Originally posted by mysticcowboy Use the Photoshop Channel Mixer to reduce the red saturation and you can make the JPEG real close. This example isn't really about RAW vs. JPEG as it about preferring his own processing over a default camera setting.
Not that being able to perform my processing over what the camera does isn't a valid reason to do raw processing, but, I have to take issue saying this isn't a 'realistic' example. There isn't a single processing option in Lightroom developer mode, many of which aren't even available in-camera, that isn't used. And I'm processing the RAW rather than JPG to achieve every advantage mentioned in that article, not by accident but knowingly and on purpose. So because it's not a pointless still-life test shot means it can't serve as an excellent example? Weird logic.
I'd love to see it, because I'd love to see how you'll get the same sharpness in the steel tower cross members w/o sever halo'ing. (besides, all this should be getting done to the full rez, not the 'shrunk' JPG re-sized by Flickr). What I shared here was probably pushed a little too far already. Applying that type of sharpening to 'Flickr-cooked' JPEG would result in much more noticeable halo'ing. I'm also hoping to see how reducing red will bring the JPG close, as it's the excess of 'blue' (and haze) that veils the JPG (and that doesn't address the shadow noise).
Don't overlook something else I posted. I don't know if your camera produces thousands of hot-spots yet (probably doesn't), the worse the longer the shutter. Once even the lowest in-camera sharpening is applied, an unmistakable donut is produced around the hot pixel. No amount of post in Lightroom gets rid of that. So that pretty much mandates I
have to process RAW. I'd have to check that in PS now that I bought CS5 64-bit; perhaps that can take care of it.