Raw vs jpeg part 2

[Don Lacy]

It is very little practical difference between them, and I used your tiny 0.07 Mb picture. On a real picture differences can be insignificant

There's a substantial difference in the highlight data in the lower image. It's visible in the image, it's visible in the histogram. It is hardly insignificant IMHO.

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

So which is RAW and which is Jpeg?

--
Old Greenlander
"I show the world the way I see it"
35 years of photography and still learning

Where did you get the Raw file I do not see a link to it in the original post

--
Don Lacy
https://500px.com/lacy
http://www.witnessnature.net/

I downloaded / saved his tiny pictures

Wow you really should not be in this discussion what you downloaded was the processed Jpeg from the Raw file not the Raw file.

--
Old Greenlander
"I show the world the way I see it"
35 years of photography and still learning

--
Don Lacy

500px

500px.com

http://www.witnessnature.net/

 

[J A C S]

And show us by processing the JPEG to match the processed raw.

He doesn't know how to process a JPEG as well as he does a raw file. That's one of the biggest problems with talking to these people. He can't process a JPEG very well, therefore RAW must be vastly superior. It isn't.

Since you apparently do, process this:

 

[Ysarex]

It is very little practical difference between them, and I used your tiny 0.07 Mb picture. On a real picture differences can be insignificant

There's a substantial difference in the highlight data in the lower image. It's visible in the image, it's visible in the histogram. It is hardly insignificant IMHO.

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

So which is RAW and which is Jpeg?

IF the bottom one isnt the raw, it was pisspoorly rendered. And not blown out.

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

none of them is actually the raw

i processed the "poor one"from the left of his image and compared with the "good one" he posted on the right

his right side original is now on top and you can see the left of the picture is cropped

the bottom is my quick fix from his RAW processing

No it's not. The bottom one is from a camera JPEG I created last night using the camera onboard converter. That's not my processing of the raw file.

--
Old Greenlander
"I show the world the way I see it"
35 years of photography and still learning

 

[Ysarex]

It is very little practical difference between them, and I used your tiny 0.07 Mb picture. On a real picture differences can be insignificant

There's a substantial difference in the highlight data in the lower image. It's visible in the image, it's visible in the histogram. It is hardly insignificant IMHO.

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

So which is RAW and which is Jpeg?

IF the bottom one isnt the raw, it was pisspoorly rendered. And not blown out.

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

none of them is actually the raw

i processed the "poor one"from the left of his image and compared with the "good one" he posted on the right

his right side original is now on top and you can see the left of the picture is cropped

the bottom is my quick fix from his RAW processing

Nice try but you got the files mixed up.

--
Old Greenlander
"I show the world the way I see it"
35 years of photography and still learning

 

[digidog]

none of them is actually the raw

Then why did you ask?

i processed the "poor one"from the left of his image and compared with the "good one" he posted on the right

Well one has blown out highlights. IF you processed it, you didn't do a very good job.

 

[Old Greenlander]

Yes from his posting

 

[Ysarex]

Yes from his posting

 

[Old Greenlander]

Yes from his posting

--
Old Greenlander
"I show the world the way I see it"
35 years of photography and still learning

OK -- so you got confused about which file was which. Here's some help:

This is my processed version of the raw file: truck.jpg

And this is the JPEG the camera created JPEG

They're appropriate resolution for you. Go ahead and re-process the JPEG and have fun. Let us see what you come up with.

I don't have an account with the drop box so I downloaded what I could at 0.4Mb

After a quick pass with very simple tools I can see inside the driver's compartment











--
Old Greenlander
"I show the world the way I see it"
35 years of photography and still learning

 

[Ysarex]

Yes from his posting

--
Old Greenlander
"I show the world the way I see it"
35 years of photography and still learning

OK -- so you got confused about which file was which. Here's some help:

This is my processed version of the raw file: truck.jpg

And this is the JPEG the camera created JPEG

They're appropriate resolution for you. Go ahead and re-process the JPEG and have fun. Let us see what you come up with.

I don't have an account with the drop box so I downloaded what I could at 0.4Mb

After a quick pass with very simple tools I can see inside the driver's compartment





--
Old Greenlander
"I show the world the way I see it"
35 years of photography and still learning

You don't need an account to download from dropbox.

The sky was blue that day and yes you managed to open some shadows to see into the cab. How about the shadows in the wheel wells -- little trickier there. While you did that you shouldn't have made the clipped highlights worse.

 

[Ysarex]

And show us by processing the JPEG to match the processed raw.

He doesn't know how to process a JPEG as well as he does a raw file. That's one of the biggest problems with talking to these people. He can't process a JPEG very well, therefore RAW must be vastly superior. It isn't.

About the only way to do this right is to get a whole lot of people to take different pictures in RAW+JPEG, and the pick out some nice pictures based solely on the content, not anything else except that whatever it's about is pleasant to look at. Then have all of those pictures processed by everyone and find some particularly nice renditions from both the JPEG and the RAW, and finally to have people vote on which is which.

My guess is that almost no one will pick the RAWs out more than just over half the time. And that it is more important about how pleasant the image is in both its capture and its post-processed rendering, rather than its technical merit.

Regardless, this is a silly argument that never ends.
And I'll use whatever format I want on my camera. It's my camera!!

So you don't actually know what the thread is about -- alright then!

--
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.