:



Lucky for me, I was shooting in JPEG+RAW mode, so I was able to adjust the image perfectly using a RAW converter.

Now the RAW photo adjusted for white balance, contrast, sharpened, etc.
(I also cropped the photo).



I am liking what I see, so no more WB settings or exposure/WB bracketing or JPEG only shooting for me!
-Phil

 

[Sammy Yousef]

Ironically I prefer the first version of your photo despite the technical flaws. However it makes sense to me to shoot RAW unless space or time converting are an issue. If it's worth capturing it's worth capturing in the best format the camera can output. I've salvaged or outright saved numerous photos by using RAW.

--
Sammy

 

[Jeff Rutsch]

The JPEG picture looks better. I can see what you mean about the colors being a little off, but I think the exposure and the color are both much worse in the second. The second one reminds me of cheaper older movies, where they would film night scenes on a sunny day, and then use weird colored filters and under-exposure to imply that the scenes were set at night.

 

[KEITH-C]

I'm interested in the comments which say that the Jpeg version is better. I think the viewers are responding to bright colours but what about the loss of detail in the car bonnet & the rendering of the leather seat ?

It may depend on your screen but on mine the RAW adjusted photo could be a little brighter & the green grass adjusted to a more yellow-green but nevertheless it is better than the Jpeg.
--
Keith-C

 

[Yetikeeper]

the first image is bright and colourful but you are correct about the colur shift.
the second shot is corrected but looks dark and dull.

the first shot says nice, bright summer fun day
the second is just a bit dark

a mix of the two perhaps

 

[Ron Poelman]

Another great RAW bonus.

 

[Jeff Rutsch]

I'm interested in the comments which say that the Jpeg version is better. I think the viewers are responding to bright colours but what about the loss of detail in the car bonnet & the rendering of the leather seat ?

It may depend on your screen but on mine the RAW adjusted photo could be a little brighter & the green grass adjusted to a more yellow-green but nevertheless it is better than the Jpeg.

Looking at the seats, they don't look any more detailed to me in the 2nd picture. I can see the same wrinkles and all. However the picture shown is less than one megapixel and I'm willing to believe that it's noticeable if you pixel peep the full-size image. Or perhaps if my monitor was larger. Anyway, if there is any difference it involves a lot of squinting to notice, so who cares.

Mostly I was talking about the weird colors and darkness of the second. The first picture was too bright and the colors are strange and the car hood looks like a tomato, but the second picture is way over-corrected. It's very dark and the color balance is totally off.

 

[jpp188636]

One thing struck me: no more PF in the second picture...
--
Just passing by...

 

[Don Simons]

Give the guy a chance, sure the second one is a bit dark, just look at the white car in the background, but that could be easily fixed. Have a look at the headlights and grill in the second shot, beautiful, the JPEG has just blown it and there is no repairing it. Isn't it a fantastic car in either picture anyway. Thanks for the interesting comparison.

 

[richardplondon]

The point of Raw is, more or less, that you can get what you want - or if you don't, it is within your own control to correct. Often, one person will want something that another person would not have wanted; personal control and choice includes the possibility of getting things more "wrong".

Taking an analogy of seats in a car:

Sometimes the passenger seat is not as adjustable as the driver's seat - for height, lumbar, rake etc. Such a passenger seat is factory-built to reasonably cheaply suit a high proportion of the population, who do not NEED to be super-comfortable anyway... since they can safely squirm around, as a driver cannot.

The driver's seat is usually more adjustable, and a given driver will normally have adjusted it in a specific way for his or her own prolonged comfort. The extra cost of having these adjustments is considered worthwhile.

A brand new car's driver seat will have come from the factory on some specific "middle" setting, or else a delivery driver might have been very tall or short, and left it set that way. Or the guy who fits the floormats might have raised the seat right up.

So: if you get into a randomly chosen car, just as it is , the overall chances are good that the passenger seat (JPG) will be more immediately comfortable to you, than the driver's seat (Raw).

The driver's seat might even be actively uncomfortable at that moment. But you can't judge its ability to fit you , unless you have tried out its range of adjustment. The extra adjustability means you can be more sure, of getting comfortable in the end.

RP

 

[jrkliny]

Unless you are really skilled and use a calibrated monitor, the jpeg results can be better than raw conversions. I think the average person who tries to do raw conversions will do a worse job than the auto settings of the camera.

Of course, this discussion proves nothing since color and exposure corrections are also very easy in photoshop when working with jpegs.

 

[GaryDeM]

if the jpeg exposure and wb were set correctly when the image was shot, it would have been fine. this is not an advantage of raw, just user error.

meaning take the shot right, and you will not care if the shot was jpeg or raw.

 

[Dayo]

The original jpg is a bit hot but the RAW version is still worse overall. Actually, the WB is not right in the RAW version. Too cold, too blue.

Had a quick bash at the Jpeg with Capture NX



Original RAW photo.



Original JPEG photo:



The eagle eyed will notice that the driver's side board is blown out (even more in my attempt - didn't pay attention and only noticed after uploading) but I will argue that this is a minor issue here and that the sacrifice to the entire image to get that small part right in the RAW version is too much a price to pay.

