JPEG vs RAW

[Tony Beach]

The OP asked for beginner's tips:

And now this thread has become an expert debate.... The OP didnt even dare to participate!
I am always amazed how some technical matters can rise endless argumentation.

Unfortunately, or actually, fortunately, there are lots of technical trade-offs in the subject matter, so the decision isn't clear.

However, facts do matter, as do experienced opinions, and I see these threads as educational, even if the OP didn't participate.

It is not educational.

For some, it clearly isn't.

The last three pages have been some kind of off topic discussion about how to overexpose

Case in point, you do not know what overexposure is or isn't, and probably the concept of exposing differently for JPEG and Raw goes right over your head.

and post process to reduce noise and dynamic range

Point is that using ETTR and Raw increases DR, it doesn't "reduce" it.

or another off-topic discussion about authencity in art.

As I recall, you were the one who brought up authenticity.

 

[Aaron801]

There are extra steps involved and extra cost, so the RAW path might not suit. For me it gives a little extra that I'm more than happy to spend the time and money on.

I would suggest you try out a 30 day trial on one or more of the top RAW converters and shoot in the interim with RAW+JPG - you can then process the RAWs and see if you tend to prefer the OoC JPGs or the ones generated back at base.

I don't find the "extra cost" to be an issue. I use a free converter that though it doesn't have nearly as many options/controls as some other ones (actually good for a beginner!), it works very well and I've been very happy with it. It's called LightZone and there's also Raw Therapee which is a more complex but more versitle free program. There are others as well if you don't want to spend the money.

 

[sten eriksen]

How rights you are I went for cover and am still amazed at what I caused plus a little wiser. I will start with reading the manual carefully, start with JPG, Play with settings and then perhaps start RAw'ing.

I am left flappergasted.

Take Care, thanks for you valuable input.

Happy Easter

Sten

...end of discussion.

 

[Mark S Abeln]

How rights you are I went for cover and am still amazed at what I caused plus a little wiser. I will start with reading the manual carefully, start with JPG, Play with settings and then perhaps start RAw'ing.

I am left flappergasted.

All that argument is just our special way of saying that we like each other!

Have a happy Easter, too!

 

[stevo23]

Why do you have to be so passive aggressive and make a big discussion of trivial examples to proove that you know the best when clearly you are a faulty human like everyone else ?

To post images of neon lights because you find some words in a wall of text that you feel the need to use as examples of your superior knowledge and examples of other peoples lack of knowledge is silly.

You started all this by asking what color film that did have "authentic" characteristics

Nope, that wasn't me. Look again.

A small example like this don't have to end up in you prooving your authority , it is just an example ;

cookedraw, post: 57486625, member: 1595507"]
Well kodachrome was used a lot because of it's authenticity. This is a fact.

I personally think fujis oversaturated green colors was superior to kodachrome but kodachrome was often used because of it's relative authenticity. Do you see the difference ?I

Like I said, you've not changed your behavior since you were respawned. I'd wager you'll be around as "cookedraw" no more than 6 months. Hopefully you want to prove me wrong and will finally shape up.
[/QUOTE]

 

[stevo23]

The OP asked for beginner's tips:

And now this thread has become an expert debate.... The OP didnt even dare to participate!
I am always amazed how some technical matters can rise endless argumentation.

Unfortunately, or actually, fortunately, there are lots of technical trade-offs in the subject matter, so the decision isn't clear.

However, facts do matter, as do experienced opinions, and I see these threads as educational, even if the OP didn't participate.

It is not educational.

For some, it clearly isn't.

The last three pages have been some kind of off topic discussion about how to overexpose

Case in point, you do not know what overexposure is or isn't, and probably the concept of exposing differently for JPEG and Raw goes right over your head.

and post process to reduce noise and dynamic range

Point is that using ETTR and Raw increases DR, it doesn't "reduce" it.

or another off-topic discussion about authencity in art.

As I recall, you were the one who brought up authenticity.

It was actually 24is, but Mr. Raw has tried to carry it ad nauseam. Clearly this guy has OPD.

 

[stevo23]

You can refer to the JPEG image to ensure that the finished image that you 'process' is at least authentic to the original scene, which you can rely upon the in-camera JPEG to verify.

What makes you think JPEG is "authentic to the original scene?"

With proper white balance and exposure settings, why would it not be authentic to the original scene?

Levels of saturation, contrast, and color profiles play a role. Can you point to a film emulsion that was "authentic to the original scene?"

Kodachrome ... but it depends on the scene of course.

Positively ridiculous.

Besides that, there is no such thing as "authentic to the original scene." More importantly, "authentic to the original scene" is a recipe for boring photographs. Should we always photograph from a standing or sitting position? Should we only use "normal" lenses and not use telephoto, wide-angle, or macro lenses? Should we never use shutter speeds that are too fast or too slow? Should we not use shallow DOF?

