Reading mode: Light Dark

Yet another example of R1 Raw vs. Jpeg

Go to last post
M

mediokre

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
296
Reaction score
12
Location
US
I'd seen another dramatic illustration of R1's Raw-Jpeg difference (a white house), but I'd been skeptical, especially after some people on this forum insisted there was no difference. Having taken this photo myself, I was finally convinced me that R1 Raw really has much better IQ. I am sorry it took me so long to see the obvious.

100% crop from RAW (SmartSharpen 400% 0.3 pixel)



100% crop from JPEG (camera sharpening -1, SmartSharpen 400% 0.3 pixel)



and the JPEG w/ USM 400% 0.3 pixel radius. The image just disintegrates:

 
But all three have had different processing so what can be determined? It's impossible to process both files the same way so there's no control for the comparison

A RAW file is not an image so really can't be compared to an image.
 
I just wanted to draw people's attention to the details in the purple building. They're irrecoverably lost in the JPEG.
 
looks like this...



All the files were saved at quality level 10 in PhotoShop btw.
 
It's like two diffrent cameras .

The results show raw makes diffrence but what if you put on Jpeg the sharp factor to -1 and the use USM?

the sharpenig in R1 is not great so maybe tis is from that problem.

what sharpening were you using on the jpg?

rob
--
Sony R1
Was part of canon people (300D + 350D) and was happy there
have als0 Sony T7 , Minolta s404
past: canon powershot pro 90, sony F707, canon 300D, Canon 350D with L glasses
 
Clearly the RAW is better, but the lower RH side white roof is more blown out in it than the JPG.

Also would have been nice to see the exact same framing (as the RAW one is cropped much more than the JPG...)

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/golfgirl/
Sony R1 & H5 - All CC & PP welcome...always learning!


  • Karen
 
the 2nd and 3rd jpeg are precisely that: -1 camera sharpening + photoshop sharpening (smart sharpening w/ the 2nd and USM w/ the 3rd).
 
you're right about the roof, but that's just because of the contrast PhotoShop selected for me when i opened the raw file.

my point really is to show that the details on the purple building (all the near-horizontal lines) are completely and irretrievably lost in the camera jpegs.

and sorry for the bad cropping. there must be a better way to do it than eyeballing, but i don't know how.
 
a 1MB jpeg?
Yehuda
mediokre said:
I'd seen another dramatic illustration of R1's Raw-Jpeg difference
(a white house), but I'd been skeptical, especially after some
people on this forum insisted there was no difference. Having taken
this photo myself, I was finally convinced me that R1 Raw really
has much better IQ. I am sorry it took me so long to see the
obvious.

100% crop from RAW (SmartSharpen 400% 0.3 pixel)



100% crop from JPEG (camera sharpening -1, SmartSharpen 400% 0.3
pixel)



and the JPEG w/ USM 400% 0.3 pixel radius. The image just
disintegrates:

Click to expand...
 
mediokre said:
I'd seen another dramatic illustration of R1's Raw-Jpeg difference...
Click to expand...
I do believe that in certain cases, there is a difference in quality between raw and jpg shooting. However, looking at your examples, I'm sorry to say, that in my opinion, the difference between the photos is a result of bad photography and lack of post processing skills, more than anything else.

I am sure that if you will improve your photography level and learn how to correctly process you pictures, you will find out that at the end of the line, in most cases, the actual difference in quality is really not that "dramatic" as you show here.

SB
 
I've been using the R1 for 6 months now, and have extensive photoshop experience (5 years) - I can tell you that I have found similar results to the OP - the rendition of fine detail by R1 RAW images is almost always superior to R1 JPEGs, however you post-process them. Often, these differences are not apparent when printed at 6X4 or 7X5 size, but on screen at 100% magnification they are easily seen and when images are printed at 8X10 size or bigger you can also see the differences, especially in things like fine architectural detail (as in the OP's example here) or distant landscape details (e.g. tree foliage).

Marco
SonyBoy said:
mediokre said:
I'd seen another dramatic illustration of R1's Raw-Jpeg difference...
Click to expand...
I do believe that in certain cases, there is a difference in
quality between raw and jpg shooting. However, looking at your
examples, I'm sorry to say, that in my opinion, the difference
between the photos is a result of bad photography and lack of post
processing skills, more than anything else.

