Let's See Some Images That Clearly Show RAW Is Better Than JPG: I know this topic has been covered with some folks saying they "always" shoot RAW and others indicating that in most...

Jim Bob

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.

canon Lee

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.

Raw has all of the data and Jpeg does not!

RegisG Loc: Mid-Tennessee

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

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

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.

The biggest difference comes into play when post processing - just shoot a scene in bad lighting and then compare shots of a jpeg and a processed raw - it's like day and night!

Jim Bob

So far, all I've seen are rote responses. Let's see some images shot in both formats under the same or similar circumstances using the best settings.

tsilva Loc: Arizona

You will not be able to see any difference in a photo posted on this website, unless heavy compression has been used.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

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

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

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.

The difference between RAW and JPG is that RAW offers less compression and more information than JPG. Less compression and more information allows you more latitude in post. RAW is basically a digital negative. While you can make some adjustments to JPG, you can make more in RAW.

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

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

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

WAKD Loc: Cincinnati

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

Photos, not opinions!

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

The greatest difference from a creative stand point; A SOOC .jpeg is the camera mfg's idea of what the photo should look like (albeit with some input from the user) while a post processed image from a raw file is completely in the users control

Jim Bob

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 appreciate your enlightened response. Perfect example why folks dislike sites such as this. In other words, you don't know the difference. Why didn't you just say so?

Jim Bob

WAKD wrote:

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

Photos, not opinions!

Thank you so much. Such a breath of fresh air.

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

WAKD wrote:

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

Photos, not opinions!

I don't think you can see a RAW image outside the post program. What I think you see is a JPG containing the changes that were made to the RAW image.

Jim Bob

Mac wrote:

I don't think you can see a RAW image outside the post program. What I think you see is a JPG containing the changes that were made to the RAW image.

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.