Let's See Some Images That Clearly Show RAW Is Better Than JPG (Page 27): ...and you are interpreting. Where in this does he ask for images? "I know this topic has been covered with...

neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA

Brucej67 wrote:

He didn't ask that, you are interpreting what he asked. The OP asked to show RAW images not processing from RAW images. Anyone can process a photo good or bad and that has no correlation to RAW or JPEG, and like I said the discussion would be better to argue get it right in camera versus post processing from a RAW file.

...and you are interpreting. Where in this does he ask for images?

"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."

Ralloh Loc: Ohio

canon Lee wrote:

Raw has all of the data and Jpeg does not!

Good answer. Short and to the point. This debate has been done to death. Oh, I only shoot RAW.

TheDman Loc: USA

kirmar wrote:

My understanding is that a jpg is processing the information as 8-bit which leads to 256 gradations per pixel. A raw file is processing at 14-bit which is 16,000 gradations. My experience is that in post-processing a jpg will not hold up as well. This can't be shown on a computer screen because maximum dpi is 72 - very low and virtually unprintable but just fine for a screen.

No, it can be shown on a computer screen, as I did with the hummingbird photo. And 72 dpi is a myth. Completely incorrect.

In fact, there's nothing better than a computer monitor for evaluating your images. First generation images are always superior to second generations.

neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA

Brucej67 wrote:

... I said the discussion would be better to argue get it right in camera versus post processing from a RAW file.

I maintain there is not always time to "get it right in camera". Whatever the constraints are, unless if you are shooting anyplace except in a studio, or a never-changing landscape, there is not always time.

That is where the advantage of more recorded information for PP comes in.

splitwindow Loc: Grapevine TX

27 wasted pages! There is a place and time for .jpg's and for raw. Depends on what you're shooting and what you want you want for a finish product. I used to shoot both .jpg's and raw and you can see the difference when you download them. Big difference, .JPG's have been processed by the camera, raw files have not. I almost always shoot raw now, I want every bit of data that my camera can capture. This entire topic could have been solved by doing a google search for .jpg vs raw. Try this site to start. Lots of images posted there to show what can be done with each.
http://www.slrlounge.com/school/raw-vs-jpeg-jpg-the-ultimate-visual-guide/

There are lots of sites that will cover this subject in great detail.
Anyone wonder why he started this topic when he could have found out everything he wanted to know by doing a simple google search. Maybe he just wanted to stir the pot, and he did.
Probably laughing his head off at all the misinformation posted.

blackest Loc: Ireland

davyboy wrote:

So I shoot JPEG then open it in elements 13 in raw it gives me lots of good sliders to work with is this a way to add some nice punch? It seems to work pretty well

no you shoot raw and the camera spits out a jpeg if you take the picture with different settings you will get a slightly different jpeg. agreed?

now you can post process the jpeg but if you look at the histogram it becomes spikey because some shades will be missing. If you do the same with a raw file it doesn't (well not without some extreme distortion anyway).

now you may not notice the issues with the post processed jpeg or you might. Working with the raw file you have greater latitude to make adjustments which do not produce visible artefacts which the jpeg pushed that far would show.

basically raw files allow you to work the image more than a jpeg file due to the greater information in the file.

choosing to post process takes a lot of time and even money
its up to you if you want to spend it.

It probably will increase your skill level but it will not make you exceptional. Some people are content to point the camera press the button let the camera do all the work, on this forum i think a lot of us want to produce the best photographs we can.

it is up to the individual to find their own level.

Its fair to say for many purposes there is no need for any post processing.

In photo competitions a good post processing of an image may mean the difference between winning and losing. If you want to see good post processing from raw, most of the winning entries in a competition will be post processed raw images.

Just don't expect to create exceptional images just because you dabble in photoshop and own an expensive camera. It takes more than that you can't buy talent, training on the other hand ....

I'm not a great photographer but if i apply myself i can be better than I am now and I might get lucky once in a while:).

