Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
Thread started 15 Jan 2016 (Friday) 11:15
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

RAW vs JPEG editing side by side

 
Ralph ­ III
Goldmember
1,345 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Alabama
Post edited over 3 years ago by Ralph III. (2 edits in all)
     
Jan 17, 2016 10:50 |  #16

chauncey wrote in post #17861276 (external link)
And what, pray tell, would your definition of a winner be?
If you're unable to define it...perhaps you should stick to "good enough".

Hmmm, you ask a question and then answer it yourself?


I would have expected the RAW file to render a much superior final result. Superior in that a significant amount of more detail could have been attained with minimal noise in comparison to the Jpeg file.

It really didn't work out that way. I've tried the experiment once more and will upload those results tonight sometime.

God Bless,
Ralph


"SOUTHERN and SAVED!"
POTN FEEDBACK...............ITEMS FOR SALE

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
chauncey
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,696 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 462
Joined Jun 2007
Location: MI/CO
     
Jan 17, 2016 14:05 |  #17

jpeg is "good enough" for zillions of picture-takers out there, witness the proliferation of camera phones being used.
Hey, if that's the best you can do or see...then settle for "good enough".

For others, the term "good enough", just seems so inadequate, so childish, so mundane.
They are the ones that aspire for so much more than "good enough".


The things you do for yourself die with you, the things you do for others live forever.
A man's worth should be judged, not when he basks in the sun, but how he faces the storm.

My stuff...http://1x.com/member/c​hauncey43 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LincsRP
Senior Member
427 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 40
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Lincolnshire,UK
     
Jan 17, 2016 15:13 |  #18

chauncey wrote in post #17861689 (external link)
jpeg is "good enough" for zillions of picture-takers out there, witness the proliferation of camera phones being used.
Hey, if that's the best you can do or see...then settle for "good enough".

For others, the term "good enough", just seems so inadequate, so childish, so mundane.
They are the ones that aspire for so much more than "good enough".

It's easy to ridicule any file format especially with your comments in the above post. You presume that as the masses now use camera phones they produce a mediocre result which is a result of using jpegs. That's not an informed opinion is it? Many professionals have been using jpegs for years producing spectacular results that camera phones could not emulate in any way. Reporters from the various Winter Olympics and such have been bringing images home you and I could not emulate with our 'top of the range kit' with raw files but, the likes of yourself think jpegs are inferior?


Steve
www.lincsracephotos.co​.uk (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
chauncey
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,696 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 462
Joined Jun 2007
Location: MI/CO
     
Jan 17, 2016 15:34 |  #19

It's easy to ridicule any file format

Au contraire mon ami...it wasn't the format that I find offensive,
but rather the folks that take up a hobby without learning how to pursue it to it's ultimate.


The things you do for yourself die with you, the things you do for others live forever.
A man's worth should be judged, not when he basks in the sun, but how he faces the storm.

My stuff...http://1x.com/member/c​hauncey43 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 415
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Jan 17, 2016 20:14 |  #20
bannedPermanent ban

chauncey wrote in post #17861789 (external link)
Au contraire mon ami...it wasn't the format that I find offensive,
but rather the folks that take up a hobby without learning how to pursue it to it's ultimate.

You do realize that routers now only accept jpeg images for submission.

Seems pretty big of you to make judgement of how others get joy out of their hobbies. I personally know 2 professional photographers that shoot jpeg and deliver amazing images. Do you classify these professionals as folks which don't pursue their profession to it's ultimate.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ralph ­ III
Goldmember
1,345 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Alabama
     
Jan 17, 2016 22:41 |  #21

Hello All,

First, I really don't get your comments Chauncey? I've been shooting RAW and Jpeg for many years now. Jpeg when the images are just typical snap shots in good condition. RAW when the images are of special occasions and/or in challenging light.

I've never actually compared the two files side by side though. That is in fact what this thread is about to bring you back to point.

---------------

Again folks, my results are very surprising. It was always my understanding that RAW files were better than Jpeg in that they retained greater detail or that you could "extract" greater detail from them.

That really hasn't panned out in my test shots. In fact, the Jpeg image file seems to consistently render less noise than the RAW file?

