POLL: How often do you shoot raw images?

Started May 1, 2014 | Polls
djddpr
djddpr Veteran Member • Posts: 7,068
Photographic evidence -- part 2 of 3, 2008 thru 2011

In a earlier post I indicated my intention to submit more photographic evidence. This is part 2 of 3, 2008 thru 2011.  All were taken with a Olympus C8080 as JPG output. All are edited. They are among my best results for each year -- in part due to my post-processing. See photo captions for more information.

David Dollevoet

20080906-140906  Chicago Botanic Garden  Moderate contrast scene

20081026-142046  River Trails Nature Center, Northbrook, IL  High contrast scene, moderate yellow color cast

20090916-151720  Chicago Botanic Garden  Some blown-out highs

20091020-170038  New Orleans French Quarter  Moderate contrast scene, some blown-out highs

20100318-152120  Chicago Botanic Garden  Moderate contrast scene, some plugged-up lows

20100504-164942  Chicago Botanic Garden  Extreme high contrast scene, some plugged-up lows, many blown-out highs, strong yellow color cast

20110520-172248  Chicago Botanic Garden  Very high contrast scene, several blown-out highs

20110828-182924  Chicago Botanic Garden  High contrast scene, background replaced

 djddpr's gear list:djddpr's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200
djddpr
djddpr Veteran Member • Posts: 7,068
Photographic evidence -- part 3 of 3, 2012 thru 2014
1

In a earlier post I indicated my intention to submit more photographic evidence. This is part 3 of 3, 2012 thru 2014. 2012 was with a Olympus C8080. 2013 was with a Panasonic FZ150.  2014 was with a Panasonic FZ150 and a Panasonic FZ200.  All were taken as JPG output. All are edited. They are among my best results for each year -- in part due to my post-processing. See photo captions for more information.

David Dollevoet

20120908-181318  Chicago Botanic Garden  Background replaced

20121016-151030  River Trails Nature Center, Northbrook, IL  High contrast scene, moderate yellow color cast

20130516-154300  Chicago Botanic Garden  Sky replacement

20130707-122800  Chicago Botanic Garden  Background blurred

20140228-151244  Chicago Botanic Garden  High contrast scene

20140518-134908  Chicago Botanic Garden  Moderate contrast scene

 djddpr's gear list:djddpr's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200
phototransformations
phototransformations Senior Member • Posts: 2,833
Re: Photographic evidence -- part 1 of 3, 2004 thru 2007
1

In a earlier post I indicated my intention to submit more photographic evidence.  This is part 1 of 3, 2004 thru 2007.  2004 was with a Canon G3.  2005 thru 2007 was with a Olympus C8080.  All were taken as JPG output.  All are edited.  They are among my best results for each year -- in part due to my post-processing.  See photo captions for more information.

David Dollevoet

2004-0267  Bryce National Park  High contrast scene

2004-0337  Zion National Park  High contrast scene

20050911-163904  Chicago Botanic Garden  Some blown-out highs

20051121-162218  A highway rest stop in Arizona  Some blown-out highs

20060916-154642  Chicago Botanic Garden  High contrast scene

20061128-151030  Painted Desert National Park  A few blown-out highs

20070701-153930  Chicago Botanic Garden  High contrast scene, background replaced

20070901-114732  Devil's Lake State Park, Wisconsin  Moderately high contrast scene

You have created some really lovely images. I'm also impressed with your skill in replacing skies, backgrounds, etc. I'm not sure what you are submitting evidence to prove, however. I don't think any of us who prefer RAW think you can't get good image quality from JPEGs. (Indeed, most of my best pictures are from JPEGs because that's all I shot for the first 10 years of using digital). We just think there are additional advantages to RAW that either enable subtle improvements or make certain types of post-processing easier or more effective for certain kinds of images. I don't see where there's an argument. It's just a matter of how one person or another prefers to work. What am I missing in your intention here?

 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 +24 more
cainn24 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,892
Photographic evidence of what?
1

That processed JPEGs can look good? How is that a revelation? Everyone around here knows that already. They've conceded it already. In fact I bet absolutely everyone here would concede that even SOOC JPEGs can look good. Exceptional even. So rather than bringing a repudiated fact to life you are simply stating the obvious, and unfortunately you're going about it with exactly the sort of dogmatic arrogance that you attribute to RAW proponents (and falsely attribute to the people whom you are addressing because not only do we all freely make the aforementioned concessions, some of us even shoot JPEG ourselves on occasion).

Dogmatic arrogance? Absolutely. You appear to be effectively saying that shooting RAW and processing that output using decent RAW conversion software doesn't provide a single tangible practical benefit compared to an intelligently managed JPEG workflow, and that the many photographers who have observed otherwise are either deluding themselves or are simply ignorant of the precise JPEG shooting/processing techniques that make RAW so wholly redundant.

So in the interest of being clear (and potentially saving time), is that your actual position?

djddpr
djddpr Veteran Member • Posts: 7,068
Re: Photographic evidence of what?

Cainn24,

Is verbal argument all that you have? Are your verbal arguments superior to your raw post-processed photos?

It is long past due time for raw practitioners to show photographic evidence for their case. The same should be said of jpg practitioners. Let both sides in this issue show their photographic evidence and let participants in this issue and photographers at large decide for themselves.

Please, no more verbal argument. I am willing to be shown that raw post-processing is superior to jpg plus post-processing; and, if photographic evidence so indicates, I would be enthusiastically willing to learn from you

It is time for you to show your goods or kindly have the good grace to leave me alone on this issue.

David Dollevoet

 djddpr's gear list:djddpr's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200
djddpr
djddpr Veteran Member • Posts: 7,068
Re: Photographic evidence -- part 1 of 3, 2004 thru 2007

David,

Is verbal argument all that you have?  Are your verbal arguments superior to your raw post-processed photos?

It is long past due time for raw practitioners to show photographic evidence for their case.  The same should be said of jpg practitioners.  Let both sides in this issue show their photographic evidence and let participants in this issue and photographers at large decide for themselves.

Please, no more verbal argument. I am willing to be shown that raw post-processing is superior to jpg plus post-processing; and, if photographic evidence so indicates, I would be enthusiastically willing to learn from you

It is time for you to show your goods or kindly have the good grace to leave me alone on this issue.

David Dollevoet

 djddpr's gear list:djddpr's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200
phototransformations
phototransformations Senior Member • Posts: 2,833
Re: Photographic evidence -- part 1 of 3, 2004 thru 2007
2

djddpr wrote:

David,

Is verbal argument all that you have? Are your verbal arguments superior to your raw post-processed photos?

It is long past due time for raw practitioners to show photographic evidence for their case. The same should be said of jpg practitioners. Let both sides in this issue show their photographic evidence and let participants in this issue and photographers at large decide for themselves.

Please, no more verbal argument. I am willing to be shown that raw post-processing is superior to jpg plus post-processing; and, if photographic evidence so indicates, I would be enthusiastically willing to learn from you

It is time for you to show your goods or kindly have the good grace to leave me alone on this issue.

David Dollevoet

I'm sorry, I don't know what you are asking me to show you as photographic evidence. My best RAW images? All I and others have been saying is that sometimes working with the RAW file provides advantages that working with the JPEG can't quite match. Several people in this thread have provided examples, including me, but for reasons I don't understand they have been disqualified by those who prefer not to use RAW. Those examples don't show that RAW is "better" than JPEGs, just that in some circumstances it may be preferable. In other circumstances -- such as when rapid bursts are needed, or when images need to be directly transferred to some other medium, or when one is running out of card space, JPEGs are the preferred choice.

The only meaningful evidence I can think of is sample files comparing the same image, shot at the same time, with the same settings (i.e., via RAW+JPEG), and then both the JPEG and the RAW processed to the best of the photographer's ability to see if the JPEG is equal to the RAW and vice versa. I've done simple tests with each of the last cameras I've owned, and, since the Samsung EX1 example above, it seemed to me that at higher ISOs, or where the dynamic range was more extreme, the RAW provided more detail, less intrusive noise, and more recoverable highlights. For me, RAW seemed worth the minor tradeoff of extra storage and the relatively brief learning curve. For others, it may not be worth the bother.

To argue that one methodology is universally better than the other is like trying to say that prints are better than slides or oils are better than acrylics or wood is a better sculptural medium than metal, or vice versa, ad infinitum. Or that we must crack our eggs on the big or the little end, as Jonathan Swift observed long, long ago.

The technology supports what the artist who is using it is trying to do. I truly don't understand why this is even an argument, or why anyone is getting upset over it. It's just a choice. You and others have refined a JPEG workflow. I admire yours, particularly. It helps you create beautiful images. Others prefer a RAW workflow. On the MFT forum some years ago, a member, Louis Dobson, demonstrated extreme adjustments that he couldn't do in JPEG, so he used RAW. His images were beautiful, too, in a different way.

