Raw vs jpg: Can you spot the difference? (Page 2): In most cases, the final output is a JPEG image - the only difference is how you get there.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

TriX wrote:

And many people are happy with MP3 audio (another compressed format), but a sizable number of real listeners/viewers can hear/see the difference and wonder why you would spend the $ for a high resolution/high DR camera with a 14 (or 16bit) output and then dumb it down to 8 (compressed) bits.

In most cases, the final output is a JPEG image - the only difference is how you get there.

Shootist Loc: Wyoming

DMan
Thanks for the work you have done. It does really show what the differences are. I personally shoot RAW+jpeg and for some type of images jpeg does just fine. However, as some here have written, RAW gives the PP latitude that some images really cry out for, landscapes for example. I realize that what will draw most folks into a print will be composition and colors, not technical perfection; this is as it should be. But for my own satisfaction I want to get the best technical photo I can produce, sometimes it is a jpeg other times a RAW. I do it for me, if others like what I do then that is a really nice bonus.

TheDman Loc: USA

Gene51 wrote:

Thanks for the illustration. Something I've been s... (show quote)

Exactly, yes. The shadows are all blocked up black, the colors are weaker, and all subtle tonal gradations are lost. But I can see how it would be acceptable for some, especially if it's just going on Facebook or something.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

TriX wrote:

And many people are happy with MP3 audio (another compressed format), but a sizable number of real listeners/viewers can hear/see the difference and wonder why you would spend the $ for a high resolution/high DR camera with a 14 (or 16bit) output and then dumb it down to 8 (compressed) bits.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

TheDman wrote:

Exactly, yes. The shadows are all blocked up black, the colors are weaker, and all subtle tonal gradations are lost. But I can see how it would be acceptable for some, especially if it's just going on Facebook or something.

Current print technology is better than what can be displayed on most monitor systems. And it's only getting better with regards to bit depth and color gamut. So without a doubt, you are not going to see a difference on an 8 bit (or possibly 6 bit with FRC) display with sRGB color, on a phone, tablet, laptop or desktop screen.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

MichaelH wrote:

Hello Gene51,
Would you know why JPG is sometimes required? It would seem the RAW file would more truly represent an original image.

First of all, you need to realize that the raw file contains what the photographer told the sensor to record - which may look nothing like the actual scene.

This was illustrated by rmalarz in the previous W/R thread on this subject, when he showed how he creates a work of art
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-460671-3.html#7743109

Note: the first image is the final product, the second image is a direct rendition of what the raw file contained; I believe reality was somewhere between the two.

TheDman Loc: USA

Gene51 wrote:

I agree with the loss of detail. Hard to see that at a "normal" viewing distance. But posterization, blocked up shadows and banding in sky are far more easier to spot. It's not just about the minute detail. It's about the overall perception of quality.

Right again. Without having the raw image to compare it to you may not be able to pinpoint exactly what was lost, but you would look at the photo and just not think of it as top quality. With landscape photography you're trying to create an illusion of reality, and it's hard to do that with black shadows and artifacts.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

rehess wrote:

In most cases, the final output is a JPEG image - the only difference is how you get there.

Precisely. Starting with a raw file which has no real color space and is usually 14 bit, then working the image in a large gamut color space (ProPhoto), 16 bit (psd or tiff), were many more color and tonal variations are preserved (subtle color and fine detail), then creating an optimal jpeg as a final product is one way. The other way is to allow the camera to follow your blanket instructions for color space, contrast, saturation, hue, white balance, sharpening and noise, highlight and shadow retention - and apply those instructions in a nondiscriminatory and heavy-handed fashion to all the images taken in a shoot, producing a jpeg with all of the information that you "might" use to correct some of the heavy-handedness but since it was tossed in the process, such a correction is harder to make if at all. Hmm . . . .

TheDman Loc: USA

Another important point about this test: I didn't shoot this in raw+jpg. I simply created a jpg from the default raw settings, so the jpg didn't have any processing done by the camera which would have certainly degraded it more.

I was just doing some shooting this morning, and on a lark switched to raw+jpg; first time I've ever shot any jpgs. Looking at them now. Holy cow are the jpgs terrible. If I shot jpg I would have to disable all in-camera processing, and at that point what's the point anymore?

http://www.derekdphotos.com/derek/rawjpg.jpg

TheDman Loc: USA

Dr.Nikon wrote:

Well done comparison .., the analogy is excellant ... I require raw for my work ...heck I have spent hours and hours ..., ok days and days on just one photograph and R A W data is a must ... post editing is my favorite function of photography ..., period ...!

TheDman Loc: USA

Peterff wrote:

Yes! But it is hard to see on a website that can only post JPEGS and with the monitors that most people use. The difference is real, but whether people perceive it is a different question.

Nice example, Dman.

Thanks.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

TheDman wrote:

Another important point about this test: I didn't ... (show quote)

I always shoot raw+JPEG; with the exception of times when I was using higher-than-normal ISO, the few times I've "developed" the image myself, I didn't see any difference that justified the effort.

TheDman Loc: USA

rehess wrote:

I always shoot raw+JPEG; with the exception of times when I was using higher-than-normal ISO, the few times I've "developed" the image myself, I didn't see any difference that justified the effort.

That's what I keep hearing, so I didn't think there would be that much difference. But the fact that I can see threads in the raw while the jpg is a blurred mess is enough to put me off jpgs forever.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

TheDman wrote:

That's what I keep hearing, so I didn't think there would be that much difference. But the fact that I can see threads in the raw while the jpg is a blurred mess is enough to put me off jpgs forever.

I also capture raw plus JPEG. Any image I think is worth using for any purpose I process from raw. JPEG is simply sending a proof to somebody and I seldom do that without any processing, so it may be pointless. Perhaps the JPEG is just insurance. JPEG as a communication format after processing is a different thing.

canon Lee

MichaelH wrote:

Hello Gene51,
Would you know why JPG is sometimes required? It would seem the RAW file would more truly represent an original image.

If you are shooting motion as in sports photography you need JPEG mode because it loads faster than RAW. JPEGS are also used for the web where optimum high quality is not necessary, also, Jpeg files are used on the web. In most cases JPEG'S are of good enough quality and have enough detail for small prints like a 4x6. BUT if you shoot in RAW, after edit, it has to be converted to a JPEG, but with JPEG files every time you edit and "save" you re-compress and lose detail. With RAW, you have the option to go back and re-edit without any loss, ( non distructive). Hope that helps. I do picture day for hundreds of kids on a shoot so I use RAW+JPEG along with my "CAMRANGER" http://camranger.com