Use of Raw and JPEG (Page 9): Whilst I don't dispute in any way that we can get more out of a raw (if and when required), your demonstration is a good one of where in the quest to push...

Grahame Loc: Fiji

Ysarex wrote:

I downloaded both and processed the RAF file. I used software that applies a different demosaicing algorithm than the one Fuji uses in their cameras. The difference in rendered fine detail is pretty pronounced (see illustration below).

Whilst I don't dispute in any way that we can get more out of a raw (if and when required), your demonstration is a good one of where in the quest to push detail we can so easily make something look over processed and add white halos.

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

starlifter wrote:

More and more I think I'm in the minority or maybe... (show quote)

I love them there jpegs! Most of the world will not see the difference

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Grahame wrote:

Whilst I don't dispute in any way that we can get more out of a raw (if and when required), your demonstration is a good one of where in the quest to push detail we can so easily make something look over processed and add white halos.

I wanted the difference to be obvious so if you think I over-sharpened the image in PL-6 (I don't) here's the thing: I can back down if I want to processing the RAF. You can't do bupkis to render better fine detail from the camera processor.

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

jerryc41 wrote:

I've never seen the need for shooting in both formats. If I need a picture quickly, the "raw" raw file will work just fine. Otherwise, I like the flexibility of raw files.

Do you use the full flexibility all the time?

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

gvarner wrote:

I got in the habit of shooting both since some of my photos were just snapshots that I didn’t intend to do any PP on.

Could you please explain exactly the difference between a snapshot and a photo

Canisdirus

davyboy wrote:

Try it it’s beautiful!

Obviously he has tried it...

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

PHRubin wrote:

The value of SOC JPEG is to see if you got what yo... (show quote)

That’s my boy! You didn’t buy into all that raw nonsense that 90 percent of photographers don’t need

Grahame Loc: Fiji

Ysarex wrote:

I wanted the difference to be obvious so if you think I over-sharpened the image in PL-6 (I don't) here's the thing: I can back down if I want to processing the RAF. You can't do bupkis to render better fine detail from the camera processor.

The difference is certainly obvious, no question about that. But as a demonstration it has simply shown that you have manipulated one file (compared to another shown) to what some will consider pushing too far.

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

Retired CPO wrote:

That's a funny statement!

I'm an amateur photographer and I've never understood the need to shoot RAW!

Amen brother!

Bill_de Loc: US

What I want to know, is did you spend any time processing the JPEG. SOOC is never my end point. However, I spend less time working on my JPG files than on my Raw files.

I do use both depending on the end use.

---

awesome14 Loc: UK

ken_stern wrote:

As an amateur photographer, I have never understood the need to shoot in JPEG

If your shooting for insurance purposes, eBay, text documents, etc, you don't need RAW! So you must be super amateur!

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

Several People wrote:

I don't see any difference between raw and jpg...
...90% of people won't see the difference
...jpg takes up less space
...raw files are too large

I shoot raw only. When I first got a DSLR I shot jpg only. It was what I knew. Didn't know anything about raw. I was completely satisfied with many of my jpgs, but some of them needed work. With time, I decided that most of them needed work, if only cropping to enhance the composition.

I shot a few photos indoors, then moved outdoors. Did not change the white balance settings from Tungsten. Got a bunch of blue shots. And I needed those shots and didn't really have time to do the shoot over. So I spent hours with the software I knew trying to get it to look good. I got something acceptable but not good. At that point I decided to learn how to use raw. So I shot raw+jpg. I had the jpg, which got used most of the time, and I had the raw just in case I needed it.

Eventually I learned to use raw. In the process I explored several software packages for editing. Settled on Lightroom.

After a while my photopile got over 10K and I was having trouble finding images. So I started to use the organizing features of Lightroom. Once I got into Lightroom for organizing, I put ALL my images into Lightroom so I could find things. Using keywords I could even find images I forgot that I had taken.

So now I decided that it was just as easy to use the raw file through Lightroom to produce a final image, and since the jpgs appeared to take up about 30% of the card space, I just dropped the jpgs. So although I am perfectly capable of producing a usable jpg from the camera without processing (beyond composition cropping) I stopped using jpgs in Lightroom (except for cases where raw wasn't available e.g. my cell phone and a couple specialized modes in my camera that would not produce raw files). The jpgs really don't take up THAT much space, particularly at the low price of memory these days, but saving raw+jpg gives you twice as many files to manage. And with many of the newer cameras, the jpg files are compressed less, leading to files of comparable size to raw files.

I don't share files from the camera in real time. Occasionally files from the cell phone, but I really prefer to look at the file with a large monitor so I can see detail instead of relying on the 2" screen on my camera or the 3-4" screen on my phone. So I might grab a quick shot from the cell phone to share but the final shot comes from my camera (or from Lightroom).

It doesn't matter to me whether someone can see the difference between a direct jpg shot or a shot polished in software. If it's not in Lightroom, my aging memory, which frequently drops bits, will cause me to forget that the image exists. Lightroom preserves the image for me with a keyword. THERE is the real reason I shoot raw. It doesn't cost me anything (since everything is going through Lightroom anyway) and it helps my memory.

In my journey I find that I enjoy polishing images. I understand that not everyone shares that interest. But we all get old, and will eventually need help with finding important photos. My solution is software based. Others may have other solutions and I can't deny that if it works for someone, there is no need for them to fix it.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Grahame wrote:

The difference is certainly obvious, no question about that. But as a demonstration it has simply shown that you have manipulated one file (compared to another shown) to what some will consider pushing too far.

The point remains that I can dial back the sharpening on the RAF file but you can't demosaic the camera JPEG to render better fine detail. Below I removed the sharpening pass from the PL-6 processing. With the sharpening pass removed in PL-6 you really are seeing a difference in how the CFA is demosaiced. Still much better fine detail than the SOOC JPEG.

(Download)

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Grahame wrote:

The difference is certainly obvious, no question about that. But as a demonstration it has simply shown that you have manipulated one file (compared to another shown) to what some will consider pushing too far.

Let's look at another photo. Here's the link: https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/5370103067/fujifilm-x-t3-sample-gallery/6119165164

Again I left the sharpening off in PL-6. The difference in rendered detail is basically in the demosaicing of the CFA. Look at the tree bark and moss on the trees.

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

Longshadow wrote:

MOST people know that RAW does not provide better pictures, it simply provides more versatility in editing them.

Yes yes! Well said