Of course the "authenticity" is limited to settings like color and contrast that are related to JPEG.

It's a lame goal. What I look for in a photograph is authentic vision, not "authentic to the original scene." As an example, I take a photograph of a sunset that moved me, but when I look at the most neutral rendition of it I'm not moved, so I try to process the photograph so that it communicates what I was feeling when I saw the sun setting. Think about that for a moment, the sun setting, it's an experience that occurs over time and instead of boring you with a series of "authentic to the original scene" shots, I want to condense it into a single photograph, that's the essence of photography and why I love it.

Also, sometimes for some scenes or subjects, the choice ends up being B&W:

--
http://imageevent.com/tonybeach/twelveimages

Your dog? Border?

 

[stevo23]

The OP asked for beginner's tips:

And now this thread has become an expert debate.... The OP didnt even dare to participate!
I am always amazed how some technical matters can rise endless argumentation.

Unfortunately, or actually, fortunately, there are lots of technical trade-offs in the subject matter, so the decision isn't clear.

However, facts do matter, as do experienced opinions, and I see these threads as educational, even if the OP didn't participate.

 

[merops]

Ooooooooooh! A Jpeg vs raw thread. I've been waiting for one of those to post these photos. Same shot, saved as both Jpeg and raw. Processed at different times so the similarity in cropping is coincidence. Which one's which?

 

[stevo23]

Ooooooooooh! A Jpeg vs raw thread. I've been waiting for one of those to post these photos. Same shot, saved as both Jpeg and raw. Processed at different times so the similarity in cropping is coincidence. Which one's which?

This wouldn't be an attempt a trickery would it?

 

[merops]

Ooooooooooh! A Jpeg vs raw thread. I've been waiting for one of those to post these photos. Same shot, saved as both Jpeg and raw. Processed at different times so the similarity in cropping is coincidence. Which one's which?

This wouldn't be an attempt a trickery would it?

No, I'm not devious enough

 

[stevo23]

How rights you are I went for cover and am still amazed at what I caused plus a little wiser. I will start with reading the manual carefully, start with JPG, Play with settings and then perhaps start RAw'ing.

I am left flappergasted.

Take Care, thanks for you valuable input.

Happy Easter

Sten

...end of discussion.

Sten - no worries, you caused nothing. Most of us took this as an honest question.

The ensuing melee was was all from one person who just awoke from his most recent banishment.

 

[cookedraw]

Ooooooooooh! A Jpeg vs raw thread. I've been waiting for one of those to post these photos. Same shot, saved as both Jpeg and raw. Processed at different times so the similarity in cropping is coincidence. Which one's which?

The first photo from the top is the RAW and the second is the JPEG is my guess.

I think you had noise reduction turned on and this is why I guess so.

Good question !

EDIT : also the saturation and contrast is higher in the second. It's typical for JPEG in my opinion.

 

[stevo23]

Ooooooooooh! A Jpeg vs raw thread. I've been waiting for one of those to post these photos. Same shot, saved as both Jpeg and raw. Processed at different times so the similarity in cropping is coincidence. Which one's which?

This wouldn't be an attempt a trickery would it?

No, I'm not devious enough

Okay, I tread carefully. But I don't usually see this kind of difference between a RAW and jpg shot. That's some serious noise in the first one! It looks like the difference between ISO 200 and ISO 1600 more than jpg vs. RAW.

BTW - nice shot of this little fella. What is he?

 

[Aaron801]

Ooooooooooh! A Jpeg vs raw thread. I've been waiting for one of those to post these photos. Same shot, saved as both Jpeg and raw. Processed at different times so the similarity in cropping is coincidence. Which one's which?

it's a nice shot and the second one is clearly better with less noise while still preserving detail. Still, I don't really see this kind of thing as a very good comparison for RAW vs JPEG because each of these can be set/adjusted in so many different ways that there isn't really a baseline.

--
my flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/

 

[merops]

Ooooooooooh! A Jpeg vs raw thread. I've been waiting for one of those to post these photos. Same shot, saved as both Jpeg and raw. Processed at different times so the similarity in cropping is coincidence. Which one's which?

This wouldn't be an attempt a trickery would it?

No, I'm not devious enough

Okay, I tread carefully. But I don't usually see this kind of difference between a RAW and jpg shot. That's some serious noise in the first one! It looks like the difference between ISO 200 and ISO 1600 more than jpg vs. RAW.

BTW - nice shot of this little fella. What is he?

He's a shining honeycreeper. I didn't realise he had smart yellow feet until I looked at the photo

The Exif data is genuine. I've asked about noise on this camera in the past on DPR and people have said no problem, but I think it's pretty ugly. I have a pretty limited repertoire with PP, so it's probably my limitations that account for such a huge difference. I have been taking Jpeg plus raw for some time and just beginning to get more confident with the raw.