I'm truly sorry that anything I might have said here was upsetting. It's a "RAW vs JPEG" is not a thing we need to fight about.

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 +24 more
cainn24 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,892
Re: Photographic evidence of what?
1

djddpr wrote:

Cainn24,

Is verbal argument all that you have?

Not at all. I would simply like to know where you stand before I decide on a course of action.

It's not like I am asking for much. Just a simple clarification:

You appear to be effectively saying that shooting RAW and processing that output using decent RAW conversion software doesn't provide a single tangible practical benefit compared to an intelligently managed JPEG workflow, and that the many photographers who have observed otherwise are either deluding themselves or are simply ignorant of the precise JPEG shooting/processing techniques that make RAW so wholly redundant.

So in the interest of being clear (and potentially saving time), is that your actual position?

Well?

Let both sides in this issue show their photographic evidence and let participants in this issue and photographers at large decide for themselves.

Sherm has provided an example of overexposed highlights and a rationale for why it's not always possible to avoid them (particularly when taking other factors in the IQ equation into consideration). So far you seem to have let that one go.

phototransformations has provided an example of how an in-camera JPEG engine can smear fine detail beyond recovery, and as we should all well know some cameras offer minimal or even zero control over the related JPEG engine parameters.  So far you seem to have let that one go too.

nicodimus22
nicodimus22 Senior Member • Posts: 2,755
Re: Photographic evidence of what?

djddpr wrote:

Please, no more verbal argument. I am willing to be shown that raw post-processing is superior to jpg plus post-processing; and, if photographic evidence so indicates, I would be enthusiastically willing to learn from you

There are already some good comparison shots in this thread by gardenersassistant.

However, in some cases, what you're asking for would be impossible, because you would be comparing one photograph to nothing. Why? Because a challenging photograph taken in RAW was able to be salvaged, and the same shot taken in JPEG would have been thrown away. The most important function of RAW is not to increase image quality; it's to act as a safety net. Even the most experienced photographers have shots that don't go as planned. Being able to salvage an important shot (example: a bride in a white wedding dress, where exposure can be tricky) is an attractive option to some people.

Personal example...it's a bit extreme, but it illustrates what is possible. I took a handheld owl shot shortly after sunset about a few weeks ago.

The original shot, saved in RAW format with no processing:

Processed:

If I had only taken a JPEG, and I tried to raise the exposure 3.4 stops as I did with the RAW file, I would have ended up with no usable image. This image isn't breathtaking, mind you, but at least I have a viewable shot.

It's simply a nice option that some of us like to have, but I don't think anyone is forcing you to use it. It has advantages and drawbacks, like everything else.

-- hide signature --

"If I handed my 5-year old daughter my iPhone and asked her to take a picture of that, would your photo look any different from hers?" -Scott Kelby

 nicodimus22's gear list:nicodimus22's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Panasonic FZ1000 Nikon D7200 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G +17 more
cainn24 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,892
Another example along these lines...
1

Here's a SOOC JPEG with absolute minimal in-camera processing (NR-2, SH-2, Contrast -2, i.Resolution OFF):

Anyone reading this can feel free to process this JPEG with a focus on preserving detail resolution while simultaneously reducing noise to a similar degree, which is something that I as a photographer consider important when photographing birds.  Pay particular attention to the hair which is a reasonable stand-in for fine feather detail.

Here is the same shot processed in DxO Optics Pro:

Some people wont care about differences like this, and some people will.  And that pretty much sums up a significant bulk of the nature of this discussion I think.

cainn24 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,892
Now with a focus on noise handling in particular

Panasonic FZ200, 1600 ISO, JPEG (top) vs DxO processed RAW (bottom)

Olympus XZ-2, 3200 ISO, JPEG (top) vs DxO processed RAW (bottom):

Again, feel free to download the SOOC JPEGs and process to your hearts content.  Fix the colours, load them up in Neatimage or Topaz Denoise (or whatever else) and see how you go.

I have examples from other cameras too (LF1, Stylus 1, TZ60, E-M5) and they all tell me same story: I can try to clean up SOOC high ISO JPEG noise and the associated processing artifacts (while simultaneously endeavouring to preserve detail) but the results are just never as pleasant to my eyes.  The fundamental problem is that blotchy noise handling and other processing artifacts are really hard to deal with and this trend holds all the way down to base ISO with certain subject matter and shooting conditions.  To a lesser degree yes, and perhaps even to a degree that some people would dismiss as irrelevant, but viewing conditions are not fixed and neither are personal expectations.

