Raw Vs Jpeg

[demarren123456]

Missing the G7 raw is afterall,in this test not so big mistake afterall.

If you can't see the diference in an dslr,then how you like to see any diference in the G7
well tell me

Now I get confused by all thad tech talk raw is alot better then Jpg
more color more dept and so on is simple not true.

why put monye in somtinge you thond need.
so afterall adobe lightroom can do the job.
--
Demarren.
Website :

http://www.flickr.com/photos/73737307@N00/sets/ Nikon D70s Kodak P880 Canon S3 IS Canon G7

 

[demarren123456]

hmmm it is better to post the link don't you think sorry about thad.

http://photodoto.com/index.php/2006/08/03/raw-vs-jpg-print-shootout/

Thank you

--
Demarren.
Website :

http://www.flickr.com/photos/73737307@N00/sets/ Nikon D70s Kodak P880 Canon S3 IS Canon G7

 

[Robert N]

Missing the G7 raw is afterall,in this test not so big mistake
afterall.
If you can't see the diference in an dslr,then how you like to see
any diference in the G7
well tell me

You can see it very easily, because of heavy noise reduction. The following shots were taken with a FZ50 (noise reduction setting: low), which is comparable to a G7:

ISO 400 JPEG: And no, a G7 doesn't look better.



ISO 400 RAW:



--
Regards,

Robert
http://www.sondek.smugmug.com

 

[demarren123456]

I see two diferent pictures one is brighter then the other.
so naturel you won't see not muts noise if it is underexposed,anyway.
so thad is not proof to me.

have you reed the second thread.

--
Demarren.
Website :

http://www.flickr.com/photos/73737307@N00/sets/ Nikon D70s Kodak P880 Canon S3 IS Canon G7

 

[Pattisboy]

The little plaque below the bicycle logo reads, I think, 'Start Kaltburg' which is somewhat clearer to me in the top picture.

Yes, I did read the article Demarren -- most interesting and neatly justifies my purchase of the A610 which doesn't have RAW. My Fuji S5600 does, but I can't see that I'll ever use it. But that's me!

 

[Robert N]

I see two diferent pictures one is brighter then the other.
so naturel you won't see not muts noise if it is underexposed,anyway.
so thad is not proof to me.

Of course it's the same picture, also the exposure is the same, but the color and the contrast are different. The comparison is not about the amount of noise, it's about the lack of detail. If you don't see that the RAW picture shows a LOT more texture, I can't help you.
--
Regards,

Robert
http://www.sondek.smugmug.com

 

[Robert N]

The little plaque below the bicycle logo reads, I think, 'Start
Kaltburg' which is somewhat clearer to me in the top picture.

Look at the wall (hint: texture) and not the logo. Well, you guys really don't need RAW.
--
Regards,

Robert
http://www.sondek.smugmug.com

 

[Pattisboy]

The comparison is not
about the amount of noise, it's about the lack of detail. If you
don't see that the RAW picture shows a LOT more texture......

Definitely in the concrete. I wonder why the writing in the JPeg looks a little clearer to me.......must be my 74 year-old eyes.

 

[Robert N]

The comparison is not
about the amount of noise, it's about the lack of detail. If you
don't see that the RAW picture shows a LOT more texture......

Definitely in the concrete. I wonder why the writing in the JPeg
looks a little clearer to me.......must be my 74 year-old eyes.

No, not your eyes, the JPEG could be a little sharper, after all it's not a scientific test.
--
Regards,

Robert
http://www.sondek.smugmug.com

 

[Pattisboy]

Thank you Robert....that's most encouraging.

 

[hugo solo]

robert maybe that jpg in a G7 is better than the panasonic I see the difference but I think that I don´t need raw.
http://the-look-of-love.my-expressions.com/lad.html
http://the-look-of-love.my-expressions.com/hs.html
http://the-look-of-love.my-expressions.com/hsz.html

 

[Robert N]

robert maybe that jpg in a G7 is better than the panasonic I see
the difference but I think that I don´t need raw.
http://the-look-of-love.my-expressions.com/lad.html
http://the-look-of-love.my-expressions.com/hs.html
http://the-look-of-love.my-expressions.com/hsz.html

Hugo, I didn't say everyone needs RAW. I often use JPEG myself and I'm very happy with the results at ISO 50 and 100. But sometimes I want full control, (mainly when I need ISO 400 or more, or when I'm not sure about the WB) therefore I definitely want RAW.

I don't own a G7, but the high-ISO-JPEGs look very similar to my FZ50, which means they look like a painting (some people like the effect ).

To sum it up, there's nothing wrong with JPEG if you you are happy with the results. What I don't like are general statements like "Nobody needs RAW", "RAW is for bad photographers" etc. I think you get what I mean.

