normanhall Loc: Leslie Missouri

[quote=CAM1017][quote=normanhall]i hope i am putting this in the correct category.

I set my camera (d-5100) to raw +basic jpeg to compare images.

to see what the difference between the 2 images showed. i used the landscape mode setting.

i can see a difference in the 2 images can anyone tell me which is the jpeg.and which one is the better image in your opinion. i did no post production on either images. these are straight from camera. Except for converting from raw to jpeg[/

Actually I think this was a silly test and shows a lack of understanding on what is going on between raw and jpeg images.
I suspect that with a properly exposed image it would actually be very difficult to see a difference. :roll:[/quote]

normanhall Loc: Leslie Missouri

[quote=normanhall][quote=CAM1017]

Thanks for your input :roll:

tkhphotography Loc: Gresham, Or, not Seattle

The resolution on one is 240 and the other is 300, makes a little difference when you view them.

AlanK Loc: No. Califorina

[quote=normanhall][quote=CAM1017]

It might have been a better "test", silly or not, if you'd shot the RAW and the HIGHEST quality jpeg - NOT basic jpeg lol.

Keep trying new and different things, pixels are free ;~)

Alan

henrycrafter Loc: Orem Utah

If you shoot raw you must use a program such as Digital Photo professsional or the program will automatically save as jpg.
After DPP you an save to photoshop for further processing

AlanK Loc: No. Califorina

Not necessarily, you should have gotten a FREE software program with your new Nikon camera, it's really a "viewer/downloader" but can be a great RAW converter.

All you need do is install the NX2 Nikon software to view your RAW files, once you've decided which are "keepers" you can very easily convert just those RAW images to "DNG" images and toss the rest. DNG is the file format that Adobe developed and released for free several years ago, hoping to end the even changing Camera Raw versions with almost every new camera ;~(. Unfortunately just about every camera company, except maybe Hasselblad and Leica(?) have NOT switched to the new format.

A DNG has ALL the info of a RAW file and can be edited by many, many photo programs. You'll still have all your RAW images safe and sound and only work on the DNG.

Hope this helps? Alan

PhotoArtsLA Loc: Boynton Beach

I agree...

The mere act of converting the RAW to JPEG for uploading here induces lossy circumstances. The point of JPEG is to reduce file size by limiting color through simplification via run length encoding, throwing out image information in the process.

RAW is always superior to JPEG in color quality and overall definition. JPEG keeps online viewing from being a bandwidth hog. No online image can match the quality of a RAW file as printed by a good photo grade process.

That said, I have made many a 24x36 print from even 6MP JPEGs processed through PhotoZoomPro. At normal viewing distance for such an image, even the lowly JPEG can exceed expectation. Is it as good as RAW? No. But big prints have a big impact.

Finally, just because such a thing is possible, it is still a shame, as the maximum fidelity is not in use, and it is a testament to the lowering of expectation in an audience. The digital age has lulled almost everyone into artistic complacency.

When the standard for HD television was established, it was done by slowly ramping up resolution only up to the point that an acceptable number of complaints were phoned in as to quality issues. That is why HDTV is NOT HD resolution, but just shy of it. The purpose was to limit bandwidth.

normanhall Loc: Leslie Missouri

This will probably be my last post on the hog, First of all what is silly to some of you may not be silly to someone else, so you need to keep your mouth shut about what is silly and what isn't.
Secondly each and everyone on here does not have the same amount of experience as others, so it would be better to help than to put up remarks as silly.

I am pretty sure you may have ask some silly questions when your were starting and from the statement you made i am figureing quite a few. If you don't like the thread that is running leave it alone, or give help and suggestions.

No need to condemn a post as silly because you don't like it.

Tx Snapper Loc: SC Tx

"What is the difference between ignorance and apathy?"

"I don't know and I don't care."

Silly? . . . Lol =)

AustinLockwood Loc: Henderson, Nevada

If you are into editing, and your computer can show RAW files, they are much, much better when you do any kind of touching up to your photograph. As well as that, RAW just looks better overall.

glojo Loc: South Devon, England

Are we not understanding what is being offered by the camera?

Would the camera actually give a 'better' jpg image compared to RAW or NEF? The camera will attempt to adjust the jpg file to make it look pleasing or acceptable as opposed to the RAW or NEF file which is what the camera recorded... Full stop. No image fiddling or modifying, what you see is what you get.

I always shoot in NEF as I prefer the challenge of ruining a completely good picture :). plus of course it gives you far, far more information, dots and dashes to play with.

If you just want a decent picture without dabbling with the end result then it is highly probable that the jpg shot will be the better looking effort. BUT not the better image to keep. :)

CAM1017 Loc: Chiloquin, Oregon

Depending on who is behind the computer, The raw file will provide a more pleasing image. The JPEG is the camera manufactures idea of what they think your image should look like. Not yours! Normally it really does not take a lot of time to edit a RAW file once you understand your processing program.

glojo Loc: South Devon, England

Hi Charles, :thumbup:
I was being very much tongue in cheek but we have to accept that there are thousands and thousands of folks that own digital cameras that are fully capable of allowing the owner to take images in the RAW format but these folks do not have any type of software to play with the image or possibly the technical know how to use what they have. Hence my post..

I ALWAYS always used the NEF (RAW) format and keep that file in its original condition but I have to accept I am in the minority of owners that do this. :

To those that have software that can adjust these large files then I thoroughly recommend they attempt to play with it as it offers so much but to those that do not have it, or lack the confidence to use it, then perhaps it is a waste of time saving files in this format.

Short answer is a modern camera should produce a more than acceptable jpg whereas the NEF file might not be so pretty to look at 'straight out of the box'

CAM1017 Loc: Chiloquin, Oregon

I totally agree with you. The misunderstanding that some new people in digital photography seem to have is a lack of understanding on the intent of RAW as compared to JPEG. They try to compare the formats straight from the camera and wonder what the difference is. Once you transfer to the computer it is a totally new ball game that requires time and practice to master. :D

birdpix Loc: South East Pennsylvania

The differences become apparent when dealing with retention of highlight and shadow detail and better rendition of smooth gradient areas like clear sky. None of these are relevant to this photo which is marred by being out of focus due to movement blur. Sorry, Norman, I'm not trying to pick on you, and I hope that you will take in the spirit that it is given, but these photos really won't be helpful in showing the difference between RAW and JPG. There are few subjects that will engender more arguments that this JPG vs RAW discussion.

To see a more relevant discussion check this link out: http://www.slrlounge.com/raw-vs-jpeg-jpg-the-ultimate-visual-guide