RAW pictures look kind of like paintings

[willg]

at 100% crop they don't look as sharp as my jpgs right out of the camera. Anyone know what I'm talking about?

I am using raw shooter essentials and I'm not really sure what good middle range settings should be for noise/sharpness/detail extraction

[Cathpah]

its all about post production.
jpegs come pp-ed already, but certainly not always correctly.

[Transportithere]

I have been shooting in RAW a lot more lately. I am finding my photos more grainy and smaller. Although I have more attributes with RAW. The grain is worrysome. I might start alternating a bit more.
I am processing some photos from tonight right now. I wanted to ask the question about the grain issue. I saw this thread and well, come and learn with me. ANY TIPS ANYONE?

[condyk]

Check your ISO setting if you get grainy shots all the time or alter your exposure if only for certain shots!

RAW have more detail information than jpg's. If you shoot RAW and Large JPG setting and compare the same image well it is as plain as night and day. If you have in camera processing on the jpg's then of course they will look sharper, etc out the camera. These setting have no impact on the RAW. Using RSE is a learning curve. Experiment.

[jfrancho]

There is a lot of information about sharpening and noise removal in a thread I started here: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=176920. Most of this applies, regardless of raw conversion software.

[redbutt]

The short version of this is that JPGs are completely processed in the camera using the cameras internal software and sharpening, saturation, contrast, etc are all adjusted. RAW is the equivalent of a digital negative...no processing at all. It is up to you to "develop" the image. You will have to do all the things that the camera does on your own. Once you get it down, RAW images are WAY better than JPG.

As for the grain issue...are you using a Flat Panel monitor? I've noticed that with lower end/older flat panels, the dark areas tend to look grainy, when in reality it is simply the monitors inability to render a smooth transition in the shadow areas.

[jfrancho]

I don't agree that "raw images are way better than jpeg," they just offer the opportunity to make creative adjustments after capture. Just about anything done in raw can be done with jpg format. You just more time to make up your mind in raw, and you can do it over and over.

[ssim]

I don't agree that "raw images are way better than jpeg," they just offer the opportunity to make creative adjustments after capture. Just about anything done in raw can be done with jpg format.

This true to a certain degree. However, in my unscientific testing, try to adjust a jpg by 1.5 to 2 stops in exposure recovery and the RAW file will always shine through.

You just more time to make up your mind in raw, and you can do it over and over.

If the photograher will remember to keep their original JPG intact this is also possible. I've seen too many people edit the same JPG over and over and eventually you will start to see some degridation.

RAW is really a matter of personal preference. For some JPG works fine, for others (such as me) RAW is a preference. I don't mind the additional steps in my workflow, I think my images are better for it.

i've noticed that with lower end/older flat panels, the dark areas tend to look grainy, when in reality it is simply the monitors inability to render a smooth transition in the shadow areas.

I never had really noticed this until yesterday when I was at a friends place who had a old and low end flat screen. The images looked noisy. We fired us his laptop which was much newer and they looked the way they should.

There are lots of variables in this whole equation. Bottom line is that you have to be prepared to do some pp in the DSLR world, whether you shoot JPG or RAW. Shooting RAW does have its extra steps but also has its advantages. If you want your images to be the same in both formats right of the camera, you will have to stick with JPG

[Transportithere]

Here are some examples of the grain effect I am experiencing.
Is it possible I am expecting too much?
or its just the night and too dark?

[PhotosGuy]

The images are too small & they're compressed/processed jpegs. You need to show a 100% crop, maybe of a converted tiff.
If it's just a "grain" problem, RSP has 2 sliders for noise. Turn off the sharpening & detail extraction before you use them.

[jfrancho]

The first image is underexposed beyond the point of rescue in raw conversion. The second is a little ambitious with regards to dynamic range, and can probably be salvaged into a decent picture by clipping a lot of the shadow details, and focusing on the highlights, though that pole in the middle is a little distracting. I like what you're going for in these shots, and I think a little more practice will yield better results. Keep trying, don't give up - you've got some good ideas here that just have to be executed with better technique.

[Transportithere]

Well thank you. I will continue to photograph the bridge. I have been useing it as a topic for over a year and have thousands of shots.
Night shots are a new field of interest of mine. I have more confidence knowing that practice makes perfect, or what can I say TIME WILL TELL.

[NBEast]

On RSE and RSP, view 100% crop to see effects of sharpening, noise reduction, etc.