[JohnBee]

#1 was shot at f./5.6 and 1/20th. #2 was shot at f./8 and 1/10th. I have to wonder if the DoF difference is causing a noticeable change in the results. It could affect sharpness slightly, too. Many lenses are at their sharpest at about f./8. The same settings should really have been used.

Wow I completely missed that!
And I think you raise a good point here also.
Having said that, I think I'm going to run my own tests using RAW+ rather than relying on Imaging Resources files as they seem far too inconsistent to be used for anything substantial.

Thanks for pointing that out btw.
I think I'm going to start a new RAW vs JPG thread(take 2) rather than try and salvage this one because there are just to many inconsistencies here.

---

Last edited by JohnBee; 04-09-2012 at 06:50 PM.

[Nuff]

I would also suggest that you post a link to the RAW file too, so others can have a go at post processing it. Even different software can give different results and I would be keen on seeing what others can get out of the RAW file.

[Marc Sabatella]

As explained in the thread that generated this one, I think the "test" here is completely meaningless. Once again, this is not a comparison of RAW versus JPEG as formats. It's a comparison of one raw to jpeg conversion algorithm against another, measured with one set of processing of parameters, that gives absolutely no reason to believe that any perceived diffeence would come out the same if you repeated it with different settings or with a different subject. Plus, I see no reason to believe these two images are focused in the same place. I think you are comparing the most in focus area of image #2 against the same area of image #1, but the actual focus on image #1 is somewhere else. And if you compared the most in focus area of image #1 against the same area of image #2, the results might be just as skewed the other way.

And I suspect that's exactly what is happening in the other crops that are being linked to, in which #1 seems obviously better than #2. Difference focus points, combined with different apertures. There is, again, absolutely no way one can possibly construe this as a comparison of RAW against JOEG. If anything a test of how easy it is to create a well controlled test.

BTW, for the person who said that shooting RAW means taking longer in processong, that is completely 100% wrong. Thee is absolutely no basis for a belif that shooting RAW means you need to spend more time in PP. zero, none, nada. If anything, shooting RAW often means spending *less* time on PP, because it is easier to achieve certain effects starting from RAW than from JPEG. If you personlly find yourself spending more time on RA, that is just your inexperience talking.