Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Photo Analysis
Raw vs jpg: Can you spot the difference?
Page <<first <prev 5 of 7 next> last>>
Sep 28, 2017 11:51:14   #
canon Lee
 
TheDman wrote:
In one of the many previous threads on this topic, DeanS got to the crux of the matter with this question: how many shooters could distinguish between a well shot/well pp'd jpeg and a similar RAW photo? So I've decided to take a completely impartial whack at it: let's export a raw file at default settings as a jpg, process the raw file in Camera Raw, then make the exact same ACR edits to the jpg and see what we get.

Since I believe the biggest benefit of shooting raw is the ability to recover shadow and highlight detail, I used an example covering a wide tonal range. Here is our starting point, a shot straight into the sun from Northern Ireland:

http://www.ddphotos.com/orig.jpg

That is exported straight out of ACR before any edits. This was a bracketed series, and I chose this one because the next brightest exposure blew out the sky. Ordinarily my pp method would blend several exposures on a shot like this for reasons we will see later, but for this example I will use just this one raw. I started out by double processing the raw into a shot optimized for the sky and one for the land:

http://www.ddphotos.com/raws.jpg

I then blended the two together with a simple gradient on a layer mask. I then opened the jpg I had exported earlier and double processed it using the exact same ACR settings, and blended it using the exact same gradient mask. Here are the results. Can you tell which is which?

http://www.ddphotos.com/comparison.jpg

Kind of tough at that reduced size, but a sharp eye could tell. Now let's zoom in:


http://www.ddphotos.com/comp1.jpg

http://www.ddphotos.com/comp2.jpg

http://www.ddphotos.com/comp3.jpg


See it now? The raw image has more shadow detail, smoother tonal gradations, no noise around the sun as opposed to the jpg which has artifacts, etc. The jpg actually held up better than I thought, but I still would be horrified to print this large. Now if I'm just shooting portraits or pictures of my cat, I'm not taxing the tonal range of my sensor and therefore jpgs should be quite fine. But for landscape work I want the best quality possible, so it's raw all the way. On that note, you can see that the foliage on the rock in the closest foreground is a bit out of focus and noisy, which is due to the shadow recovery and f13 not quite reaching it. In my actual process of this scene I used a separate shot for the front foliage, exposed solely for the foliage and focused precisely on it:

http://www.ddphotos.com/foliage.jpg

So there you have it, an actual test. Read into it what you will.
In one of the many previous threads on this topic,... (show quote)


HI I do agree with you that there is little difference between "a well shot/well pp'd jpeg and a similar Raw file" However the benefits of shooting in RAW is that not all of us do "a well shot/well pp'd jpeg" and RAW can save a shot .

Reply
Sep 28, 2017 11:52:35   #
canon Lee
 
cdayton wrote:
Unless I missed it, no one mentioned that both images look very "overprocessed " and unnatural. That bothers me more than if under extreme magnification there is additional noise in the jpeg, which there is.



Reply
Sep 28, 2017 12:43:04   #
TheDman Loc: USA
 
canon Lee wrote:
HI I do agree with you that there is little difference between "a well shot/well pp'd jpeg and a similar Raw file" However the benefits of shooting in RAW is that not all of us do "a well shot/well pp'd jpeg" and RAW can save a shot .


That's not what I was saying at all. There is plenty of difference. And this was just a grad-nd approach, so I'm not sure how it could look "overprocessed".

Reply
 
 
Feb 6, 2018 14:12:03   #
Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan
 
Using Raw files is a method, not a result.

Mike

Reply
Apr 4, 2018 10:49:28   #
redron57 Loc: Fairfield, Ca SF Bay Area
 
the difference between raw and jpeg is that raw files keep all the information of the picture when you edit the file is gets larger, a jpeg when edited loses information an example is when you edit a jpeg its like putting water in a watercolor painting . the pictures you uploaded probably have a maximum size upload depending on the website parameters so the raw files you upload may not be a true rendition of the actual picture.
i shoot in raw and jpeg at the same time and edit the raw save as a jpeg for uploading
you can tell the difference when you blow up the pictures
im only an amateur but thats what i have learned
ron

Reply
May 7, 2018 18:42:31   #
DanielB Loc: San Diego, Ca
 
There is one glaring problem with this test - isn't everything uploaded to the website converted to JPEG anyway.
TheDman wrote:
In one of the many previous threads on this topic, DeanS got to the crux of the matter with this question: how many shooters could distinguish between a well shot/well pp'd jpeg and a similar RAW photo? So I've decided to take a completely impartial whack at it: let's export a raw file at default settings as a jpg, process the raw file in Camera Raw, then make the exact same ACR edits to the jpg and see what we get.

Since I believe the biggest benefit of shooting raw is the ability to recover shadow and highlight detail, I used an example covering a wide tonal range. Here is our starting point, a shot straight into the sun from Northern Ireland:

http://www.ddphotos.com/orig.jpg

That is exported straight out of ACR before any edits. This was a bracketed series, and I chose this one because the next brightest exposure blew out the sky. Ordinarily my pp method would blend several exposures on a shot like this for reasons we will see later, but for this example I will use just this one raw. I started out by double processing the raw into a shot optimized for the sky and one for the land:

http://www.ddphotos.com/raws.jpg

I then blended the two together with a simple gradient on a layer mask. I then opened the jpg I had exported earlier and double processed it using the exact same ACR settings, and blended it using the exact same gradient mask. Here are the results. Can you tell which is which?

http://www.ddphotos.com/comparison.jpg

Kind of tough at that reduced size, but a sharp eye could tell. Now let's zoom in:


http://www.ddphotos.com/comp1.jpg

http://www.ddphotos.com/comp2.jpg

http://www.ddphotos.com/comp3.jpg


See it now? The raw image has more shadow detail, smoother tonal gradations, no noise around the sun as opposed to the jpg which has artifacts, etc. The jpg actually held up better than I thought, but I still would be horrified to print this large. Now if I'm just shooting portraits or pictures of my cat, I'm not taxing the tonal range of my sensor and therefore jpgs should be quite fine. But for landscape work I want the best quality possible, so it's raw all the way. On that note, you can see that the foliage on the rock in the closest foreground is a bit out of focus and noisy, which is due to the shadow recovery and f13 not quite reaching it. In my actual process of this scene I used a separate shot for the front foliage, exposed solely for the foliage and focused precisely on it:

http://www.ddphotos.com/foliage.jpg

So there you have it, an actual test. Read into it what you will.
In one of the many previous threads on this topic,... (show quote)

Reply
May 7, 2018 19:04:08   #
TheDman Loc: USA
 
DanielB wrote:
There is one glaring problem with this test - isn't everything uploaded to the website converted to JPEG anyway.


Well of course, you can't even view an actual raw file. When we compare raw vs jpg we're talking about post processing starting from a raw file vs post processing starting from the camera's jpg.

Reply
 
 
May 7, 2018 19:06:40   #
TheDman Loc: USA
 
Blenheim Orange wrote:
Using Raw files is a method, not a result.

Mike


What is shown are the results you get from using one method vs the other.

Reply
May 8, 2018 10:09:51   #
DanielB Loc: San Diego, Ca
 
...and that's why I shoot nothing but RAW.
TheDman wrote:
Well of course, you can't even view an actual raw file. When we compare raw vs jpg we're talking about post processing starting from a raw file vs post processing starting from the camera's jpg.