I suspect that one of the bigger sources of all the disagreement here is the existence of varying opinions about what constitutes a sensible display size.  I would argue that there is absolutely nothing wrong with viewing an 8 or 12mp image at 100% on occasion.  Often there is some aspect of an image that is inherently interesting enough to make me want to take a closer look.  Almost all wildlife shots are like that I think.

gardenersassistant Veteran Member • Posts: 3,855
Re: Photographic evidence -- part 1 of 3, 2004 thru 2007
1

phototransformations wrote:

The only meaningful evidence I can think of is sample files comparing the same image, shot at the same time, with the same settings (i.e., via RAW+JPEG), and then both the JPEG and the RAW processed to the best of the photographer's ability to see if the JPEG is equal to the RAW and vice versa.

I provided an even simpler example where the photographer's ability doesn't come into it to complicate the issue. In this post the first example is a RAW+JPEG pair. On importing into Lightroom they had just one thing done to them - pulling down Highlights. This showed that the RAW version contained more information than the JPEG version and this additional information allowed recovery of detail from the RAW version that was not possible with the JPEG version.

My contention is therefore that:

  1. RAW images contain more information than JPEG images
  2. The additional information in RAW images can be exploited to obtain non-trivial benefits

David Dollevoet has not responded to this, other than to ask for information about what processing was done to the JPEGs, which I provided and he thanked me for, saying that "The data that you have provided will be valuable". And the fact he sent me a PM asking for this information in addition to the post suggests he really did regard my information as important to him. But I'm not aware that he has made any use of this information yet.

In addition,

cainn24 wrote:

Sherm has provided an example of overexposed highlights and a rationale for why it's not always possible to avoid them (particularly when taking other factors in the IQ equation into consideration). So far you seem to have let that one go.

phototransformations has provided an example of how an in-camera JPEG engine can smear fine detail beyond recovery, and as we should all well know some cameras offer minimal or even zero control over the related JPEG engine parameters. So far you seem to have let that one go too.

So, with three examples provided (and I gave some other examples too, to do with details and smearing),  I'm having difficulty getting my head around this

djddpr wrote:

Cainn24,

Is verbal argument all that you have? Are your verbal arguments superior to your raw post-processed photos?

It is long past due time for raw practitioners to show photographic evidence for their case. The same should be said of jpg practitioners. Let both sides in this issue show their photographic evidence and let participants in this issue and photographers at large decide for themselves.

Please, no more verbal argument. I am willing to be shown that raw post-processing is superior to jpg plus post-processing; and, if photographic evidence so indicates, I would be enthusiastically willing to learn from you

It is time for you to show your goods or kindly have the good grace to leave me alone on this issue.

David Dollevoet

In addition, the language used, such as "their case" and "both sides" and "superior" and "leave me alone" suggest a perception on David's part of a degree of conflict and schism that I don't see evidence for on the part of most people's contributions to this discussion, where the general view seems to be that JPEG and RAW both have merits and disadvantages, and which one it is best to use depends on personal needs, preferences, habits, subject matter etc. I'm not aware of anyone arguing that one or the other is exclusively better, except perhaps David Dollevoet, who may (I'm not sure) be arguing that RAW has no benefits over JPEG, and JPEG has benefits over RAW, and therefore JPEG is better.

In the absence of any comment from David Dollevoet, the only criticism so far of the examples I posted was this.

Erik Ohlson wrote:

Nick - your first illustration defines the problem:

"Expose for the (significant) highlights, develop ("PP") for the shadows"

It's just the old Zone System fo digital.

If the scene is exposed properly you would save yourself a lot of grief - "PP" time, and time between exposures.

As others have pointed out, it is infeasible for every capture to be "properly" exposed. When I go out to a nature reserve and spend six or seven hours capturing 1,000+ images (like I have done several times in the past couple of weeks) in often quite difficult situations (for example, shooting moving subjects using natural light with tiny apertures for maximum dof in low light levels around dawn, for example, invertebrates that pop up, in amongst undergrowth in sunshine which gives very high contrast scenes, with the subject possibly part in and part out of sunshine and shadow, and give you at most one chance to get a shot off before they move away), then some of the images are inevitably going to be noisy and/or sub-optimally exposed, examples including blown highlights on the one hand and radical underexposure on the other (for example when using flash, taking a shot before the flash has recycled). And of course there are some scenes that simply contain too large a dynamic range to be captured, making "proper" exposure impossible (if "proper" includes having neither blown highlights nor lost detail in shadows).

