RAW? Or Not??

René Damkot wrote in post #12527240
No. It's perfectly possible to edit a jpg or to blow a Raw.
Since this is a 'trick question', my guess woud be #2 is Raw.

What's your point?

Actually, I would guess 2 as well...

smooth3000 wrote in post #12527217
Can you tell which one was captured in Raw or JPEG?

The First
CameraProfile>Embedded</crs:CameraProfile

The Second
CameraProfile>Adobe Standard</crs:CameraProfile

tkerr wrote in post #12529337
The First
CameraProfile>Embedded</crs:CameraProfile

The Second
CameraProfile>Adobe Standard</crs:CameraProfile

But which one is RAW?

When you open a jpg in Lightroom the profile is already embedded and can't, therefore, be changed. When converting a RAW the profile to be used has to be chosen (default is Adobe Standard). Thus the Exif data quoted by tkerr indicates that the second was converted from RAW.

tkerr wrote in post #12529337
The First
CameraProfile>Embedded</crs:CameraProfile

The Second
CameraProfile>Adobe Standard</crs:CameraProfile

That's cheating

(But the second one also appears in the "Show your Raw conversion" thread :lol

I picked #2 as the raw image also - guess it was fairly easy to tell.

For me - I find I shoot raw for everything except time lapse movies where I like jpegs better for a couple reasons.

I just dig having 'all my data' available whether I need it or not. I like to take an active role in the development of my images and I can do that better with raw images.

I used to be one of those people that thought they'd never need raw, and whatever corrections that had to be made could be adequately taken care of in post processing.

Then i started using RAW and realized how foolish i was. The correction potential in post processing is mind blowing. That and never having to worry about white balancing ever again.

snapshot2011 wrote in post #12528517
BUT...............They sure take up some hard disk space. This is an issue as I like keeping my shots and only dumping the really bad ones.

Storage is silly-cheap these days. Get an external hard drive. I got a 1TB drive a year ago for around $70. At Best Buy yesterday, I saw 2TB ones for roughly the same price.

haha you guys are cheaters! Image #2 was captured in RAW format, I just wanted to post the end results to see if people can actually tell how it was captured.

smooth3000 wrote in post #12531111
haha you guys are cheaters! Image #2 was captured in RAW format, I just wanted to post the end results to see if people can actually tell how it was captured.

The correct answer was already given twice so I figured it wouldn't hurt to look at the Exif to verify it and post it to remove any doubt. Besides, as was also pointed out you had already posted the before and after in another thread which I also subscribe to. Good job on that btw..

jasongraaf wrote in post #12527364
I'm sorry, but you're being ridiculous. Read the posts in this thread, you might find them enlightening. Suppose a 'client' liked the second image, but wanted more detail in the white shirt. What then if you're shooting in JPEG?

Here is an photo that I took recently.

Limited by equipment and circumstance, the harsh shadows are very distracting and ruin the image. It was taken in raw, however, so the problem was fixed in a couple seconds in photoshop with no loss of image quality.

Clearly these are not good arguments for shooting raw... here's an edit of the downloaded jpeg that you said was too dark, this was simply done by clicking shadows/highlights and accepting the defaults...I think this looks better than your raw conversion! You do realize these are two different shots...right?

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

Fair enough, I grant you that that was a poor example. I just found the first 2 images in my Flickr account that demonstrated my point to some extent. Had the shadows been darker, raw would have begun to show an advantage.

And for the record, that image was 1 of only a few that I touched in PP before uploading to photobucket, and all I did was to lighten the shadows. The rest were all JPEGs, because in this case, that was good enough for me.


Here is another quick edit. First is the original exposure. The second is an attempt to regain the highlights from JPEG, the third from raw. I have no JPEG workflow to speak of, so someone else might well be able to sneak some more detail out of the original JPEG, but I couldn't.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

jasongraaf wrote in post #12531983
Here is another quick edit. First is the original exposure. The second is an attempt to regain the highlights from JPEG, the third from raw. I have no JPEG workflow to speak of, so someone else might well be able to sneak some more detail out of the original JPEG, but I couldn't.

The Highlights are too blown out to recover from a Jpeg image. This does show the advantage of Raw editing vs Jpeg.
However, I think the best way to compare the results on something like this (Raw vs Jpeg Editing) would be first to shoot both Raw and Jpeg out of the camera. I suppose applying as shot camera defaults in DPP when converting to jpeg could work also.
Open both the Jpeg and Raw and make your adjustments and corrections to ther Raw file until you are satisfied with the results. Next apply those same exact adjustments and correction to the Jpeg, and then compare the results.