--
http://dakanji.com

'Of what use is a philosopher who doesn't hurt anyone's feelings?'
Diogenes the Cynic, 300 BC.

KenRockwell Supporter

 

[tex]

nada

 

[Phixel]

The point of Raw is, more or less, that you can get what you want - or if you don't, it is within your own control to correct. Often, one person will want something that another person would not have wanted; personal control and choice includes the possibility of getting things more "wrong".

Taking an analogy of seats in a car:

Sometimes the passenger seat is not as adjustable as the driver's seat - for height, lumbar, rake etc. Such a passenger seat is factory-built to reasonably cheaply suit a high proportion of the population, who do not NEED to be super-comfortable anyway... since they can safely squirm around, as a driver cannot.

The driver's seat is usually more adjustable, and a given driver will normally have adjusted it in a specific way for his or her own prolonged comfort. The extra cost of having these adjustments is considered worthwhile.

A brand new car's driver seat will have come from the factory on some specific "middle" setting, or else a delivery driver might have been very tall or short, and left it set that way. Or the guy who fits the floormats might have raised the seat right up.

So: if you get into a randomly chosen car, just as it is , the overall chances are good that the passenger seat (JPG) will be more immediately comfortable to you, than the driver's seat (Raw).

The driver's seat might even be actively uncomfortable at that moment. But you can't judge its ability to fit you , unless you have tried out its range of adjustment. The extra adjustability means you can be more sure, of getting comfortable in the end.

RP

Thanks for that Richard! I didn't realize this forum is such a tough crowd! Keep in mind I am new to RAW conversion and should have said that this is the first time I have done RAW conversion using this particular software. That said I still like the way the second photo looks on my monitor at home as it has a specified 40,000:1 contrast ratio. After looking at the photo on my monitor at work I can understand a bit more what some are saying about the RAW conversion. All that being said, I still like what I am seeing in terms of the color I remember with my RAW conversions than the JPEGs.
-Phil

-Phil

 

[Phixel]

Here are a few more RAW conversions. Remember I am new to this, but not bad for my first attempts, I think. I trust the first one is bright enough!







-Phil

 

[Dayo]

--
http://dakanji.com

'Of what use is a philosopher who doesn't hurt anyone's feelings?'
Diogenes the Cynic, 300 BC.

KenRockwell Supporter

 

[Phixel]

--
http://dakanji.com

'Of what use is a philosopher who doesn't hurt anyone's feelings?'
Diogenes the Cynic, 300 BC.

KenRockwell Supporter

Sorry, I will have to get the JPEGs off my CF card again for these. I will get the JPEGs posted this evening.
-Phil

 

[richardplondon]

Thanks for that Richard! I didn't realize this forum is such a tough crowd!

I don't think it is really. The "Raw vs JPG" issue is just such a favourite dead horse to kick around, a good excuse to emote without even listening to each other.

Keep in mind I am new to RAW conversion and should have said that this is the first time I have done RAW conversion using this particular software.

It's an entire separate discipline of its own, which is often forgotten by the "get it right in the camera" school - whatever "right" might mean in practice. Please don't be put off , you will get a lot of good (as well as bad) advice here and also in Retouching and the camera-specific forums.

That said I still like the way the second photo looks on my monitor at home as it has a specified 40,000:1 contrast ratio. After looking at the photo on my monitor at work I can understand a bit more what some are saying about the RAW conversion. All that being said, I still like what I am seeing in terms of the color I remember with my RAW conversions than the JPEGs.

I prefer Raw too, mainly because with my own particular camera, I can get more subject-specific textures, tones, colours and edges that way - not the "obvious" one-size-fits-all "treatment" that JPG employs, whatever saturation etc I set.

Camera settings make basically the same image more or less punchy, sharp etc... given the right user input, Raw development can go on to draw out rather different images IMO.

The best part is: as skills develop, one can go back and re-convert or tweak the same images again in, almost, a new discovery.

RP

 

[Buzzzman]

-- I couldn't believe the reponses to your post claiming jpegs are better.. Then I noticed I was on the open forum -not the retouch forum Post your image on the retouch forum, and you will get different responses.

Okay---- Your jpg version has no detail in the hood, which can't be recovered. You are 100% correct when shooting raw---setting white balance in camera doesn't matter. It can easily be corrected in pp. IF shooting jpg-better get it right in camera!!!
Also if highlights are blown out, you can bring it back- can't do in jpg.
Also A raw file can provide more dynamic range than a jpg.

If these guy prefer your your jpg version-it is because of your post processing of the raw - not because it because it is a raw file.

With more experience, your post processing will improve, and you can take advantage of the extra info when shooting Raw. I shoot raw just about all of the time, and so do those that want the best possible results from their images!

I think the processed raw file looks better, and with different handling would be much be superior to the jpg version.!!

Come on over to the retouch forum for your cc please!!!!
Buzzi
http://buzzman.smugmug.com/
The software does all of the work---I just hit the keys!!!