Let's See Some Images That Clearly Show RAW Is Better Than JPG (Page 12): You would know.

Jim Bob

Dngallagher wrote:

Wow, this topic is a trollers paradise ;)

Almost as good as uv filters or no uv filters I guess....

How about whipping one up about Nikon vs Canon?

:thumbup:

You would know.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

You can't show a RAW photo as it is not processed.

Jim Bob wrote:

I know this topic has been covered with some folks saying they "always" shoot RAW and others indicating that in most cases with a good DSLR there is no noticeable difference except in huge enlargements. Let's see some proof, either way. I will note that I shot a photo of our house in both formats and could not see any difference in an 8 x 10 print.

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

jradose wrote:

I think your question has been answered....by a fe... (show quote)

Even the most experienced make mistakes. My teacher shot a lot of shots and missed the white balance. He showed us how he corrected the first one, then batch processed all the rest. He said it didn't take 5 minutes. He pointed out that if he had shot jpg. he would have not been able to fix any of them, let alone fix them all in short order.

Davethehiker Loc: South West Pennsylvania

Wow this ridiculous discussion has been going on for a couple of days! A couple people have stated that the JPG image I provided could be manipulated to look just a good as the one I made from the the Raw file, yet no-one has risen to that challenge (including Jim Bob).

It seems they would rather argue then prove their point.

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

tommyf wrote:

Please..........shut the f up

Don't forget about the easy button, read unlatch, at the top. If you don't like what you're reading.......

profpb Loc: Venice, Florida

Jim Bob, you can only see limited data on the web. jpeg is limited data and is what a web image is. Even the camera converts RAW data on the LED screen to jpeg, Raw image data can only be seen by computers not people.

A person can manipulate RAW data in post processing an image to improve it over jpeg captured data which does not have as much data to work with.

Your request is naive and in time you will understand this.

Jim Bob

Marionsho wrote:

Even the most experienced make mistakes. My teacher shot a lot of shots and missed the white balance. He showed us how he corrected the first one, then batch processed all the rest. He said it didn't take 5 minutes. He pointed out that if he had shot jpg. he would have not been able to fix any of them, let alone fix them all in short order.

Now that's a legitimate reason to shoot RAW-white balance correction. But what about the other BS responses?

Jim Bob

profpb wrote:

Jim Bob, you can only see limited data on the web. jpeg is limited data and is what a web image is. Even the camera converts RAW data on the LED screen to jpeg, Raw image data can only be seen by computers not people.

A person can manipulate RAW data in post processing an image to improve it over jpeg captured data which does not have as much data to work with.

Your request is naive and in time you will understand this.

Naive? You must be joking. Thanks for your paternalistic non-answer.

Jim Bob

Davethehiker wrote:

Wow this ridiculous discussion has been going on for a couple of days! A couple people have stated that the JPG image I provided could be manipulated to look just a good as the one I made from the the Raw file, yet no-one has risen to that challenge (including Jim Bob).

It seems they would rather argue then prove their point.

Hold on there Davethethinker (your post makes me think your moniker might be a misnomer). I only asked the question. I never indicated your JPG could be made to look like your RAW post. But, in general, that is a legitimate question, don't you think?

Leitz Loc: Solms

Jim Bob wrote:

I know this topic has been covered with some folks saying they "always" shoot RAW and others indicating that in most cases with a good DSLR there is no noticeable difference except in huge enlargements. Let's see some proof, either way. I will note that I shot a photo of our house in both formats and could not see any difference in an 8 x 10 print.

Even a rank amateur has sense enough to know that any differences cannot be discerned on a computer monitor, so posting pictures in this thread is as pointless as the thread itself. I could add more complimentary comments, but must go shoot some RAW images now. Cheers!

Jim Bob

Jim Bob wrote:

Hold on there Davethethinker (your post makes me think your moniker might be a misnomer). I only asked the question. I never indicated your JPG could be made to look like your RAW post. But, in general, that is a legitimate question, don't you think?

Oops my bad. Mistook Davethehiker for Davethethinker. Please forgive.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Wesso wrote:

I was wondering how you guys took all those good pictures, now I know there all processed. Isn't that the same as trick photography?😱

You camera does its own post processing based on your settings. You can set the image to natural or landscape or several other settings which affect saturation. You camera is set to add sharpness and contrast which you can modify in camera. You can modify white balance in camera. All of these are forms of post processing that your camera does when it takes a photo. They are very limited settings which gives you only a small amount of control over the results, but it is post processing. When raw files are loaded into a program like Photoshop the in camera post processing is ignored and the photographer can now adjust the image with a wider range of tools with many more settings. It's not trick photography to enhance an exposure so the results are better. You do it in your camera all the time by changing settings. The newer cameras on the market have many more in camera post processing options these days. We're talking about enhancing an exposure, not replacing uncle Sal's head with uncle Bill's, which might be construed as "trick photography :

Jim Bob

Brucej67 wrote:

You can't show a RAW photo as it is not processed.

Ah huh. Me knows this.

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

Wesso wrote:

I was wondering how you guys took all those good pictures, now I know there all processed. Isn't that the same as trick photography?😱

No.

TheDman Loc: USA

jradose wrote:

Of course, if one is an expert, NEVER having wrong settings in the camera, one needs not shot in raw.

This isn't true either. People don't shoot raw because they're afraid of using wrong camera settings, they shoot it because it gives them more image data to work with.