JPG vs RAW for example ISO 100

Started 2 months ago | Discussions
a6300 Junior Member • Posts: 35
JPG vs RAW for example ISO 100

Which is better? Noise is bigger in raw, it seems that jpg is smoother. RAW files without noise reduction applied. You can easely see when zoomed in. But how you can say which is better? I take RAW+JPG and now I think is better to delete RAW..or what I should do in PE (16?) some reduce noise?

maccam
maccam Senior Member • Posts: 1,101
Re: JPG vs RAW for example ISO 100

a6300 wrote:

Which is better? Noise is bigger in raw, it seems that jpg is smoother. RAW files without noise reduction applied. You can easely see when zoomed in. But how you can say which is better? I take RAW+JPG and now I think is better to delete RAW..

You can do whatever you want but you get a lot more latitude when shooting RAW. Look at any DPR camera review and RAW is almost always rated better than JPG. I say "almost" because I did see one review where JPG was rated higher than RAW but I can't remember the camera.

JAW

 maccam's gear list:maccam's gear list
Sony RX100 VI Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony a6500 Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS +11 more
OP a6300 Junior Member • Posts: 35
Re: JPG vs RAW for example ISO 100

maccam wrote:

a6300 wrote:

Which is better? Noise is bigger in raw, it seems that jpg is smoother. RAW files without noise reduction applied. You can easely see when zoomed in. But how you can say which is better? I take RAW+JPG and now I think is better to delete RAW..

You can do whatever you want but you get a lot more latitude when shooting RAW. Look at any DPR camera review and RAW is almost always rated better than JPG. I say "almost" because I did see one review where JPG was rated higher than RAW but I can't remember the camera.

JAW

I agree almost but just stupid noise is bigger in RAW. I think in jgp

High ISO Noise Reduction settings: "Off" would be best?

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a6300/sony-a6300HI_ISO_NR.HTM

I dont understand whi "high iSO" becoz even in ISO 100-.

sybersitizen Forum Pro • Posts: 13,421
Re: JPG vs RAW for example ISO 100
6

a6300 wrote:

Noise is bigger in raw, it seems that jpg is smoother. RAW files without noise reduction applied.

Why would you compare a JPEG image with noise reduction applied against a RAW image without noise reduction applied? If you want to reduce the appearance of noise in a RAW image, apply noise reduction to it. Also apply sharpening because JPEGs are almost always sharpened in the camera.

Gary3000 Senior Member • Posts: 1,130
Re: JPG vs RAW for example ISO 100
6

sybersitizen wrote:

a6300 wrote:

Noise is bigger in raw, it seems that jpg is smoother. RAW files without noise reduction applied.

Why would you compare a JPEG image with noise reduction applied against a RAW image without noise reduction applied? If you want to reduce the appearance of noise in a RAW image, apply noise reduction to it. Also apply sharpening because JPEGs are almost always sharpened in the camera.

agreed.   RAW images are meant to be post-processed, Just at they're post-processed in camera to produce the JPEGs.

If you've got the time, (and a decent editing app),  RAW will always produce a superior image 100% of the time.

 Gary3000's gear list:Gary3000's gear list
Sony RX100 V Canon EOS 5D Mark II Sony a6500 Canon PowerShot G12 Canon PowerShot S110 +13 more
Edmund Dorf
Edmund Dorf Senior Member • Posts: 1,632
Re: JPG vs RAW for example ISO 100
2

Well said. I would rather that I decide how much noise reduction to apply than to leave it to an algorithm.

Gary3000 wrote:

sybersitizen wrote:

a6300 wrote:

Noise is bigger in raw, it seems that jpg is smoother. RAW files without noise reduction applied.

Why would you compare a JPEG image with noise reduction applied against a RAW image without noise reduction applied? If you want to reduce the appearance of noise in a RAW image, apply noise reduction to it. Also apply sharpening because JPEGs are almost always sharpened in the camera.

agreed. RAW images are meant to be post-processed, Just at they're post-processed in camera to produce the JPEGs.

If you've got the time, (and a decent editing app), RAW will always produce a superior image 100% of the time.

 Edmund Dorf's gear list:Edmund Dorf's gear list
Panasonic ZS100 Panasonic FZ2500 Fujifilm X100F Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Sony a6000 +8 more
Sympa Senior Member • Posts: 1,823
Re: JPG vs RAW for example ISO 100
1

I do photo shoots for children's events. Many snapshots, just reduce in size and I think JPG is great for that.

For photos where I spend a lot of time on a single image I prefer RAW - or RAW+JPG. Memory cards are cheap these days.

 Sympa's gear list:Sympa's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS Sony Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS Canon EF-S 10-18mm F4.5–5.6 IS STM +2 more
Cudacke Dees Regular Member • Posts: 192
Re: JPG vs RAW for example ISO 100

a6300 wrote:

Which is better? Noise is bigger in raw, it seems that jpg is smoother. RAW files without noise reduction applied. You can easely see when zoomed in. But how you can say which is better? I take RAW+JPG and now I think is better to delete RAW..or what I should do in PE (16?) some reduce noise?

at least 12bit+ better then 8bit default JPEG is you know how to make decent exposure.

UBrot Forum Member • Posts: 64
Re: JPG vs RAW for example ISO 100
9

a6300 wrote:

Which is better? Noise is bigger in raw, it seems that jpg is smoother.

A raw file is not an image. It is raw sensor data (hence the name). It has to be processed - one option is letting it do in camera which results in the jpg.  So whenever there's an image on your monitor, you're not seeing a raw file but a processed image based on this raw sensor data.

If you want noise reduction - apply noise reduction. If you want sharpening - apply sharpening (both of which is what the camera does when creating a jpg out of it's raw data).

If you don't see the point in using raw files - save the time and space and just shoot jpg.

 UBrot's gear list:UBrot's gear list
Sony a6400 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Samyang 12mm F2.0 NCS CS Sigma 30mm F1.4 for Sony E +1 more
Gary3000 Senior Member • Posts: 1,130
Re: JPG vs RAW for example ISO 100

Sympa wrote:

I do photo shoots for children's events. Many snapshots, just reduce in size and I think JPG is great for that.

For photos where I spend a lot of time on a single image I prefer RAW - or RAW+JPG. Memory cards are cheap these days.

When I shoot events, which usually ref up on social media at most, I drop down to 5 or 6mp JPG,.  saves time in transfer and dramatically decreases editing.

and important stuff gets the RAW , and portrait shoots get RAW+JPEG so I can hand off the jpegs to clients with ease.

 Gary3000's gear list:Gary3000's gear list
Sony RX100 V Canon EOS 5D Mark II Sony a6500 Canon PowerShot G12 Canon PowerShot S110 +13 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads