johneccles Loc: Leyland UK

I haven't used RAW for several years but I am going to try photographing in RAW once again
Attached are two identical photographs taken through my office window, one in RAW and one in Jpeg.
In your opinion which one is better.

RAW
Attached file:
(Download)

Jpeg

(Download)

ELNikkor

Looks like the RAW didn't load, I only see the jpeg. Maybe the file size for RAW was too large? I never shot RAW until I got the D750 with two slots, now, 1 is RAW, 1 is jpeg. I find much more DR with the jpeg on the D750 than with my other Nikons, so seldom need to use the RAW files. I only save my "winners" in RAW, the rest I delete and keep the jpegs.

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

The Raw file has the extension “.ORF” which cannot be loaded on the UHH forum.
See link below instructions for posting a photo:

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-426-1.html

GeorgeL

Only difference I see is that the jpeg is out of focus. If it were in focus, then we could pixel peep.
I shoot jpeg and prefer to get it right in camera.
I'm a hobby/enthusiast. Jpeg is fine for me .
If I ever go pro , I'll try RAW .

Linary Loc: UK

For me, the raw is better. Even though these two photos were taken at different times so the light may have changed, the jpeg sky has a greenish tone and little detail. The raw file has a better and bluer sky and contains a lot more detail in the clouds (after a little help in Lightroom).

The bright blue car on the right side of the road has a true colour in the raw and the car in the foreground has better definition around the rear nearside window.

Very little if any, difference in the shades of green and brick.

I would usually choose raw just for the ease of editing.

Linary Loc: UK

It would be pointless to post anything other than a raw file when the question is "What is better, raw or jpeg?"

Orf files open in Lightroom and probably dozens of other programs.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

John, here's a jpg derived from the RAW file. I'd hesitate to try to modify the jpg as that's pretty much what's there.
--Bob

(Download)

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

What does pixel peeping have to do with determining the value of a RAW file?
--Bob

Gitchigumi Loc: Wake Forest, NC

A great example of the power of working with the raw file! JPG is certainly convenient and capable, but cannot produce the results of working with raw.👍🤓👍

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I got it to open in Affinity.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

That's a nice scene - like so many English TV shows I've seen. Is that speed limit MPH or KPH?

mizzee Loc: Boston,Ma

Raw is just data. It’s not an image until it’s converted with a program such as Lightroom. Once in Lightroom, you can make adjustments to make the image sing!

srt101fan

This question doesn't just raise the old RAW vs JPEG debate but also echoes back to the "is RAW an image file" issue extensively discussed here recently.

What are we really comparing here? The JPEG is a product of your camera pictorial settings plus any post-processing done to it. The RAW file has to be processed by RAW converter software to be viewable and is usually further manipulated to suit the image creator. So what would be a valid comparison in terms of "better"?

You can't really compare two "identical" photos, one JPEG, one RAW. You are comparing products from two different processes for converting the sensor data into a viewable image. Your attempt at comparing RAW to JPEG is really an attempt at a comparison of processing algorithms and human processing skills.

Only you can answer your question. Shoot your JPEG with the "best" pictorial settings and post-processing you can come up with; then shoot the same scene with RAW and jump into your converter/post-processing software and see if you can coax a "better" image out of the RAW data than you could with the JPEG approach....

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Some people don't get it.
RAW is a data file of all the image information captured by the camera, not an image.
(It may include a JPEG image, which has been converted from the RAW data by the camera.)
RAW editors usually provide better editing abilities.
In order for it to be viewed by "everyone" it must be converted to JPEG, TIFF, etc...
What you "see" in a RAW editor is simply a "display" of the RAW data by the editor.
A RAW file contains the ingredients, the RAW editor is the kitchen.

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

Your question, if asked 50 yrs ago, would have been "which looked better, the contact print or the finished print?" The answer would usually be the finished print after it had gone through the processing that most good photographers either did themselves or paid someone to do for them.