Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Raw vs Jpeg 2016
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
Feb 4, 2016 21:59:54   #
TucsonCoyote
 
http://petapixel.com/2016/02/04/heres-a-crazy-comparison-between-raw-and-jpeg/

Now, after clicking on the link, you tell me if this definitely persuades you to shoot Raw!?!
The author seems pretty sure he conveyed his message pretty clearly ! :) :roll: 8-)

| Reply
Feb 4, 2016 22:04:39   #
rmalarz (a regular here)
 
TucsonCoyote wrote:
http://petapixel.com/2016/02/04/heres-a-crazy-comparison-between-raw-and-jpeg/

Now, after clicking on the link, you tell me if this definitely persuades you to shoot Raw!?!
The author seems pretty sure he conveyed his message pretty clearly ! :) :roll: 8-)


Hey, TC, you beat me to it. I just finished reading that article and was going to post the link. I'm glad someone else thought it worth of some time on UHH.
--Bob

| Reply
Feb 4, 2016 22:16:38   #
chaman
 
Interesting view on this subject. Its another proof of the benefits of going RAW.

| Reply
Feb 4, 2016 22:31:03   #
BassmanBruce (a regular here)
 
deleted

| Reply
Feb 4, 2016 22:32:53   #
rmalarz (a regular here)
 
BassmanBruce wrote:
While this is an interesting example, and I don't dispute that raw captures the most info, since the lens cap was on this strikes me as division by zero.
That doesn't tell us anything.


Bruce, on the contrary, it indicates quite a lot.
--Bob

| Reply
Feb 4, 2016 22:38:46   #
AndiS
 
Thank you for sharing....

TucsonCoyote wrote:
http://petapixel.com/2016/02/04/heres-a-crazy-comparison-between-raw-and-jpeg/

Now, after clicking on the link, you tell me if this definitely persuades you to shoot Raw!?!
The author seems pretty sure he conveyed his message pretty clearly ! :) :roll: 8-)

| Reply
Feb 4, 2016 22:41:05   #
BassmanBruce (a regular here)
 
deleted

| Reply
Feb 4, 2016 22:47:06   #
rmalarz (a regular here)
 
BassmanBruce wrote:
Maybe I misunderstand, but if a pic is taken that has no photons and then processed by different standards, I at least, don't get the reason.
Fwiw, I do see thet jpeg did a poor job, but when starting with nothing what else would be expected?


It's probably similar to processing unexposed film. One can determine the base fog + density level and determine a number of things from that.

When starting with nothing, I'd expect to get very close to nothing in return. That was the value of shooting the inside of a lens cap. The RAW file gave pretty close to nothing. The jpg was filled with artifacts that shouldn't have been there.
--Bob

| Reply
Feb 5, 2016 04:55:59   #
Leicaflex
 
Interesting comparisons
Thank you for the link.

| Reply
Feb 5, 2016 06:12:50   #
Dbotnick
 
I still struggle with this choice. I currently shoot JPEG unless I'm on a "once in lifetime" trip. Mainly since I don't have enough spare time for post processing. I'm not sure I fully understand how this article proves one over the other, based upon the the reference shoot being nothing of substance.

| Reply
Feb 5, 2016 06:54:16   #
picturesofdogs
 
As several commenters said, a waste of time.
One result from one older camera

| Reply
Feb 5, 2016 08:51:11   #
Dngallagher
 
rmalarz wrote:
It's probably similar to processing unexposed film. One can determine the base fog + density level and determine a number of things from that.

When starting with nothing, I'd expect to get very close to nothing in return. That was the value of shooting the inside of a lens cap. The RAW file gave pretty close to nothing. The jpg was filled with artifacts that shouldn't have been there.
--Bob


Yep, pretty much.
:thumbup:

| Reply
Feb 5, 2016 09:19:23   #
Fred Harwood (a regular here)
 
I noticed this difference, especially when exploring shadows. I've gone raw and 16-bit for a bit now, even when reprocessing old jpegs with the raw editor. For example, a slightly banded sky in a jpeg smooths out. Thanks for the link.

TucsonCoyote wrote:
http://petapixel.com/2016/02/04/heres-a-crazy-comparison-between-raw-and-jpeg/

Now, after clicking on the link, you tell me if this definitely persuades you to shoot Raw!?!
The author seems pretty sure he conveyed his message pretty clearly ! :) :roll: 8-)

| Reply
Feb 5, 2016 09:32:45   #
camerapapi (a regular here)
 
I can say that modern JPEG images are not the images of 10 years ago. In my case I used both files but I am very comfortable shooting JPEG images and the majority of the images I have posted here have come from JPEG files. Some of my best enlargements have come from JPEG images.
In regards to manipulation of the file and dynamic range I have not found that a limitation.
Just my opinion.

| Reply
Feb 5, 2016 11:00:59   #
Dngallagher
 
camerapapi wrote:
I can say that modern JPEG images are not the images of 10 years ago. In my case I used both files but I am very comfortable shooting JPEG images and the majority of the images I have posted here have come from JPEG files. Some of my best enlargements have come from JPEG images.
In regards to manipulation of the file and dynamic range I have not found that a limitation.
Just my opinion.


The big issue I see with JPG is that so much of the data is thrown out by the camera, never to be seen or processed by the photographer. Did the camera programmer make the right choice??

Yes, you may get decent images with JPG, but was it all it could have been?

Often more detail can be brought out of the shadows, images can be easily saved when processed in raw vs the jpg version.

Of course, if you are happy with what you get with JPG, thats all that matters I guess ;)

| Reply
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.