 

[stevo23]

Ooooooooooh! A Jpeg vs raw thread. I've been waiting for one of those to post these photos. Same shot, saved as both Jpeg and raw. Processed at different times so the similarity in cropping is coincidence. Which one's which?

This wouldn't be an attempt a trickery would it?

No, I'm not devious enough

Okay, I tread carefully. But I don't usually see this kind of difference between a RAW and jpg shot. That's some serious noise in the first one! It looks like the difference between ISO 200 and ISO 1600 more than jpg vs. RAW.

BTW - nice shot of this little fella. What is he?

He's a shining honeycreeper. I didn't realise he had smart yellow feet until I looked at the photo

Quite a handsome fella and good capture!

The Exif data is genuine. I've asked about noise on this camera in the past on DPR and people have said no problem, but I think it's pretty ugly. I have a pretty limited repertoire with PP, so it's probably my limitations that account for such a huge difference. I have been taking Jpeg plus raw for some time and just beginning to get more confident with the raw.

Hopefully the RAW is your second one...but I'm guessing you had some in-camera noise reduction, so probably not. And there is more shadow in the first one, so more RAW-like while you have more blocked shadows in the second one, so more jpg-like.

I also think you could have compensated + another stop at least without losing highlights and obtained an even cleaner result. Not sure if you were on a tripod though. IE, open up that aperture one stop but with the same shutter speed and you would have had less noise. Or a tripod with 1/250th. Exposure is critical for reducing noise in these cameras. I've been able to demonstrate that a shot at ISO 1000 can look as clean as one at ISO 100 if you give it enough exposure.

 

[Gerry Winterbourne]

Ooooooooooh! A Jpeg vs raw thread. I've been waiting for one of those to post these photos. Same shot, saved as both Jpeg and raw. Processed at different times so the similarity in cropping is coincidence. Which one's which?

Impossible to say for sure. The first one is noisier and has some detail in the deep shadows so I suspect it has been opened up in PP; that means it might be the raw version.

The second is smoother and has a lot of the deep shadows clipped to black so it's possibly the basic JPG. But it could just as well be that the first is the JPG version with the second PPd from raw to reduce noise and make (to your eye) more attractive as a picture.

--
---
Gerry
___________________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006

Galleries by Gerry Winterbourne

www.pbase.com

[email protected]

 

[merops]

Ooooooooooh! A Jpeg vs raw thread. I've been waiting for one of those to post these photos. Same shot, saved as both Jpeg and raw. Processed at different times so the similarity in cropping is coincidence. Which one's which?

This wouldn't be an attempt a trickery would it?

No, I'm not devious enough

Okay, I tread carefully. But I don't usually see this kind of difference between a RAW and jpg shot. That's some serious noise in the first one! It looks like the difference between ISO 200 and ISO 1600 more than jpg vs. RAW.

BTW - nice shot of this little fella. What is he?

He's a shining honeycreeper. I didn't realise he had smart yellow feet until I looked at the photo

Quite a handsome fella and good capture!

The Exif data is genuine. I've asked about noise on this camera in the past on DPR and people have said no problem, but I think it's pretty ugly. I have a pretty limited repertoire with PP, so it's probably my limitations that account for such a huge difference. I have been taking Jpeg plus raw for some time and just beginning to get more confident with the raw.

Hopefully the RAW is your second one...

I also think you could have compensated + another stop at least without losing highlights and obtained an even cleaner result. Not sure if you were on a tripod though. IE, open up that aperture one stop but with the same shutter speed and you would have had less noise. Or a tripod with 1/250th. Exposure is critical for reducing noise in these cameras. I've been able to demonstrate that a shot at ISO 1000 can look as clean as one at ISO 100 if you give it enough exposure.

Yes, the second one is raw. I was expecting the noise to be better (DXO Optics Pro Elite, which is generally rumoured to be good at dealing with noise) but was surprised by the difference in the colour ?saturation.

Thanks for the tip on exposure. I was trying to photograph hummingbirds and this guy popped up. The hummers were a bit of a struggle at 1/500

 

[merops]

Ooooooooooh! A Jpeg vs raw thread. I've been waiting for one of those to post these photos. Same shot, saved as both Jpeg and raw. Processed at different times so the similarity in cropping is coincidence. Which one's which?

Impossible to say for sure. The first one is noisier and has some detail in the deep shadows so I suspect it has been opened up in PP; that means it might be the raw version.

The second is smoother and has a lot of the deep shadows clipped to black so it's possibly the basic JPG. But it could just as well be that the first is the JPG version with the second PPd from raw to reduce noise and make (to your eye) more attractive as a picture.

Second is the raw. Interesting reading the commentaries.