Ralloh Loc: Ohio

Jim Bob, after reading over the responses, and your response to a lot of them, I have to ask, "Why are you so angry about this"? It really does not take a genius to understand the benefits in shooting RAW. The Internet is full of good, easy to understand examples. It looks to me like you really are doing nothing more than trying to rile people up. You succeeded. Now give it a rest.

mikeroetex Loc: Lafayette, LA

Erdos2 wrote:

Any comparison of raw vs jpg requires some conversion to an image type that can be displayed or printed.

That was my point.

Quote:

The OP wanted to see examples of the differences after the conversion.

I didn't get that impression. I thought he wanted to "see" a RAW file. The only thing you see pre-process is a thumbnail, right? You and I could both take the exact same RAW file, do some PP independently and our posted jpeg's could look vastly different. So... since you have to post a jpeg here, how would you "show" proof that a RAW file was better? I could show you that my resultant jpeg from the base data RAW file looks better than your jpeg straight out of camera, right? Or... if my PP skills stink, your jpeg OOC might look better than my jpeg, depending on your camera set up, leading you to believe that RAW was no better than jpeg.

splitwindow Loc: Grapevine TX

Ralloh wrote:

Jim Bob, after reading over the responses, and your response to a lot of them, I have to ask, "Why are you so angry about this"? It really does not take a genius to understand the benefits in shooting RAW. The Internet is full of good, easy to understand examples. It looks to me like you really are doing nothing more than trying to rile people up. You succeeded. Now give it a rest.

I agree 100%

27 wasted pages! There is a place and time for .jpg's and for raw. Depends on what you're shooting and what you want you want for a finish product. I used to shoot both .jpg's and raw and you can see the difference when you download them. Big difference, .JPG's have been processed by the camera, raw files have not. I almost always shoot raw now, I want every bit of data that my camera can capture. This entire topic could have been solved by doing a google search for .jpg vs raw. Try this site to start. Lots of images posted there to show what can be done with each.
http://www.slrlounge.com/school/raw-vs-jpeg-jpg-the-ultimate-visual-guide/

There are lots of sites that will cover this subject in great detail.
Anyone wonder why he started this topic when he could have found out everything he wanted to know by doing a simple google search. Maybe he just wanted to stir the pot, and he did.
Probably laughing his head off at all the misinformation posted.

cucharared Loc: Texas, Colorado

Davethehiker wrote:

I'm not sure how to respond to your request but I'll try. I'm going to upload two images. One is the JPG provided by the camera. The second one is a JPG that was made from the RAW file and corrected and optimized to the limits of my skills. I hope this helps.

These two hummingbird photos alone is enough to convert me to shooting RAW. Once I get a camera that will of course. The second photo simply blows my mind with how much better it is. Thanks.

ron

mikeroetex Loc: Lafayette, LA

Ralloh wrote:

Good answer. Short and to the point. This debate has been done to death. Oh, I only shoot RAW.

Other than a shortage of memory, buffer ability or absolutely no desire for post processing, why would anyone ever not shoot in RAW r at least RAW +jpg for backup? I shoot RAW on card 1 and jpg+fine on card 2.

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

Jim Bob wrote:

Hostile? Me? Surely, you jest. I call them as I see them. Some folks misinterpret that as hostility.

Hostile? No.

It's called passive aggressive.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

That is not what he asked, because you can not show a RAW image it is impossible so all you see is one processed JPEG against another. If what you interpret is true all he would be saying is how good are you at post processing and that is a different topic, no he asked for an image in RAW and no RAW file is an image until processed by software on a computer by a human.

Erdos2 wrote:

Reread the title. At least 8 people figured out what that meant. Proof is evidenced by JimBob's response to those images. (look at pages 2, 3, 6 and responses he made to those posts)

washy Loc: Dorset UK

You don't want to know, your just being argumentative, you have already made up your mind, so if you do not want to shoot the best images you can ,shoot jpeg. Nothing else need be said

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Let's see some images that clearly show that slide film is better than JPG.

Mike