---------------

I've taken another highly underexposed image of our Tabby cat. I'm shooting in "Standard" mode with all presets (3, 0, 0, 0) with in camera noise reduction turned off. I could attempt it one more time in "Faithful" or "Neutral" mode out of curiosity; but it doesn't seem necessary given "Standard" mode is most common.

The images are very close but again, the Jpeg image has less noise in it while the RAW image retains a little more detail. This extra detail can only be seen with a heavy crop though. so where is the big advantage of shooting in RAW?

God Bless,
Ralph


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


"SOUTHERN and SAVED!"
POTN FEEDBACK...............ITEMS FOR SALE

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ralph ­ III
Goldmember
1,345 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Alabama
Post edited over 3 years ago by Ralph III.
     
Jan 17, 2016 22:41 |  #22

The following images were edited as follows in Photoshop Elements 8:


Jpeg:

1. Shadows/Highlights 25% (default).
2. Brightness +10.
3. Adjusted Midtone color.

RAW:

1) Temperature, increase from 5100 to 5400.
2) Exposure, increase from 0 to 4.0.
3) Blacks, decrease from 5 to 0.
4) Brightness, increase from 50 to 65.
5) Contrast, increase from 25 to 75.
6) Vibrance, increase from 0 to 15.
7) Saturation, increase from 0 to 5.

I performed a few more tweaks with the RAW file which enabled me to get the images (color/contrast) very close to one another. I then took each file and added the same amount of noise reduction in Noiseware.


Conclusion: The Jpeg image has less noise while the RAW file maintains a slight amount of more detail. From everything I've ever been told or conversed in, I would have thought the RAW file would have outperformed the Jpeg file in every aspect, but it doesn't. As per my example, the camera Jpeg with some minor tweaks in Photoshop is capable of equaling (overall) the best possible result.

Unless someone can tell me what I'm doing wrong that I cannot get superior results from the RAW file, then I'm really now questioning the need to use it....


Take care,
Ralph


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


"SOUTHERN and SAVED!"
POTN FEEDBACK...............ITEMS FOR SALE

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ralph ­ III
Goldmember
1,345 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Alabama
Post edited over 3 years ago by Ralph III. (2 edits in all)
     
Jan 17, 2016 22:41 |  #23

cropped images


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


"SOUTHERN and SAVED!"
POTN FEEDBACK...............ITEMS FOR SALE

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sssc
Senior Member
Avatar
572 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 18
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Ohio.SW
     
Jan 18, 2016 01:05 |  #24

I myself will take RAW over JPEG. This is just a hobby that i wish i had more time for. Something i read awhile back.https://www.slrlounge.​com …he-ultimate-visual-guide/ (external link). Is shooting RAW for everyone? No. Is shooting JPEG for everyone ? No. Some info http://www.adorama.com …iles-Rock-Better-Than-RAW (external link). And a whole lot of good info here to https://photography-on-the.net …hread.php?t=684​360&page=1 . Just my 2 cents:-D


Keith-EOS R 7D MarkII EOS REBEL T2i 18-55,55-250.85 1/8. 100-400L. 10-22 f/3.5-4.5. 24-105mm f/4L IS,70-200 II,RF 24-105

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,013 posts
Gallery: 543 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1625
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Jan 18, 2016 04:14 |  #25

Ralph your comparison of RAW to JPEG is a bit pointless, if you underexpose by FOUR stops you are going to get garbage which ever way you look at it. Brightening underexposed shots is not where you will find the advantage of shooting RAW. The big advantage to shooting RAW; while using an up to date RAW converter, which in the case of Adobe really means using Process Version 2012, not 2010, is when using techniques such as ETTR. It is the extra SIX stops of potential highlight detail that is retained that is important. By shooting RAW and using ETTR I have recorded the maximum amount of data in my file out of the camera. The really nice thing about using Adobe's PV2012 is that I can then pull the highlight detail down by a couple of stops in post, the midtones by a stop, and leave the shadow detail alone. This effectively brightens the shadows, without adding any extra noise to the image. Were I to try to push the shadows of a "normally" exposed image by a couple of stops I would be adding significant noise to those areas. Actually Canon's DPP software isn't the best for doing ETTR either, as it lacks the diversity of controls over the highlights, midtones, and shadows that many other RAW converters offer. All you get from an in camera conversion of an ETTR shot is a generally very overexposed image that is impossible to correct, as the data is completely gone.

