Let's See Some Images That Clearly Show RAW Is Better Than JPG (Page 2): Ok, I'll shut up.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

Jim Bob wrote:

Repeat: let's see some images. If you are telling me that one can not see the difference in this thread that raises some interesting issues doesn't it? All you RAW shooters, put up or shut up.

Ok, I'll shut up.

Jim Bob

Mac wrote:

Ok, I'll shut up.

Good choice, although not necessarily one that furthers the debate.

dibsdone

Raw will never look as good as the jpeg. It's not meant to. The jpeg is a processed version of the RAW file. The difference is that your camera has processed the RAW file according to an algorithm. The RAW file is so that you can process the image to your own liking, outside of the camera on a computer, and have all the data available.

Again the RAW file will not look as good as the jpeg because it's unprocessed.

n3eg Loc: West coast USA

If you can't understand the difference between JPG and RAW, you are just trolling. If I get time tonight I will post the almost completely dark JPG and the perfect post processed RAW of Mt. Rainier. In the meantime, I'm outta here.

Jim Bob

dibsdone wrote:

Raw will never look as good as the jpeg. It's not meant to. The jpeg is a processed version of the RAW file. The difference is that your camera has processed the RAW file according to an algorithm. The RAW file is so that you can process the image to your own liking, outside of the camera on a computer, and have all the data available.

Again the RAW file will not look as good as the jpeg because it's unprocessed.

Well process it or smocess it. I want to see the images that will hopefully help folks make an informed decision. Saying that we couldn't see a difference is counterproductive wouldn't you agree? If you can't see a difference, why do the JPG haters always maintain that everybody should shoot RAW?

dibsdone

If you don't post process images on a program like Lightroom or Photoshop, don't use the RAW- use jpeg.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

If you're looking for instant gratification then you have us "raw shooters" at a disadvantage. We shoot in raw because we have been through the trial and error process and have determined for our purposes that the out of camera .jpeg isn't a format we want to use. Since we shoot raw only we don't have any examples at hand. To comply with your wishes I would have to set up my camera to shoot both, take the time to go out and capture some images, come back and process the raw images so you can be shown the difference. Considering your put up or shut diplomacy, I am not inclined to do that. Yes, you will then assert that there is no difference. That sir, as with .jpeg, is your loss.

TheDman Loc: USA

Quick and dirty example. First one is the RAW.

(Download)

Jim Bob

Rich1939 wrote:

If you're looking for instant gratification then y... (show quote)

Instant gratification? No. Your response, a cop out, yes. If you are not willing to share your experience and knowledge with the rest of us, why even bother to post? Some of us are genuinely interested in this subject, especially since certain professional photographers eschew RAW for JPG. Too bad you're too busy or uninterested.

Jim Bob

TheDman wrote:

Quick and dirty example. First one is the RAW.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ABSOLTELY STUNNING AND THE DIFFERENCE IS BREATHTAKING. YOU DA MAN.

dibsdone

Technically this can't be a RAW. It's some other format whether it be a jpeg, TIFF, or other. It might be a RAW image that was not processed but immediately converted into one of these other formats for monitor display.

Jim Bob

I thought the naysayers maintained that one could not see the difference. Ignorance is bliss and also tends to misinform.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

SharpShooter wrote:

Jeez Jim, if you need to ask, just shoot Jpeg's.
I also would not waste any money on a DSLR!! :lol:
Not much point in doing that just to shoot JPEG's. You'll never see the difference. ;-)
SS

I will second and third this plus refer to the comment about no difference seen in 8x10, 8x10 is not a large print. If you never go larger than 8x10 and never have any shots that weren't right in the camera (so don't need all the extra data for PP) then don't use RAW.

The great advantage of RAW is in its data and ability to do more in PP and esp when doing large prints. If you never print larger than 8x10, never do extreme cropping and don't do advanced PP than don't bother with RAW.

You do know that the camera shoots all photos in RAW and converts to JPEG when set for JPEG? Some cameras do a better job of converting than others. I shoot everything in RAW just so I will have it if I want/need it. It only takes a few seconds to convert to jpeg, tiff or whatever in PP. You can do it in batches in some software if you think one at a time is too much work.

Oh, last item, RAW does have much bigger files, so it uses up data drive space faster. If that is a biggy for you than shoot jpeg or delete like crazy after a shoot.

dibsdone

Jim Bob wrote:

Well process it or smocess it. I want to see the images that will hopefully help folks make an informed decision. Saying that we couldn't see a difference is counterproductive wouldn't you agree? If you can't see a difference, why do the JPG haters always maintain that everybody should shoot RAW?

I don't think you're getting the concept here. Raw is just a data set of an image. That or you are trolling.

TheDman Loc: USA

dibsdone wrote:

Technically this can't be a RAW. It's some other format whether it be a jpeg, TIFF, or other. It might be a RAW image that was not processed but immediately converted into one of these other formats for monitor display.

RAW meaning 'processed from the RAW file', of course. I figured that was implied. Both were processed. The second one has a blue tinge because it was shot with the color balance set wrong, as was the RAW file. Used the color balance tool in ACR to fix that in the first one, and tried to approximate it with curves in the second one. As you can see, it's not always easy to approximate. To me there's no substitute for the ability to color balance a RAW file.