And it's not just invertebrates. When I'm photographing plants I like to photograph scenes which have constantly and rapidly changing patterns of sunlight coming through gaps in breeze-blown foliage. This changes faster than I or the camera can respond, again resulting in over- and under-exposure. And retaining colours in areas of delicately shaded petals where the sun is hitting at a particular angle is extremely difficult and can require radical underexposure.

By the way, as some context, I shot JPEG exclusively for six years before starting to use RAW a year or so ago. For the first four years that was because my cameras didn't do RAW. But then for two years I chose to continue using JPEG even though I then had RAW available. And all those six years I used JPEG with settings turned right down to give maximum latitude for post processing. So I have nothing against use JPEG. I think everyone should use whatever technology and techniques work best for them at a particular time and circumstance. I know I use various technology and techniques for my close-ups that some/many other people think are highly undesirable or can't be used for "serious" photography or in some cases that they know simply don't work. So, JPEG or RAW; whatever you prefer. That's what I think.

gardenersassistant Veteran Member • Posts: 3,855
Missing link from previous post

Grrr. I almost instantly noticed this, but it won't let me edit the post.

gardenersassistant wrote:

In this post the first example is a RAW+JPEG pair.--

Here is the link

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53600195

The adding a link button doesn't seem to be working for me just at the moment.

(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 6,192
Re: Clearly the poll has spoken

I hope you are not classifying me as an anti-RAW person. My comment was slightly tongue in cheek and my previous posts show I am in the RAW when it is important camp.

I am fairly incapable of keeping to a routine though so workflow just could not be used to describe the way I work with RAW or JPEG or in any facet of my life. Nothing will change that.

cainn24 wrote:

sherman_levine wrote:

Greynerd wrote:

With jpeg you do not have to use the word workflow. You just copy them to your hard drive and look at them at your leisure.

.RW2 files contain a JPG (created using the in-camera settings), and you can view that directly with Irfanview, Faststone Viewer, and even (if you have the appropriate codecs installed) Windows Explorer. No workflow needed, unless you want one.

But more to the point, all of the most outspoken anti-RAW people (in this thread at least) already employ JPEG processing workflows of one sort or another, and that's what Sunny was talking about. From the perspective being offered by Greynerd here, they are therefore exactly like RAW advocates in that their methodology also runs counter to the prevalent SOOC JPEG preference.

And some of those workflows really are ultimately more complicated than processing from RAW, which is a point you've made before and I agree with.

djddpr
djddpr Veteran Member • Posts: 7,068
Re: Photographic evidence of what?

Nicodimus22,

Does your posted partial resurrection of a terribly underexposed photo comprise all of your evidence for raw vs. jpg?  I think not -- I have seen and commented favorably on too many of your photos.  I know you to be quite good at photography.  I expect that you have perhaps hundreds of raw post-processed photos that please you.  Please share some of your favorites or even not-so-favorites that illustrate of your position.  Let participants in this issue and photographers at large see results from each camp and decide for themselves.  I include myself among those who are willing to be convinced that raw post-processing is (generally) superior to jpg plus post-processing; and, if the photographic evidence so indicates, I would be eager to learn from you and others.

I look forward to your participation.

David Dollevoet

 djddpr's gear list:djddpr's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200
nicodimus22
nicodimus22 Senior Member • Posts: 2,755
Re: Photographic evidence of what?

djddpr wrote:

Nicodimus22,

Does your posted partial resurrection of a terribly underexposed photo comprise all of your evidence for raw vs. jpg? I think not -- I have seen and commented favorably on too many of your photos. I know you to be quite good at photography. I expect that you have perhaps hundreds of raw post-processed photos that please you. Please share some of your favorites or even not-so-favorites that illustrate of your position. Let participants in this issue and photographers at large see results from each camp and decide for themselves. I include myself among those who are willing to be convinced that raw post-processing is (generally) superior to jpg plus post-processing; and, if the photographic evidence so indicates, I would be eager to learn from you and others.

Well, you've already seen many of my favorites, so I'm not quite sure what you're looking for. I don't shoot JPEG any longer, so I don't have comparison shots to offer. I shot JPEG + RAW for the first week I owned the camera because I was unfamiliar with RAW at the time. After comparing the final product of each on a calibrated 1440p monitor, I found the processed RAW images to be slightly cleaner and significantly more flexible during post-processing in Lightroom.

I don't have an emotional stake in what format anyone else uses. If they want to shoot RAW + JPEG and compare the results as I did, it's easy to do and free. If they don't care, that's fine too. However, those that say that RAW offers no advantages whatsoever are incorrect. It has advantages and drawbacks, as does JPEG. Whether they personally feel like using it is a separate issue.

-- hide signature --

"If I handed my 5-year old daughter my iPhone and asked her to take a picture of that, would your photo look any different from hers?" -Scott Kelby

 nicodimus22's gear list:nicodimus22's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Panasonic FZ1000 Nikon D7200 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G +17 more
sherman_levine
sherman_levine Forum Pro • Posts: 10,885
Perhaps the wrong question is being asked

djddpr wrote:

Nicodimus22,

Does your posted partial resurrection of a terribly underexposed photo comprise all of your evidence for raw vs. jpg? I think not -- I have seen and commented favorably on too many of your photos. I know you to be quite good at photography. I expect that you have perhaps hundreds of raw post-processed photos that please you. Please share some of your favorites or even not-so-favorites that illustrate of your position. Let participants in this issue and photographers at large see results from each camp and decide for themselves. I include myself among those who are willing to be convinced that raw post-processing is (generally) superior to jpg plus post-processing; and, if the photographic evidence so indicates, I would be eager to learn from you and others.

I look forward to your participation.

David Dollevoet

David,

For the excellent images you posted, I don't think anybody is claiming that working from raw would have yielded better results than your NR-2,Sharp-2,contrast-2 JPGs.   Those are all ISO<=200, and carefully exposed.  For your subjects, raw would offer no discernible advantage.  There's no reason for you to switch.

For those of us who for various reasons shoot at high ISO or in unpredictable light, saving as raw lets us turn some images which would be discarded as JPGs into keepers - and I hope there have been enough examples posted in this thread and elsewhere to support this perspective.

That being the case, I find it simpler to save everything as raw, because I cannot predict when the JPG will not suffice, and saving as JPG+RAW complicates my workflow.

 sherman_levine's gear list:sherman_levine's gear list
Panasonic FZ1000 Nikon Coolpix P900 Panasonic FZ80/FZ82
djddpr
djddpr Veteran Member • Posts: 7,068
Re: Photographic evidence -- part 1 of 3, 2004 thru 2007

Nick,

I am sorry to be tardy in replying to your prompt response to my request for information about the extent of editing of jpg files in your earlier post that shows jpg vs raw comparisons.

I have again reviewed your comparisons with your additional information.  My conclusions are:  1.  RAW post-processed vs. JPG SOOC --  RAW is superior in my opinion.  More detail and more natural-looking contrast and saturation.  2.  RAW post-processed vs. JPG post-processed -- too close to call, even in the 100% crops.  The principal question for me becomes the nature of post-processing applied to each.  I notice that where post-processed RAW has more natural-looking contrast and saturation, the difference could be significantly narrowed with better post-processing of the JPG. I base this conclusion on my experience with post-processing thousands of JPG's.

My overall conclusion is that your photographic evidence is good and valuable and is inconclusive regarding the relative merits of the results of RAW vs. JPG.  Or perhaps the correct conclusion from this sample is:  for a reasonably properly exposed photo, reasonably proper post-processing of RAW and JPG produce approximately equivalent results.

David Dollevoet

 djddpr's gear list:djddpr's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200
Darrell Spreen Forum Pro • Posts: 10,455
May I offer a comment (and an example)

nicodimus22 wrote:

If I had only taken a JPEG, and I tried to raise the exposure 3.4 stops as I did with the RAW file, I would have ended up with no usable image.

I would like to say that this discussion has been informative and each party has expressed their opinions in a professional manner.

However, I think the sort of statement above is what offends some.  I have taken your original JPEG (it is obviously your JPEG image) and made corrections in my image editor.  It may not be precisely as good as what you did with your raw file, but it is far from being "no usable image".  I have helped people correct their JPEGs on many occasions on these forums when they thought they were "lost".

Those who are not accustomed to working with JPEG files should be cautious about over-stating the difference between what can be achieved with raw files and JPEGs.

(And I once said I would never again participate in raw vs. JPEG discussions!)

-- hide signature --

Darrell

OP Tom Axford Veteran Member • Posts: 3,678
Thank you!
1

I'd like to thank everyone who voted in this poll and also those who have contributed to the discussion.

When I started this poll, I had no idea that it would generate so much interest and prove so contentious. However, I think the discussion has been informative and interesting (and not too bad tempered on the whole).

If anyone wishes to continue the discussion much further, I suggest you start another thread as this one will be hitting the buffers fairly soon!

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads