bugguy Loc: midwest

Just returned home from first vacation shot with my A77. Is it me or does this camera take better Jpegs then Raw pics? The attached pics were taken in the Raw/jpeg mode. The first is raw the second is jpeg

Attached file:
(Download)

Attached file:
(Download)

oldmalky Loc: West Midlands,England.

sorry nothing there.

robert-photos Loc: Chicago

It is clear to me that they are both equal. :lol:

bugguy Loc: midwest

Look closely at the leaves and buds on the tree

bugguy Loc: midwest

Oops! :-D having issues downloading pics

robbygb Loc: UK

Photo Viewer won't let these files open!!

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

They are both raw files

robert-photos Loc: Chicago

Both photos are RAW files and per the EXIF data both were shot using the exact same settings they look as if the same camera/lens position was used. At 800% I see no decernible difference.....even the pool reflections are the same which is uncanny.

A JPEG file is processed whereas a RAW file is minimally processed. RAW files need post processing.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Raw format is completely unprocessed, just like raw milk or a raw egg. Raw format cannot be viewed directly, but a JPG image processed from the raw format can be viewed. Raw format is likened to a latent image on film: it cannot be viewed directly, but an image can be viewed after film development.

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

Those are BOTH the "raw" files......

waremick Loc: New Hampshire

I notice that both files are *.arw which is sony's raw format.
Bill R.

cheineck Loc: Hobe Sound, FL

A JPEG file is processed whereas a RAW file is minimally processed. RAW files need post processing.[/quote]

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

robert-photos Loc: Chicago

Nikonian,

Technically most/all RAW image formats are not "completely" unprocessed but rather, "minimally" processed.

For example...Most raw formats implement lossless data compression to reduce the size of the files without affecting image quality. But some others use lossy data compression where quantization and filtering is performed on the image data. Several recent Nikon cameras let photographers choose between no compression, lossless compression or lossy compression for their raw images.

Easy proof...convert your NEF to DNG (both are RAW file formats) and compare the file sizes. If there was no processing being done the file sizes would be exactly the same.

I'm sure you'll agree with me that compression is a form of processing.

Also, when we first open a RAW image in any program we are viewing a processed image thumbnail or a reduced-size image in JPEG format which most/all RAW formats attach to the file. We are not viewing the RAW image directly.
That thumbnail/attached image also constitutes "minimal processing".

Even so, your main point that a RAW image must be (further) processed ("developed" ) in order to view it properly is correct.

GHK Loc: The Vale of Eden

The files will not open; can you re-post?

tainkc Loc: Kansas City

I don't have to see the pics to know the answer to your question. You are basically asking to compare apples to oranges. They are the same in their respective realms.

As you have read, the jpeg image is compiled within the camera itself. Sony does a pretty good job of it. Therefore, you need not do much work in post other than minor adjustments if need be.

Raw has its own purpose. You are basically asked to do all of the colour, lighting, and tonal adjusting yourself in post. This format gives you a lot more latitude for making the corrections for such things such as skin tones for example. If the skin tone under certain lighting is off a bit and appears greenish orange in a jpeg format, you will not have that much control over temperature adjusting for example. If that same photo was shot in RAW, at first it may not look very good but in a post program such as lightroom, you can zero right in in many different ways in order to make corrections that, when you are finished, the final result may be even superior to even a well defined jpeg. I am trying to stay generic here.

If you have your in camera settings done correctly, you may not notice too much difference between the two formats other than the Raw format may look a little funky because it is "wanting" some editing.

Personally, I think shooting in RAW is way overrated for the average user. It is a waste of space on your memory card and it is a great time waster in post.

However, I shoot in RAW. What??? Yes, I get into some weird lighting conditions (especially indoors) and even with setting the white balance manually, there is tweaking that must be done that would not be possible with a jpeg image.

If I am just putzing around at a craft fair or shooting broad landscapes like at a battlefield, I shoot in fine jpeg because I know the results will be good and that I will not be married to my computer when I go to work on them in post. This also saves a lot of space on my memory card and I am able to put more pictures on the card because a jpeg image has a much smaller file size.

I hope this helps a little bit.