johneccles Loc: Leyland UK

I use Zoner Photo Studio, it's the PP I have used for years.

johneccles Loc: Leyland UK

Thankyou Bob, You have done a good job.

johneccles Loc: Leyland UK

Thanks for your useful comments, the photographs were taken only a few seconds apart.

BebuLamar

They should. When the RAW converter applies exactly the same settings as the camera they are the same. Now you can modify the RAW files a lot better than the JPEG but initially when I open the RAW files they look exactly the same as the JPEG counterpart. If I simply save them as JPEG I have the exact same things. But if I don't like it I can make adjustments.

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

Better ? subjective...The image taken wasn't necessarily of great merit.
Raw V JPEG is also subjective....generally both need post processing, if only to get an image onto a PC.

How good an image can you take ? ie are you happy with 90% of your JPEGS.
Are you competent in Post Processing beyond Crop, Straighten and adjusting mid tones?
Are you particularly interested in exploring the creative power of Post Processing per sec in addition to Photography?

The degree of Post Processing you do is totally 'Your choice'....and like in camera use, the more you can do well - the more options you will explore. Your success will still be judged 'subjectively' .

With every tool in the program you use the limitations, and possible changes increases. How well can you judge this and will others agree with your judgment.

There is no 'better' - but there is a choice you can make 'for YOU'.

have fun

johneccles Loc: Leyland UK

[quote=mwsilvers]You need to understand that the ONLY reason to shoot raw is if you are planning to post process your images. Raw gives you much more range and latitude than jpegs when editing. Straight out of the camera raw files generally don't look at good as jpegs because they don't have the in-camera settings for sharpness, contrast, color tone etc. that are automatically applied to jpegs. Comparing a straight out of the camera raw file with a jpeg is therefore a useless exercise. If you have no intention of editing you images on a regular basis, continue shooting jpeg.

However, since you did provide the raw file, I downloaded it and took the liberty of editing it just a bit so you can see the difference. I exported it to a jpeg and am posting your jpeg followed by mine. As an interesting side note, the jpeg you posted is not based on the raw file you attached. They have different file names, a slightly different angle, and there is a missing car in the raw file.[/quote

Thank you for your interesting observation, rather annoyingly between the two shots that blue car appeared in the view, well spotted.

johneccles Loc: Leyland UK

Thank you Linda for your reply to my post, you have brought some normality to it. I should have known that this would create a very controversial debate, when I was only asking for an opinion. There are so many UHH members on here that cannot seem able to answer a simple question.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

That depends on the raw converter you are using. Canon's DPP does that by default, and so does Nikon's software. But, and this is a big but, you are not comparing your raw files to a jpeg. You are comparing your raw files which have been updated in post processing to look like your jpegs, which is a very different thing. Try turning that feature off and comparing your raws and jpegs as they come out of the camera. That's what the OP was doing.

johneccles Loc: Leyland UK

Thank you for your response, it made lots of sense.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

So I really don't know what you want us to compare. There's a raw file and a jpg file. They are different pictures, the same subject but taken at different times.

The first thing I do when asked to compare images is to look at the differences.
So I imported the both the jpg file and the orf file (which according to the metadata comes from an Olympus camera) into Photoshop. In order to do that the raw (orf) file has to go through ACR. That imposes some default settings in the conversion from raw data to an image. My settings could easily be different from your settings and also from the camera's settings used to produce the jpg. That makes the comparison unreliable, but let's gloss over that for the moment.

Having both images in PS layers, I first auto-align them (since they were taken at different times). I then take the top layer and change the blending mode to difference. When I do that I get the image below. The first obvious thing is that one image has a car that isn't there in the other image and a person in the background in one shot. The other thing I see is that either the exposures are slightly different or it looks that way because of the default ACR settings applied (that we ignored).

I don't quite see how you compare a raw and a jpg. The jpg is the product of the camera settings. The image from the raw file is the product of the settings applied in the conversion. There is not really any way to make them the same.

(Download)

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

I think you've grasped the difference, but I'll add one thing to it. You CAN edit a finished JPEG beyond the image produced by your original camera settings, which do the job of conversion according to each maker's individual algorithms. However the RANGE of adjustments you can make is much larger when you are working from the original RAW file instead of the prefinished JPEG.

Here's a little test: Take two identical images, one in RAW and one with your Oly presets for JPEG. Then try editing them both with your photo editing suite (one that I'm not familiar with) and adjust the various aspects, colors, exposure, contrast, detail, etc. If your software has "auto" or presets, try that on the RAW image file as well. Try a few different variations to get the hang of the adjustments and their effects. Compare them, and think about what you usually do to process your images.

If, like many of us, you find that adjustments and tweaks produce the best images, you'll probably be best off shooting RAW, then, whether you use the "automatic" settings to convert to JPEG or tweak them individually to your taste, you'll have the best possible images. If you're entirely happy with the direct JPEG images produced by your in-camera settings, then you'll save a step by "just" shooting JPEGs.

If your camera is capable of producing both JPEG and RAW files from the same shot, then you can repeat the experiment, using the two files produced by the exact same exposure. You'll have to adjust both solely with your PP software, but this will give you an idea of how much more adjustment is possible with the exact same image when you start with RAW instead of JPEG files. The JPEGs produced when you save both simultaneous versions will be unaffected by any in camera settings, so they're both "SOOC".

I always shoot RAW now, and I'm much happier with the quality. I regret not shooting some of my first digital images that way, as at least I'd have the fully detailed image to use as a base for better photos as my post processing skills have improved over the years. I had some really good pictures that weren't so great in their original JPEG versions, but that I could have done a lot more with using the skills I have today. I'm no great processing wizard, but I know I could do better now than those little Japanese technicians that live inside my cameras.

Best of luck, whatever format you adopt.

Andy

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Shooting through a window from your office really says nothing to advance the debate between RAW and Jpeg.
I now shoot in Jpeg. I get the exposure right, focusing is dead on, and I make sure my white balance it also dead on. Neither RAW or Jpeg effect the sharpness of the enlargement. I can sharpen Jpeg. as effectively as RAW in post with sharpen tools. I commonly enlarge to 30X40 for show prints. On my tests there is negligible differences between using RAW or Jpeg.
And this post should help this OLD argument continue to at least 10 more pages.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

And here is John's JPG with a quick tweak.

(Download)

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Hello John - may I suggest that if you want identical RAW and JPG pics that you switch your camera to RAW+JPG?

OllieFCR

As stated here the comparison of the two photos is not valid. For conditions where you can capture the whole dynamic range easily then you can use the JPEG and even tweak it a little in post and it will be fine. However, take a more difficult set of conditions and RAW is much better. For instance, if you shoot to expose highlights perfectly then detail in the shadows can be unrecoverable in the JPEG but easily revealed in the RAW.