When you spend most of your time photographing very high dynamic range backlit subjects this becomes very important. Doing RTTR properly call for very exact levels of exposure in camera. Go half a stop under and you ca lose a lot of shadow detail that you want to maintain. Go over by any amount and you will clip the highlights. o you are looking at exacting standards for exposure, and for post processing, as every image will require different settings in the RAW converter to extract the best from it.

The advantages of RAW are there for those who chose to use them, they are not really there to rescue a shot that was underexposed by four stops.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
john ­ crossley
Goldmember
Avatar
2,694 posts
Likes: 909
Joined Nov 2009
     
Jan 18, 2016 05:01 |  #26

chauncey wrote in post #17861789 (external link)
Au contraire mon ami...it wasn't the format that I find offensive,
but rather the folks that take up a hobby without learning how to pursue it to it's ultimate.

Why do you have to pursue photography to its limits. What you should do is use the file type and camera settings that you are most comfortable using; there is no right or wrong in this, it is down to personal preference.
And at the end of the day when you look at an image there is no way you can tell if it was shot in RAW or JPEG.


It never ceases to amaze me how dense intelligent people are.
I’ve had more intelligent conversations with lobotomised amoebas.
.- -. --- - .... . .-. -- --- .-. --- -. .. -.-. -- --- .-. --- -. .- -.. -.. . -.. - --- -- -.-- .. --. -. --- .-. . .-.. .. ... -

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
chauncey
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,696 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 462
Joined Jun 2007
Location: MI/CO
     
Jan 18, 2016 08:51 |  #27

Why do you have to pursue photography to its limits

You don't have to anything to its limits, if...mediocrity is your goal.


The things you do for yourself die with you, the things you do for others live forever.
A man's worth should be judged, not when he basks in the sun, but how he faces the storm.

My stuff...http://1x.com/member/c​hauncey43 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kirkt
Cream of the Crop
5,869 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 659
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA USA
Post edited over 3 years ago by kirkt. (6 edits in all)
     
Jan 18, 2016 10:02 |  #28

Ralph III wrote in post #17862287 (external link)
...


Conclusion: The Jpeg image has less noise while the RAW file maintains a slight amount of more detail. From everything I've ever been told or conversed in, I would have thought the RAW file would have outperformed the Jpeg file in every aspect, but it doesn't. As per my example, the camera Jpeg with some minor tweaks in Photoshop is capable of equaling (overall) the best possible result.

Unless someone can tell me what I'm doing wrong that I cannot get superior results from the RAW file, then I'm really now questioning the need to use it....


Take care,
Ralph


One thing to understand is that the JPEG came from the raw file. You are trying to compare your attempt at raw conversion to the engineers at Canon's algorithm for performing raw conversion. I think that the conclusion you can draw from this exercise is that you are not able to recreate the Canon algorithm for raw conversion using the tools that you choose to perform the raw conversion. There is no problem with this, and what you have working in your advantage is that you are aware of the content of the scene and you are in control of the intent of your conversion - the engineers do not know what you are taking pictures of, but they have the advantage of studying thousands and thousands of "typical" images and developing an optimized algorithm that makes most images look "good."

There may be any number of reasons for the difference between the JPEG conversion and your attempt at matching or exceeding it. I would not say you are doing anything "wrong" per se, but experience with raw conversion does help achieve quality results.

Try starting your comparisons by using the software that came with your Canon camera - Digital Photo Professional (DPP). You can essentially recreate the JPEG conversion using DPP and selecting the appropriate Picture Style in DPP. Underexposure of an image may not be the "test" that will uncover some of the benefits of shooting raw. By understanding exposure for your camera, you will find that shooting JPEG in certain situations (compared to raw) will result in missing highlight information and color issues. Highlights in a raw file are recoverable or able to be reconstructed from remaining highlight channels - JPEG will clip this information to pure white. White balance can be set after the fact in raw, whereas adjustments to JPEG white balance are difficult and can further destroy details in highlight areas. Noise reduction, whether applied by the camera to the JPEG or applied by you during raw conversion, is a very subjective process for many people and the amount and quality of the NR can vary with the intended output and look you are trying to achieve. It may be important to you to defer the decision on NR until conversion, instead of having a less than desirable amount of NR applied in-camera to the JPEG. Who knows...

