Raw vs. Jpeg, I don't see a difference

[Joe Marques]

The best part about all this is that we're talking about
exceptional quality any way you cut it, be it in RAW or JPEG or
both.

Let's hear it for Nikon, they've produced a superb machine.

-Eric K

You nailed it here Eric. Isn't it great that we're having a friendly discussion over excellent quality vs. superb quality? How refreshing - postives followed by more positives.

Ultimately, we're all grateful users of wonderful technology capturing priceless memories.

Keep shooting.

Joe

 

[malcolmfarrar]

I've ended up with some horrendously horrible histograms in a
picture that looks OK but a sky with light cloud for instance can
start to go "painting by numbers" very easily.

That arguement makes a lot of sense to me. It is part of why I
wanted a camera that could shoot RAW. My question is does it make
a difference visually in the final print? I've done some pics with
"horrible" histograms after modifications, but they look great even
as a well enlarged print.

mmm... this may be a litte late for me to pick up on this thread again, but it would seem that there are some folks with a little interest in the 'science' behing achieving HIGH quality! After all that IS why you bought a decent camera.

Re 16 bit processing there is no dubt in my mind (eye) that for the ultimate quality this is best. Let me explain: A long time ago I took a picture ( a snapshot!) of a raging storm at a pier near where I live – no time for ND grads or a tripod or to check the settings just to capture the shot as quickly as I could before freezing or being blown into the sea. That picture has sold many times over through a local gallery but NOT at the size I would like – BIG. the problem is that if I increase the size from the original jpeg, then all the processing (dodge, burn, curves) I did or had to do to make the picture work is magnified – the posterisation is not visible small, but enlarge it and its there. I can see it.

The moral of the story is that I still sometimes forget to check the camera settings (RAW. ISO, etc) whatever, but I have learned through countless other examples as well that RAW gives me the very best. When I shoot jpeg I make sure that I get the exposure and white balance 'right' that way I do not have to do much or any after work in photoshop. So YES you can get brilliant pics from jpeg – just don't get caught in a storm!

Malcolm

 

[martin cavina]

I have a 1 Gig card, If I shoot Raw It will hold 95, in Jpeg fine
mode it will hold 293. I have decided to shoot mainly in Jpeg fine
for most situations and switch to Raw only when I feel the picture
will need extensive post processing.

I immediately grabbed my camera and checked it. You are exactly right!what a surprise. yesterday it seemed strrange to me that I shot about 70 pictures and the counter still showed about 95 , but I did not pay great attention to it. Thanx for the good news Casey

Martin

If you are concerned about storage space on your 1 gig card then be
advised that you will get close to 180 raw images on a 1 gig card,
not 95. The counter does not reflect the actual number of
compressed NEF images you can get on a CF card but the number of
images if none were compressed. All will be compressed so a number
around 180 is closer to the true number of images you will be able
to get on a 1 gig card. I suspect this was an oversight on the
part of the Nikon engineers as they probably used the counter from
the D100 which did have uncompressed NEFs. Kind of makes raw more
attractive.
CaseyJ

 

[John Crellin]

I totally agree. Sometimes it's just the picture where you were in a hurry and didn't double check everything that is the one you need to best out of - so saving RAW is a safety in these cases.

I've ended up with some horrendously horrible histograms in a
picture that looks OK but a sky with light cloud for instance can
start to go "painting by numbers" very easily.

That arguement makes a lot of sense to me. It is part of why I
wanted a camera that could shoot RAW. My question is does it make
a difference visually in the final print? I've done some pics with
"horrible" histograms after modifications, but they look great even
as a well enlarged print.

mmm... this may be a litte late for me to pick up on this thread
again, but it would seem that there are some folks with a little
interest in the 'science' behing achieving HIGH quality! After all
that IS why you bought a decent camera.

Re 16 bit processing there is no dubt in my mind (eye) that for the
ultimate quality this is best. Let me explain: A long time ago I
took a picture ( a snapshot!) of a raging storm at a pier near
where I live – no time for ND grads or a tripod or to check the
settings just to capture the shot as quickly as I could before
freezing or being blown into the sea. That picture has sold many
times over through a local gallery but NOT at the size I would like
– BIG. the problem is that if I increase the size from the original
jpeg, then all the processing (dodge, burn, curves) I did or had
to do to make the picture work is magnified – the posterisation is
not visible small, but enlarge it and its there. I can see it.

The moral of the story is that I still sometimes forget to check
the camera settings (RAW. ISO, etc) whatever, but I have learned
through countless other examples as well that RAW gives me the very
best. When I shoot jpeg I make sure that I get the exposure and
white balance 'right' that way I do not have to do much or any
after work in photoshop. So YES you can get brilliant pics from
jpeg – just don't get caught in a storm!

Malcolm