--
Regards,

Robert
http://www.sondek.smugmug.com

 

[Wertdinger]

If you can't see the diference in an dslr...

Hi Demarren...

I disagree with this statement. I own an 1D Mark II and compared in-camera JPEGs and JPEGs and TIFFs converted by ZoomBrowser and DPP from RAW files. I prefer RAW, converted by DPP, sharper and more detail.

Look at Phil's tests. He compares in-camera JPEGs to external converted RAWs for most Canon DSLRs. He found better IQ with external processing.

1Ds Mark II
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dsmkii/page18.asp
1D Mark II
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dmkii/page17.asp

In-camera-processing is more designed for fast shot-to-shot times (e.g. 8fps) and limited memory. External processing can use far more processor time and memory, thus algorithms can be tuned for best IQ. Aside: You get more control over important parameters in the processing and mapping of 12 bit data to an 8 bit (or 16 bit) data space. And you can repeat processing for different purposes.

Bottomline: There is a diifference between RAW and JPEGs shot with Canon DSLRs.

BTW, Robert N has shown many excellent, even challenge-wiinning photos on this forum. He shoots with the A620, the FZ50 and the D50. His outstanding knowledge of postprocessing is well-known. His opinions about gear are well justified and supported by his results. Thus, Robert's opinions are an important brick in building my own opinions.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=21331417
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=21437337
---
Best regards
Wertdinger

 

[Erik Stiegler]

http://photodoto.com/index.php/2006/08/03/raw-vs-jpg-print-shootout/

I don't understand your point. The author of that articles says he can see the difference between RAW and JPEG:

"It’s clear from the examples that the RAW image provides superior sharpness and resolution."

"At closer than five feet, I can spot the RAW print"

 

[PixelMinded]

Interestingly many of the RAW-vs-JPG threads are started by posters who claim to be non-believers in the necessity and importance of RAW. If it is not important why starting the thread in the first place?! I never came across a thread about the unimportance of mp3 players in digital cameras for example, because it is indeed not so important for most DC buyers.

When a camera supports RAW, it is a fact that only a fraction of its owners will use the feature, but so are many other features (eg scene modes, OVFs, EVFs, high ISO that is too noisy...etc). Some entry-level DSLR owners never use the manual mode on their cameras and might be able to get nice results in auto mode, does that form any good basis for the total omission of the manual mode on such cameras?! In my mind it doesn't, in Canon's mind, may be.

--
Ahmed Elnagar
http://profile.imageshack.us/user/pixelminded/images

 

[newmikey]

Just state you do not want to learn how to use RAW or don't have the patience to process RAW files. The argument is an empty one. Ofcourse a RAW file, processed correctly, will deliver more detail and allow more manipulation without deterioration. There simply is no question about that, simple physics.

Whether you need raw or not is a totally different question. Maybe some do, some don't. Just do not suggest there is no difference, that is beyond ignorant.

--
You're invited to visit my gallery at
http://www.pbase.com/newmikey
Drop me a line there if you like it.

 

[hugo solo]

robert I use only 1200x1600 superfine and today I took a photo with the whole resolution 10mp and I noticed some artifacts but when I shot 1200x1600 the results are clear and clean for me is not important the lack of raw and when I see a good picture never ask jpg or raw the only thing is jpg its easier.

 

[swnw]

When you cont precisely you can see that number of RAW users is relatively small. Most camera users use jpeg, most of them even don't realize that RAW exist! They are use jpeg and they are happy. RAW use use professionals(not all) and advanced hobbyist(almost all). When jpeg is good you not need RAW.
I use RAW occasionally.

Best regards, swnw.

 

[Savas Kyprianides]

and cannot truly compare with my G7 because my raw camera is a practically noiseless and highly detailed 5D. It is no way apples to apples, even when shooting jpegs from both. But the G7 does give very good pre-shot control in the manual sense with excellent visual feedback and the capability to tweak the jpeg output as to sharpness, color, contrast, etc. Color rendition is killer in G7 - very accurate and the auto white balance blew me away in a particular still life under a given light source, where there was no discernable color cast. Raw is good, but for a point and shoot, getting good shots and a reasonable level of control time after time is second nature with G7, I find. It's a point and shoot and fullfills current point and shoot missions very well.

 

[swnw]

I can agree with you. G7 is special for me - theoretically pics should be worse than they are but practically they are better that should be . To me they are OK+.You characterized it very good. I shot RAW when I'm not sure light conditions or picture deserves special care in other case I shot jpeg. Generally I think that life without RAW is possible but if somebody likes RAW than she/he can use RAW all the time .

Best regards, swnw.