To summarize, the JPEG that is your reference is created from the raw that you are manipulating and comparing to the JPEG, so the raw will always be equal to, or superior to, the JPEG; however, it requires skill and the right tools to achieve this result. Raw files contain all of the captured data - the corresponding JPEG contains a subset of that data. Raw files can be manipulated after the point of capture far beyond the JPEG file. In terms of whether or not a raw file will be superior to the JPEG in the final output, it depends on the scene you are capturing and how you set up the capture. There is no reason that you cannot capture an excellent image directly to JPEG, but there may be situations where JPEG capture and workflow will not be able to cope with the scene and the extra work associated with raw workflow will benefit your final image.

Raw workflow also gives you the freedom to pursue the final image the way you want to, not the way the engineers at Canon think is "good enough."

kirk


Kirk
---
images: http://kirkt.smugmug.c​om (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
neacail
Goldmember
Avatar
1,188 posts
Gallery: 43 photos
Likes: 440
Joined Dec 2013
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
     
Jan 18, 2016 10:22 |  #29

LincsRP wrote in post #17861762 (external link)
It's easy to ridicule any file format especially with your comments in the above post. You presume that as the masses now use camera phones they produce a mediocre result which is a result of using jpegs. That's not an informed opinion is it? Many professionals have been using jpegs for years producing spectacular results that camera phones could not emulate in any way. Reporters from the various Winter Olympics and such have been bringing images home you and I could not emulate with our 'top of the range kit' with raw files but, the likes of yourself think jpegs are inferior?

The photographer I hired for my wedding in 2006---an exceptional and very experienced photographer, who one has to book with at least a year+ in advance---shoots jpeg.

I almost didn't hire him as a result of that . . . I was horrified when I looked for clarification that he shot in RAW, and he advised me that he didn't shoot RAW. It simply added too much to his volume of work: he didn't have time for RAW. Was I really prepared to pay $7k+ for a photographer who shot in jpeg?

In the end, I got over it. I hired him. The photos were breathtaking. He didn't need RAW. There wasn't anything that he had to try to "save" or "fix."

I wish I had his confidence. Sometimes it seems really silly to me that I spend so much time processing RAW files for hockey games. Frankly, I should save myself the time and just shoot in jpeg. My work is good enough that I really don't have anything to "save" or "fix" anymore.

For high volume photography, jpeg really is the way to go. I'm a coward, though. I need my RAW security blanket.


Shelley
Image Editing Okay

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LincsRP
Senior Member
427 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 40
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Lincolnshire,UK
     
Jan 18, 2016 14:47 |  #30

My Wife and I have just come back from along weekend in Madrid, Spain. With my G16 I wandered around shooting jpegs, chimping, shooting more and was blessed with the time to go back at a different time of the day when lighting was unflattering the first time around. Many don't have that luxury which is where raw would help enormously.

I quite enjoyed myself this weekend knowing that I was not coming home to even a tiny bit of work to prepare the images for the family album ... my Wife loves to get this stuff printed and into the physical 'scrapbook' :-)

You have to be careful tho, I did like the look of a particular archway in the middle of an enormous roundabout (funny circular road apparently leading nowhere to our American readers) and was busy chimping when the lights turned to green for the motorists ... whoops! Tis obvious pedestrian crossings timers wern't set for photographers to carefully compose and shoot a couple frames and I nearly got run over by a dozen nutters (kind words for Spaniards with little patience for tourists standing in the middle of the road at rush hour) and my Wife quite rightly commented 'you wouldn't get run over if you shot raw and processed it at the computer, would you? HUH??? ' Point made :-D

Raw is safer. Definately...


Steve
www.lincsracephotos.co​.uk (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

9,429 views & 17 likes for this thread
RAW vs JPEG editing side by side
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is zaza1
963 guests, 204 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.