Let's See Some Images That Clearly Show RAW Is Better Than JPG (Page 3): From the tone it is pretty obvious you are trolling...

dibsdone

From the tone it is pretty obvious you are trolling

Jim Bob

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.

OK. You're telling the poster what format he used? Good luck with that.

Jim Bob

dibsdone wrote:

From the tone it is pretty obvious you are trolling

When does furthering a legitimate debate become trolling? Perhaps you simply don't wish to know the difference.

Jim Bob

TheDman wrote:

Quick and dirty example. First one is the RAW.

After careful study of your images, I wonder if the JPG image had been post processed a little (more) how close it would have come to the RAW. Your thoughts?

TheDman Loc: USA

Jim Bob wrote:

After careful study of your images, I wonder if the JPG image had been post processed a little (more) how close it would have come to the RAW. Your thoughts?

Both were post processed. Feel free to have at it and give it your best shot. There's no data in the blown out sunset area, so you're not going to be successful in recreating that.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

WAKD wrote:

'Let's See Some Images That Clearly Show RAW Is Better Than JPG'

Photos, not opinions!

Wakd, your opinion is worth less so far than anybody else's.
At least they have an opinion.

Let's not forget that ANYTHING posted here IS a JPEG!!
So it's impossible to make a comparison by design.

You wanna give an opinion about that, then do so.
Your monitor has interpolation, so again, you won't see it there either, unless your monitor is 6000x4000. You need to look where the rubber meets the road!!

The rubber is on your WALL, not your computer. Your computer is made up of little squares, a print is little circles!! ;-)
SS

TheDman Loc: USA

SharpShooter wrote:

Let's not forget that ANYTHING posted here IS a JPEG!!

As is everything you ever see from a RAW file. You don't send 1's and 0's to the printer, you send a jpg or tiff.

SharpShooter wrote:

Your monitor has interpolation, so again, you won't see it there either, unless your monitor is 6000x4000.

Monitors don't have 'interpolation'. If you're monitor is displaying it's native resolution, than 1 monitor pixel = 1 image pixel. You can choose to interpolate, but why would you?

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

Jim Bob wrote:

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.

Cop out? NO. I don't have any sooc .jpegs on hand because I don't shoot that way. I suspect that is the story with most that use raw. If I were to process a .jpg from an on hand raw file it most likely would not come out the same as a camera produced.jpeg and any comparison would be invalid.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Jim Bob wrote:

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.

Those professionals who do jpeg instead of raw do one of two things.
1. They take a lot of time and set things up just right before taking a picture the same way people did it on film.
2. They shoot huge numbers of pictures and than delete the vast majority of them to get those great looking keepers you see. Even in film days those with money backing did this. Once read a "making of..." article by a Nat Geo photographer who shoot over 200 rolls of film on a field assignment and then the article used 12 images.

I shoot RAW (except in camera HDR which is JPEG, and I wish it was RAW) my daughter shoots JPEG. Sat we spent all day and Sun 1/2 day at a Steam Punk event at the Railway Museum. She shoot over 900 frames Sat and a couple hundred Sun. She will have about 40-50 or so she keeps to post on Facebook etc. I shot 156 Sat and 68 Sun and will end up with 30 or 40 I keep and maybe print or post 10-20 on UHH, to give to the people in the pictures at the museum or for photo club. My daughter usually does little PP. All of mine will have some PP in their final form.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

How good an image generated from a RAW file will look depends very much on the person's skill at processing RAW files. And to some extent, the appearance of a camera-generated JPEG depends on the specific camera image settings selected by the photographer. I can't imagine how one can come to a definitve, universal conclusion about which format looks better, as it will always depend on each photographer's skill.

Bill Houghton Loc: New York area

For the record, I have only seen one instance where RAW held the advantage. It was a photo taken at night of someones boat dock from a few hundred feet away. It was a photo that should have been in delete both before and after PP but for some reason she used that as an example of why one should shoot RAW.

RAW does have it's place and of you are doing a paid shoot where you need to squeeze your photo to the last pixel then go for it. For everyday shooting JPEG.

To me a good camera and a good lens are more important then Shooting RAW or JPEG.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

RegisG wrote:

As far as I know the photo is no different right out of camera. But, if you want to do any correction or other post processing then you have lot more ability with raw file. I always shoot both.

RegisG

You are looking at a jpg when viewing an unprocessed raw file that is why they look the same. Raw is just data.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Jim Bob wrote:

I know this topic has been covered with some folks saying they "always" shoot RAW and others indicating that in most cases with a good DSLR there is no noticeable difference except in huge enlargements. Let's see some proof, either way. I will note that I shot a photo of our house in both formats and could not see any difference in an 8 x 10 print.

I will start by saying I am not advocating one or the other. Each is best for some people/purposes. Raw is usually better for me because I shoot with a smaller format camera and I like to do creative post processing - thus, I need all the data I can get to do what I want to do.

These 3 images are from the same capture. This shot is part of a fun family book project that will include images my uncle shot in 1969 with a Minolta and images I shot of those same scenes along the Louisiana River Road last week, in as close to the same lighting and angle as possible. For this one, I was shooting into the sun so had to use settings to preserve highlights.

First is the jpeg. Second is its raw file processed in Lightroom. Third is the first draft of the finished image, converted from raw in Tonality Pro.

The raw/jpeg choice is not about which will immediately look better but which will let you go where you want to next. If no further work is planned, jpeg is easy and often looks great. If you're gonna beat the file up a lot, raw is at least a consideration.

jpeg

raw+LR=jpeg

raw+LR+Tonality=jpeg

klaus Loc: Guatemala City, Guatemala

Jim Bob wrote:

I know this topic has been covered with some folks saying they "always" shoot RAW and others indicating that in most cases with a good DSLR there is no noticeable difference except in huge enlargements. Let's see some proof, either way. I will note that I shot a photo of our house in both formats and could not see any difference in an 8 x 10 print.

Why don't you read this first then come back here and ask more informed and reasonable questions:

http://techterms.com/definition/cameraraw

jkatpc Loc: Virginia Beach

Here is an image with two versions: one raw and the other jpeg. Both images have the same post processing done to them. Not sure if this is what you were asking for. Both the original raw and JPEG were very dark, despite a 91 second exposure, therefore requiring some PP work.

RAW

JPEG