i'm thinking too much
May 30, 2014 06:18:11 #
portrait taken withnikon d90, raw format, with 85f/1.8 lens same portrait taken with nikon d800 jpeg fine, same lens. raw photo pp by experienced pro. then both photos enlarged to 20" x 30" could you see difference in photos ? hypothetical question, just lurking around and this popped into my head
May 30, 2014 06:22:44 #
I believe the raw photo taken with the D90 is going to be a higher mpx than the jpg taken by the D800. Plus unless the photo taken by the D800 is absolutely perfect the post processing is going to make a difference.
Yes, I think you will see a difference.
Yes, I think you will see a difference.
May 30, 2014 06:32:42 #
AlisonT wrote:
I believe the raw photo taken with the D90 is going to be a higher mpx than the jpg taken by the D800. Plus unless the photo taken by the D800 is absolutely perfect the post processing is going to make a difference.
Yes, I think you will see a difference.
Yes, I think you will see a difference.
i would be very dissapointed to find a $500 d90 out-perfoming my $3000 D800
May 30, 2014 06:47:14 #
oldtigger wrote:
i would be very dissapointed to find a $500 d90 out-perfoming my $3000 D800
The cost of body is less meaningful. The question is can one PP a raw file to equal or better a jpg with these two bodies. I would lean to the PPing rather than the jpg in general.
May 30, 2014 06:48:56 #
The difference is the jpg vs. raw. Taking a $3000 camera and shooting in jpg is a waste of the capabilities of the camera.
May 30, 2014 06:56:54 #
pithydoug wrote:
The cost of body is less meaningful. The question is can one PP a raw file to equal or better a jpg with these two bodies. I would lean to the PPing rather than the jpg in general.
the question is can a d90 sensor cell outperform a d800 sensor cell and will the in-camera conversion of raw to jpeg for storage degrade the image enough to offset any advantage the d800 sensor might have,/
i'll let you ignore the fact that the 800 is taking almost 4 samples of the subject for every 1 the d90 takes,
May 30, 2014 07:23:07 #
jepisa wrote:
portrait taken withnikon d90, raw format, with 85f/1.8 lens same portrait taken with nikon d800 jpeg fine, same lens. raw photo pp by experienced pro. then both photos enlarged to 20" x 30" could you see difference in photos ? hypothetical question, just lurking around and this popped into my head
Why make such a comparison. Its like comparing a donkey to a horse.
May 30, 2014 07:27:09 #
jepisa wrote:
portrait taken with nikon d90, raw format, with 85f/1.8 lens same portrait taken with nikon d800 jpeg fine, same lens. raw photo pp by experienced pro. then both photos enlarged to 20" x 30" could you see difference in photos ? hypothetical question, just lurking around and this popped into my head
I would have the same pro do the processing on both images, and I bet the D800 would give better results. This sounds like a project for MT Shooter.
Raw allows for more leeway in processing. It's not going to make the image better to begin with (Boy, that's a controversial statement). If the scene is well-lit, JPEG should produce good results, but both images will benefit from processing.
This is a situation where post processing could make or break either image.
May 30, 2014 07:29:50 #
joer wrote:
Why make such a comparison. Its like comparing a donkey to a horse.
A young donkey and an old horse, or vice versa? I think that's part of his question - old vs new.
May 30, 2014 07:30:49 #
like i said thinking too much, no good reason for comparison, just curious about sharpness and detail
May 30, 2014 07:32:03 #
pithydoug wrote:
The cost of body is less meaningful. The question is can one PP a raw file to equal or better a jpg with these two bodies. I would lean to the PPing rather than the jpg in general.
Yes, that would be a better comparison. Same equipment, well-lit scene, JPG vs raw. I think a lot of the difference would depend on the lighting, shadows, and color in the scene.
This could be a week's project for someone.
May 30, 2014 10:34:09 #
jepisa wrote:
portrait taken withnikon d90, raw format, with 85f/1.8 lens same portrait taken with nikon d800 jpeg fine, same lens. raw photo pp by experienced pro. then both photos enlarged to 20" x 30" could you see difference in photos ? hypothetical question, just lurking around and this popped into my head
A 12MP sensor will not compare to a 36MP sensor no matter what is done to it. A RAW image still needs to be processed before you can print it. The D800 processor is two generations beyond the D90 processor and a full frame sensor to boot. The D800's JPG will be far superior to the D90's RAW when printed that large, without a doubt and without exception. Printed at 8x10? no one could tell them apart if the RAW processing was done well.
May 30, 2014 14:50:31 #
AlisonT wrote:
The difference is the jpg vs. raw. Taking a $3000 camera and shooting in jpg is a waste of the capabilities of the camera.
:thumbdown: :thumbdown:
You are paying for the technology, why not let it work for you?
May 30, 2014 17:21:06 #
Wahawk wrote:
:thumbdown: :thumbdown:
You are paying for the technology, why not let it work for you?
You are paying for the technology, why not let it work for you?
Stupid me, i always thought my viewable jpegs were derived from the raw data.
I didn't know the camera crippled its technology to make jpegs.
May 30, 2014 19:05:22 #
AlisonT wrote:
The difference is the jpg vs. raw. Taking a $3000 camera and shooting in jpg is a waste of the capabilities of the camera.
Hardly. A well-exposed JPEG with a proper white balance will produce a beautiful image. You know not of what you speak.
All that capability also applies to all the settings you can make in the camera to produce out-of-the-camera images that need no processing at all.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.