I am sure that if you will improve your photography level and learn
how to correctly process you pictures, you will find out that at
the end of the line, in most cases, the actual difference in
quality is really not that "dramatic" as you show here.

SB
Click to expand...
 
...as usual when i disagree I'll go shoot another test. My first two rounds comparing jpg vs. raw yielded so little difference that in 20x30 prints I couldn't see it.

But rather than just say no this doesn't make sense, I'm heading off to do a third test.

These days I only shoot RAW when the white balance is an issue.

dave
--
Amazing what we can do with just three crayons, red green and blue!
http://diamondmultimediagroup.com
 
Marco,

I didn't say that there is no difference. I totally agree that in if you look at a 100% crop with a magnifying glass, a raw converted picture will have a better quality than a jpg original shot.

However, as in general you don't always look at a photo on a 100% crop and many people do not even print larger than 7x5 than, if you know how to shoot right, most people won't see much of a difference.

I still think that the OP examples are far from being a reference for comparison. The non sharpened jpg crop posted later show clearly that the lack of details is due to bad focusing which in this case, explains the difference in details between the two shots.

On the other hand, the roof portion on the right, is better detailed in the jpg version than in the raw one. The reason for this is blown highlights in the raw version. What conclusion can you draw out of this then?

SB
 
Most of my images don't show such dramatic difference. It takes a certain kind of texture for the difference to become noticeable.

That was my whole point of posting this comparison, and I said as much in the rest of my message.
SonyBoy said:
mediokre said:
I'd seen another dramatic illustration of R1's Raw-Jpeg difference...
Click to expand...
I do believe that in certain cases, there is a difference in
quality between raw and jpg shooting. However, looking at your
examples, I'm sorry to say, that in my opinion, the difference
between the photos is a result of bad photography and lack of post
processing skills, more than anything else.

I am sure that if you will improve your photography level and learn
how to correctly process you pictures, you will find out that at
the end of the line, in most cases, the actual difference in
quality is really not that "dramatic" as you show here.

SB
Click to expand...
 
You're right that these images posted by the OP may not be the definitive reference images for proving that R1 RAW is better than R1 JPEG, but all I wanted to say was that I have shared the OP's experience - I know from comparing my RAWs shot on a tripod at exactly the same time as a JPEG, with the same focus point and exposure settings, that my RAWs give me more fine detail in intricate landscapes once I've post-processed them and compared them with post-processed JPEGs. But I don't lose sleep about this and people happy with their JPEGs should just go on shooting JPEGs if they are happy with them...
SonyBoy said:
Marco,
I didn't say that there is no difference. I totally agree that in
if you look at a 100% crop with a magnifying glass, a raw converted
picture will have a better quality than a jpg original shot.
However, as in general you don't always look at a photo on a 100%
crop and many people do not even print larger than 7x5 than, if you
know how to shoot right, most people won't see much of a difference.

I still think that the OP examples are far from being a reference
for comparison. The non sharpened jpg crop posted later show
clearly that the lack of details is due to bad focusing which in
this case, explains the difference in details between the two shots.
On the other hand, the roof portion on the right, is better
detailed in the jpg version than in the raw one. The reason for
this is blown highlights in the raw version. What conclusion can
you draw out of this then?

SB
Click to expand...
 
I don't understand how poor focusing explain the difference in sharpness. The two shots were identical--I saved a 10MB RAW and a 10MB Jpeg from one single shot.

I agree with you that most of the time such fine details are not noticeable or even important. I said "dramatic" at 100%. I didn't think everyone liked to look at their pics at 100%--only that I used to look at my own images at 100% and not notice much difference between RAW/JPEG until this one.

And I might have as you said screwed up with the focusing.
SonyBoy said:
Marco,
I didn't say that there is no difference. I totally agree that in
if you look at a 100% crop with a magnifying glass, a raw converted
picture will have a better quality than a jpg original shot.
However, as in general you don't always look at a photo on a 100%
crop and many people do not even print larger than 7x5 than, if you
know how to shoot right, most people won't see much of a difference.

I still think that the OP examples are far from being a reference
for comparison. The non sharpened jpg crop posted later show
clearly that the lack of details is due to bad focusing which in
this case, explains the difference in details between the two shots.
On the other hand, the roof portion on the right, is better
detailed in the jpg version than in the raw one. The reason for
this is blown highlights in the raw version. What conclusion can
you draw out of this then?

SB
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top