Reply
Jun 19, 2018 01:27:00   #
Pixeldawg Loc: Suzhou, China
 
You should ALWAYS shoot RAW. It can do so much more than just adjusting the contrast and highlight/shadow detail. You can correct lens distortion, you can do all of your post processing work in RAW and the quality level is MUCH higher. For commercial clients, you can usually get away with the manipulation, but for journalism clients, no. In these cases, I shoot in the RAW+JPEG mode. And with my little mirrorless, I can actually shoot RAW+JPEG+AVI/MP4. Up to three files at the same time, which is great for my clients. My normal work flow is also:

RAW+JPEG, processed in PS18 RAW converter, then save completed to a TIFF file, then make a JPEG from the TIFF. An uncompressed TIFF is a VERY high quality file, particularly if it is made from a RAW file.

Reply
Jun 19, 2018 14:36:23   #
Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan
 
TheDman wrote:
Well of course, you can't even view an actual raw file. When we compare raw vs jpg we're talking about post processing starting from a raw file vs post processing starting from the camera's jpg.


You can't "even view an actual" JPEG file, either. All files need to be interpreted by a software program in order to be displayed. The only questions are what sort of information is stored in which sort of file, and what software is required to read and display any particular type of file.

I just opened a JPEG file with Notepad, a text editing program, and it looks like this:

ÿØÿà JFIF  H H ÿÛ C   !"$"$ÿÛ CÿÀ X" ÿÄ   
ÿÄ µ  } !1AQa"q2‘¡#B±ÁRÑð$3br‚
%&'()*456789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyzƒ„…†‡ˆ‰Š’“”•–—˜™š¢£¤¥¦§¨©ª²³´µ¶·¸¹ºÂÃÄÅÆÇÈÉÊÒÓÔÕÖ×ØÙÚáâãäåæçèéêñòóôõö÷øùúÿÄ   
ÿÄ µ  w !1AQaq"2B‘¡±Á #3RðbrÑ
$4á%ñ&'()*56789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz‚ƒ„…†‡ˆ‰Š’“”•–—˜™š¢£¤¥¦§¨©ª²³´µ¶·¸¹ºÂÃÄÅÆÇÈÉÊÒÓÔÕÖ×ØÙÚâãäåæçèéêòóôõö÷øùúÿÚ   ? ùH”¬‹Ïzë”­Í™°N8®&ÉŒrŒú×S§H~ZÂ{PØçµK#Á aI¢ÎC ªÞ†º}^Ñgƒxšå¦FÊ‘‚
Rw@ãfzG…¯ƒD¹=k¯Žð°}+Êü+zcuS]õ¼‹$!‹võ®yÆÌÞº)볬„‚k‰Ö¬‹ä©çµu:ĐÃp'ë\Þ£pØ ŽÕ1ml\’kSÖ’|ü‘ZÚv£=½ôko3¨px¬fyB"´´X“ΐ¸ÏËÅiQû­³8/y${&•©ê–ºlK+íqÁ5­eâëÀÛYÅp¶>#š-½‰B?AŠ– ʾs^-÷Gz–š3Ól¼e°9_å]&Ÿ®X^²E$û׎ƒ¨5>pñÜ
ŽÃžÆª8e7dK¯È®ÏrI#+òséL*Ų:WjŸƒr‘ÜåА2
uþø¡ê±+ ˜Ãа¬gBt™¤j¢ºgo
â¦Ì@l-R‡V²œf;ˆÈ>Œ*CqPÊߍgmGÐt†FlÅW¸µ2zÕ˜åÜsŠœš®D.ff}ƒ$T‚1dŠ¹5Äj¼õì*™ß9ÏðÑÊ‚ï©NâRíµA§Ž&džqOe3QÜKˆŽÓÛµ>gk •=O)ñµ’Í«Jç®*^K

Hmm, I guess I can't even view an actual JPEG without some sort of special program.

Mike

Reply
 
 
Jun 19, 2018 14:52:25   #
Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan
 
TheDman wrote:
What is shown are the results you get from using one method vs the other.


Not true.

Mike

Reply
Jun 19, 2018 14:56:36   #
TheDman Loc: USA
 
Blenheim Orange wrote:
You can't "even view an actual" JPEG file, either. All files need to be interpreted by a software program in order to be displayed. The only questions are what sort of information is stored in which sort of file, and what software is required to read and display any particular type of file.

