a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

The quasi-religious argument about raw vs JPG will never end. However, most arguments can be narrowed with facts and this is one of those.

Sony provides a raw editor which will duplicate what the JPG would have been, given a set of camera settings. Since the JPG is the result of that same process (raw interpreted one way) it is possible to see how a given raw picture would have been if shot SOOC.

Here are four versions, each is a screen capture with the settings and histogram showing. You can see that many more combinations would be possible so these are simply four examples. I did not make any adjustments other than what the camera would have done. In other words, this does not illustrate how you can manipulate a raw image. Rather, it shows 4 versions of what a SOOC JPG would have been by starting with the raw file.

My point is not to say "better" or "worse". My point is to illustrate with examples how raw retains all the possibilities while JPG is a much more limited starting point. Yes, you can edit a JPG but you start with a very restricted base. I like all 4 versions and I like that I can have all of them with no loss of quality or dynamic range, etc. In my view, there is no single version that is inarguably best to the exclusion of other versions.

Those who used to shoot slides (as I did) were accustomed to either getting only one result or bracketing. But arguing that because we were able to get excellent results we should therefore not utilize the greater choices available now is, to me, a vain and strange assertion. YMMV.

For my particular Sony's, BTW, if I were to shoot raw+JPG the JPG would be a smaller file than if I shot just JPG-Fine. But doing it this way I am able to generate the JPG at maximum size - even a bit larger. A bigger file contains more information. Even a JPG can be better than some other, smaller version of the same image.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

lsaguy Loc: Udall, KS, USA

Bottom line; an artist will produce art, regardless of the media or technique. A non-artist will use the media and technique and produce fine snap shots to illustrate their journey. Next.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Sooo, as a practical matter, does this "limited starting point" ( which may or may not be validated here) really MATTER (is perceptible in a material way) to most people in most subject scenarios - given a reasonable and judicious PP of well exposed JPEG ???
.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

Your view of this debate is pretty well known so I will take your question as rhetorical. My view is also pretty obvious. Reasonable folks may disagree. Your photos - at least the ones that I've seen - are excellent and most are better than any of mine. But our relative skills as photographers are not at issue.

Yes, I think it matters and I think that the four examples are quite visibly different and offer really quite different interpretations of the scene.

Does "judicious PP" work just as well with one of those JPG's as with raw? I think the answer to that is inarguably "no". But this post was not intended to prove that (separate) point. I always fill my fuel tank before taking a long trip into unknown areas. For me, throwing away information in the raw file before even beginning to work on it is an unnecessary risk at best.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

What does this mean?

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

Or (s)he might do one thing one time, and the other another time.

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

Looking at your histogram, your image is underexposed by anywhere from 1/2 to 1 full stop. The shadows will be noisier than they need to be. Nice image of a roseate spoonbill though.

JDG3

The discussion of raw vs jpg is a little baffling to me. As a serious hobby photographer I see both as tools in the tool bag that is my camera. Much like the other settings, modes, lens and other devices we use to get the best shot possible, the way the photos are recorded are also just additional tools. Use the one that best suits your needs and goals for that shot.

I can think of a good analogy; I need a vehicle, should I purchase a 4 seat compact economy car OR an 8 passenger van that can also haul their luggage? There is no correct answer until you figure out how you are going to use the vehicle. The 8 passenger van will serve more purposes, it will work even if only one person uses it to commute on a daily basis. But it will cost you more. The compact will commute economically and efficiently but will not haul much. Or you could purchase both and cover all the different transportation possibilities, but with the additional costs that come with this decision.

Raw vs jpg is much the same. Raw (van) costs more in memory and time to post process, but is much more utilitarian and "hauls" more. More can be done with raw (van) since it carries more image data than the jpg. Jpg's are faster, cheaper and get the job done more efficiently in most cases, but may fail or be unable to deliver all that is needed in some situations.

Most of the time I shoot both. Afterwards if the jpgs yield the results I wanted, I use them. If it is a shot I feel needs some adjustment, I move the raw images into post-processing. Here, unlike the car vs van analogy, memory is very cheap and the cost of recording both raw and jpg is insignificant while the benefits could be significant if the an image is salvaged from raw that would otherwise been lost if I had only the jpg.

I download both sets of images, raw and jpg, to my computer. I view the jpgs using either my Windows or some other jpg viewer. If I like what I see then that is the image I keep and do nothing with the raw. Only the images that I think could benefit post-processing are transferred into LR. Sometimes I even delete the raw images if I think they are not needed.

To me this is the best of both worlds. Most cameras today will shoot both, memory cards and computer memory is cheap. So why choose? There is really very little downside to shooting both.

par4fore Loc: Bay Shore N.Y.

Yes.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

My point in including the histogram was to show that the histogram changes as the camera's settings change and in this case the histogram appears to be (per Sony) what the camera would have - or perhaps did - show. The differences are not huge but if you look carefully you can see them. Download will make that easier.

But RawDigger agrees with you. See attached screenshot of the raw image. The white on the neck of the bird could easily have been a full stop higher with no risk to the highlights being blown. But note that RD also says there is no underexposure. Perhaps a camera with better DR could have solved this problem better but like many bird shots, there is no time to fuss with exposure. That's, of course, another value. of raw - better management or potential of highlights and shadows.

FastRawViewer's histogram and OE/UE analysis is more in line with Sony's. I have FRV set to NOT adjust exposure for me.

I can't resist noting my previous thread about how difficult it is to get exposure exactly right.

Since all 4 of those shots were NOT adjusted for exposure, I think you may be getting led astray by the large amount of dark background. To my eye, the exposure of the bird is not underexposed. Also, you can see quite a bit of detail in the dark background.

But doesn't this little, mild disagreement just add to the argument for raw?

(Download)


(Download)

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

I agree there is very little downside if you prefer it. But at least for Sony you can get better JPG's on the computer than you can from the camera, with no PP. I have tried doing it your way but for me it was too much clutter.

Might I suggest that you try FastRawViewer? That will give you a much more truthful look at what you captured and it can view raw and JPG right next to each other.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

The problem with most raw vs. JPEG arguments is that they focus on each side trying to prove that one is better than the other. It's not, just different.

To capture a decent JPEG you need to be very careful about exposure because what matters is the brightness of the subject. This might result in very dark shadows or blown highlights and you can't fix these conveniently in post processing. But you can widen the DR capabilities of the JPEG with Active D-Lighting, Dynamig Range Optimization, etc. And you can always PP a JPEG to get more contrast - even to the point of letting the shadows go black or the highlights white.

With a raw file, especially if your camera has a decent dynamic range, you don't have to be as precise with your exposure. Of course, you don't want to overexpose and blow your highlights but underexposed shadows can be much easier to recover than with a JPEG.

Of course, even with raw, there is not much you can do if there isn't enough light to hide the noise in the shadows.

SOOC JPEG ISO 400 1/1000 @ f/16

(Download)

Capture One - +2.5 Exposure, 100 highlight and 100 shadow recovery

(Download)

Exposure was based on having no blinkies. The scale for the Y-axis is logarithmic

(Download)

Minx Loc: Vermont

This is what I do and it works for me...it all depends on what you're doing w/ the photos and where you're at w/ your photography.

Minx Loc: Vermont

Well written...