JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

There are at least 3 topics that get debated ad-nauseam on UHH:
1) Should I buy Nikon or Canon or Sony or… ?
2) Should I use Mac or PC?
3) Should I shoot RAW or JPEG?
The first two really come down to personal preference, but surely we can get objective evidence to resolve number three.

I recently switched to shooting RAW+JPEG but do not consider myself expert enough to demonstrate the benefits. I am just getting familiar with a few programs that can work with RAW files, but as some folks have already pointed out the image on the monitor often looks much the same regardless of which file is used as the source. I think the problem for me is not really understanding when the JPEG SOOC is good enough as a starting point for minor adjustments, or when I really should dig into the RAW file to significantly improve a less-than-stellar image.

I would like to ask the PP experts out there to post examples that demonstrate unequivocally the benefits of working with the RAW file. I would like to see 3 separate versions of a single image:
a) the SOOC JPEG image;
b) the adjusted SOOC JPEG; and
c) the image derived from developing/processing the RAW file.

To do this fairly I think there should be a few ground rules as follows:
1) the image must have been shot as a single image that was stored in RAW+JPEG file format;
2) the JPEG must have been saved at the highest quality possible in the camera;
3) the JPEG SOOC should show clear signs of requiring adjustment to improve the image (e.g., white balance, dark shadows, blown highlights, etc);
4) both the JPEG and the RAW file should be post-processed using the same software program and the same adjustment tools to show that it is not the processing software, but rather the richness of the image information in the RAW file, that results in a better final image; and
5) the software being used and the “fixes” being applied should be described.

OK, one concession: if there is something extra special that can be done to the RAW file that cannot be done to the JPEG, then post that superior image along with notes on the processing.

So, have at it!!! Convince me – and a lot of hoggers contemplating a major change in workflow – that shooting RAW is the better way to go.

Thanks. JF

Mike D. Loc: Crowley County, CO.

That's a pretty tall order John, some of us have to work for living. Good luck.

chaman

No one needs to convince you. There is more than enough info out there that proves the benefits of shooting RAW. If you are intimidated or are not willing to LEARN to PROPERLY use the software of your choice that is your problem. Focus on learning the basics of a decent image. When you do you will get why RAW is superior.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

This is what I love about UHH...

Optimism...


and folks willing to help...


To Mike: I appreciate that not everyone can take the time, but I would hope someone with time on their hands might.

To chaman: "A picture is worth a thousand words." [And that is not my expression; it's an idiom as old as the hills. Well, Wikipedia says it, or a close facsimile, was used as early as 1911.] I have no problem learning how to do things on my own; in fact, I LOVE reading manuals if they are well written. But seeing a side-by-side comparison of several examples, as I am hoping this thread will generate, would be very helpful.

rwilson1942 Loc: Houston, TX

This strikes me as a waste of time since I'm sure that 'proof' OP is seeking is already out there and a little research would find it.
I expect that the research would require a few minutes where as the PP he ask for could run an hour or more.
And no, I have no interest in doing the research.
I shoot RAW with no JPEG. I have no interest in convincing anyone else that RAW is the way to go.
If they are happy with JPEG why should I care? After all it is their images we are talking about.
If they are happy then I am happy.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

The problem you have with this request is that not everyone has the same skill when editing a capture whatever the format.

raw is about potential.
JPG/PNG is about displaying the results.

If you look at the various threads created over time by a couple of folks (Bob comes to mind or his 'evil twin') you would see some striking examples of what a raw can do as realized potential using, ETTR and EBTR as well as UniWB...

The potential is created IN CAMERA at time of exposure and the potential is 'realized' in PP then displayed/printed as needed.

chaman

If you love to do things by yourself there are probably hundreds of examples around the net for you to exercise that love. Manuals are not helpful if you are not willing to actually USE and TRY RAW and software designed for it. If you love to do things on your own do not ask to be spoon fed, specially on a theme as excessively discussed as this one.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

You also need to state what camera/sensor was used ..... !

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

So should the Raw .......

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

I am not looking to be spoon fed. I am not asking someone to teach me how to use the software. I am looking for examples from people with good skills, and even not so good skills.

This forum should be about helping each other. If you don't want to contribute that's fine. I'm hoping there are others out there more willing to share their knowledge and talents with not just me, but all of the UHH readers who might appreciate an A/B comparison.

KTJohnson Loc: Northern Michigan

I can't do this ... today. Maybe, tomorrow. When I first got my camera I shot jpegs, I didn't know any better. After a year or so reading about it on this site I switched to RAW and never looked back. I may have shot some in both, but very few and I wouldn't know how to filter them to find one easily. I use Lr 5 and that may be possible, but I'm not familiar with how to do it. Tomorrow (time permitting) I can try both & post some results.

I was surprised at how far you can take a jpeg in Lr. I scanned all my old slides to jpegs and there is much that can be done to them, much more than I was led to believe.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

Yes, that might be helpful for readers, but I expect the demonstration should not be camera-dependent.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Oh, but it does need to be ....!

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

THANK YOU... wow, an offer of genuine assistance!!! Even if you are unable to find an example, thanks for the positive response.