You just had to ask....

How o check: Since I saved in PNG there is no compression artifact in the raw screen capture when there is in the embedded JPG thumbnail.

Now I am getting upset because ACR uses the camera JPG camera process as default NOT the raw decoding. I posted the full SOCC image in the close up section. While I can modify to make it look even stranger I really would appreciate Adobe not using the manufacturer recommended settings.

I am looking into that right now.

-the raw looks way to red and over saturated I’ll take the jpeg

.

Why ask the question if the answer is obvious??? The only real advantage I have found with shooting Raw is the ability to recover blown highlights that are about 1 stop over my JPEG files. On occasion I still shoot raw+jpeg to see what if anything magical will happen, like shooting raw makes me a better photographer.. It's doesn't in the least amount. I feel sorry for those poor bastards that think shooting raw will somehow make them and their photos float above the rest of us JPEG shooters.. If you ain't got it, Raw won't get it for yeah. A crap shot is a crap shot, is a crap shot........

With 35 years experience with printing most presses print with 120 to 150 line screen...the reason Photoshop has 240dpi and 300 dpi settings (dpi=2x line screen). Most presses have a difficult time holding a 3% dot. So a blowout prints as an ugly white hole or void. People today are spoiled with ink jets and lasers that print with perfect register and 1440 dpi and higher. The real world prints in volume with separated printing plates. That is the reason for rejection of images submitted to Stock Photo and others. You have to know what you are doing and how your images will be printed if you wish to sell photos.

While I completely agree with your premise, it depends upon so many variables that it is hard to show on a web site such as UHH, and we can't control what people are viewing the examples with.

In my own case, I primarily use Canon cameras, and also Canon's DPP software prior to anything else. I also capture both JPEG and raw files, so have plenty of examples to compare. A few points to illustrate my own perceptions.

1) Canon DPP imports the camera settings and applies them in software on the computer, so although no raw information is lost, the initial 'thumbnail' JPEG or raw images appear identical on screen, at least with standard compute systems and displays. Of course with raw many more settings can be altered, but the raw images do not look 'flat' in comparison to the JPEGs. If the camera was set to say monochrome with a red filter, the JPEG and raw still appear identical, but raw can be reverted to full color or any other degree of processing.

2) A JPEG extracted from a Canon .CR2 raw file is smaller than a JPEG from the camera, and smaller than a low compression JPEG created by DPP. The test I did resulted in files of 3MB, 6MB and 10MB respectively. The only difference was the level of compression, but since JPEG is a lossy format, clearly the images have different quality levels even in a standard 8bit format.

3) The main area where I regularly perceive a difference is with prints - assuming no other processing. I have a 16bit capable printer and use a 16bit printer driver. The results from a raw file are noticeably richer, and more vibrant than those from the equivalent JPEG file. A side by side comparison shows it, but it would be hard to show on UHH.

4) Clearly, if further processing is undertaken then JPEG compression attributes and banding from 8bit versus 16bit processing can become obvious.

However, it is hard to demonstrate on a platform such as UHH, and only becomes apparent with certain types of images in my personal experience. I look forward to your examples, Ron.