I just opened a JPEG file with Notepad, a text editing program, and it looks like this:

ÿØÿà JFIF  H H ÿÛ C   !"$"$ÿÛ CÿÀ X" ÿÄ   
ÿÄ µ  } !1AQa"q2‘¡#B±ÁRÑð$3br‚
%&'()*456789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyzƒ„…†‡ˆ‰Š’“”•–—˜™š¢£¤¥¦§¨©ª²³´µ¶·¸¹ºÂÃÄÅÆÇÈÉÊÒÓÔÕÖ×ØÙÚáâãäåæçèéêñòóôõö÷øùúÿÄ   
ÿÄ µ  w !1AQaq"2B‘¡±Á #3RðbrÑ
$4á%ñ&'()*56789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz‚ƒ„…†‡ˆ‰Š’“”•–—˜™š¢£¤¥¦§¨©ª²³´µ¶·¸¹ºÂÃÄÅÆÇÈÉÊÒÓÔÕÖ×ØÙÚâãäåæçèéêòóôõö÷øùúÿÚ   ? ùH”¬‹Ïzë”­Í™°N8®&ÉŒrŒú×S§H~ZÂ{PØçµK#Á aI¢ÎC ªÞ†º}^Ñgƒxšå¦FÊ‘‚
Rw@ãfzG…¯ƒD¹=k¯Žð°}+Êü+zcuS]õ¼‹$!‹võ®yÆÌÞº)볬„‚k‰Ö¬‹ä©çµu:ĐÃp'ë\Þ£pØ ŽÕ1ml\’kSÖ’|ü‘ZÚv£=½ôko3¨px¬fyB"´´X“ΐ¸ÏËÅiQû­³8/y${&•©ê–ºlK+íqÁ5­eâëÀÛYÅp¶>#š-½‰B?AŠ– ʾs^-÷Gz–š3Ól¼e°9_å]&Ÿ®X^²E$û׎ƒ¨5>pñÜ
ŽÃžÆª8e7dK¯È®ÏrI#+òséL*Ų:WjŸƒr‘ÜåА2
uþø¡ê±+ ˜Ãа¬gBt™¤j¢ºgo
â¦Ì@l-R‡V²œf;ˆÈ>Œ*CqPÊߍgmGÐt†FlÅW¸µ2zÕ˜åÜsŠœš®D.ff}ƒ$T‚1dŠ¹5Äj¼õì*™ß9ÏðÑÊ‚ï©NâRíµA§Ž&džqOe3QÜKˆŽÓÛµ>gk •=O)ñµ’Í«Jç®*^K

Hmm, I guess I can't even view an actual JPEG without some sort of special program.

Mike
You can't "even view an actual" JPEG fil... (show quote)


But when you're using that software to view a jpg Your looking at the actual jpg file, whereas when you open a raw file with a raw converter your looking at a bitmap representation of that would be output should you apply the currently selected settings to raw file and create a bitmap. You're not looking at the actual raw data itself. Raw data is not an image.

Reply
Jun 19, 2018 14:57:21   #
TheDman Loc: USA
 
Blenheim Orange wrote:
Not true.

Mike


Then please, tell us all what I actually did, because apparently I don't know what I did.

Reply
Jun 19, 2018 18:16:59   #
Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan
 
TheDman wrote:
But when you're using that software to view a jpg Your looking at the actual jpg file, whereas when you open a raw file with a raw converter your looking at a bitmap representation of that would be output should you apply the currently selected settings to raw file and create a bitmap. You're not looking at the actual raw data itself. Raw data is not an image.


No, not so. The files consist of code, be they JPEG files or any other image file format. JPEG data is not an image, any more than raw file data is.

Mike

Reply
Page <<first <prev 5 of 7 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Photo Analysis
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.