GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan

Kind of hard to show the difference on the internet.

Try this as a comparison. Goto a car dealer. Look at a new $20,000 car. Nice car right? Walk over to a $40 or $60,000 car and look it over. Again, a nice car.

Both cars have four wheels, both cars will likely get you the same place. Whats the difference?

Why does one just plain reek quality? If you are ten feet away, big deal!

RAW JUST reeks quality.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

What the camera "sees" & what the human eye/brain "sees" are different. That's why Raw processing is invaluable. It allows for adjustments to a scene that the camera alone can't duplicate (color/saturation/hue/white balance, etc)...

Leitz Loc: Solms

Pretty hard to get down low enough to talk down to the likes of Jim Bob and his supporters.

birdpix Loc: South East Pennsylvania

Here is my meager attempt to process the JPEG of the hummingbird. In the end, I can not achieve a duplicate of the one processed from the raw file.

With any argument that lasts for more than 15 minutes, usually both sides are wrong!

(Download)

RRS Loc: Not sure

Looks like your just looking for a fight! If you can't see the difference then just shoot whatever makes you happy. Who do you think you are that we would have to prove anything to you? This subject has been covered here and in many books. Why don't you buy a book and read up on the subject. Have you had your vision checked? Not to be funny but that alone can cause problems.

I do shoot RAW and to me that's part of my photographic fun, making the best possible print that I can.

Why don't you post some of your same images, RAW/JPEG and see if anyone wants to take the time to guess which is which?

DEBJENROB Loc: DELRAY BEACH FL

16 pages of this .... must be a slow news day ...

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

I love using PS. I love the challenge of learning all the things that can be done. I enjoy using ACR to start the PP. Then take it to PS and finish it. I find starting in PS to be over my head. Not the same. I find curves, in PS, more useful that anything.
I point this out to recommend Picasa. It's a free download and a 7 year old can do it! They keep adding stuff that make it fun. I seldom use it, but I do straighten, and crop, images that I don't want to open in ACR.

DWilling

I don't shoot raw yet, but I think the answers given here are that there is no difference unless one does post-processing. If so, the photo can be manipulated more hence more effects can be observed in post-processing raw.

A request to see both out of the camera would show no difference; therefore, there isn't a need to post.

If, however, you want to see some with post-post editing, you might ask for that comparison.

DW

pecohen Loc: Central Maine

I'm not sure which camera you are using but the major camera manufacturers provide software that will allow you to take a raw file from your camera and process it to produce an exact replica of what your camera would take as a JPEG image. From there you could edit that JPEG file to get exactly what you produced through editing the other, identical, JPEG file.

Now except for the sake of argument there is no reason to do this. The idea is to get an image you like better, not an identical one.

Royalruler Loc: Rancho Cucamonga

Right on RS. :-D

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

That raw is better than jpg is not an opinion, but you will not see it in a print, or even in a 100% examination of pixels. But the moment you want to recover highlights, or boost shadows, or do manipulation of saturation or change white balance or remove color cast, it becomes immediately obvious.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Oh, for God's sake, another Ford vs Chevy, Mac vs PC, Levi's vs. Wranglers argument...

ALL digital images start out as raw sensor data. The only question is whether you are going to process them to a useful form in the camera, or post-process them to a useful form in an external application!

In my professional experience, there are perfectly valid reasons to use out of the camera JPEGs, and perfectly valid reasons to post-process images from Raw files to some other format (direct print, TIFF, PSD, and yes, JPEGs). Use a workflow that suits your circumstances and preferences, and let others do the same. "Better" is a relative concept!

Raw images cannot be displayed on the web. You can convert them to JPEG in sRGB color space a bit differently than your camera can, but you're still going to be viewing a JPEG in sRGB color space! So what you are REALLY seeing in any images displayed here is the result of applying "pre-processing" with camera menu selections, and "post-processing" techniques used in external applications.

For some images, post-processing is economically unjustifiable, and/or logistically impossible. For others, it is an absolute necessity! Again, let the circumstances of photography and the use case for the image be the deciding factors in choosing a workflow.

Davethehiker Loc: South West Pennsylvania

Well done! :thumbup: :thumbup: You did better than I thought you would have done. You have proven both sides of the argument.
(1) The algorithms built into a good camera are very good.
(2)We can improve on what we are provided by the camera to more closely match what we want to see.
(3)RAW has more information to work with.

Thank you for posting your excellent effort :!:

I hope those who compare your work with the JPG image take the time to download the full sized work. It is well done. :)

Jim Bob

I'll say one more thing: for those of you who have accused me of trolling, of ignorance, bias, etc., can you explain why this topic has produced 16 pages of interest? That proves this ageless topic is not dead and deserves revisiting from time to time, especially as the technology evolves and JPG images continue to improve.

Davethehiker Loc: South West Pennsylvania

Has your question been answered?