Jpg vs. RAW

Jpg vs. RAW · 09:11 AM

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but all comments are welcome. I just started to shoot in RAW and processing in Lightroom 2.0. Attached is a comparison pic with the jpg on the left and RAW on the right. A couple people I have asked have said the jpg looks better and can't really tell if the RAW is sharper.
Camera: K10D
Lens: Tamron 17-50
100% crop

BBear · 09-30-2008, 09:29 AM

The processed JPED does look better, but the RAW is sharper.

**eccs19** · 09-30-2008, 09:33 AM

I would agree with BBear. I can mostly see the difference in the tall building on the left side of the picture. The vertical lines are more defined. Plus the smaller building in the same location (one with the flag & clock) just seem more defined as well.

dsport · 09-30-2008, 09:35 AM

The RAW is sharper.

stevebrot · 09-30-2008, 10:20 AM

The RAW is definitely sharper (see the bird in the center of the pic), but the default PP in Lightroom did not do the image any good. You might want to zero the image and start over!

Steve

YJD · 09-30-2008, 10:32 AM

The RAW is sharper. I think the reason why the JPEG looks better is about the white balance, which you need to set in RAW anyway. So if you redo your RAW in whatever software, you should get a better IQ than the JPEG.

That's the thought of a newbie

Frank Fletcher · 09-30-2008, 10:52 AM

The raw file probably has more fidelity. It's defintely sharper looking and has less de-mosaicing artifacts. If people like the jpeg version, you can easily change the presets/calibration in lightroom to give you that - that's the beauty of raw.

I PP'd the raw version (from the jpeg) to give it the same saturated punch as the original jpeg... if that's the look, one likes, it's easy to do.

Atindra · 09-30-2008, 12:26 PM

RAW definitely is sharper/crisp. JPG has fuzzy look. People telling JPG looks better are partially right. Choose a better WB adjustment option while processing RAW. I dont know what WB settings you used in JPEG and what did you use in processing the RAW but this is perfect daylight shot. Try processing the RAW shot with Daylight white balance and see if it looks closer to the real one what you saw with your eyes?

Atindra

Nowhere Matt · 09-30-2008, 01:22 PM

Oh is this one of those "spot the differences" like they have in Highlights?

Let's see.
The kid only has three buttons on his shirt in that picture.
The clown is juggling plates instead of balls.
Little girl's dress is shorter there.
The dog is chasing the cat in this one and in that one the cat is chasing the dog.
And if I stare at the image long enough and allow my eyes to cross, right in the center I can see what looks like a cowboy on a horse or flying saucer maybe.

No? Not the responses you had in mind?

darthku · 09-30-2008, 02:48 PM

Thanks guys, great feedback. I just did an auto-tone in Lightroom for the RAW. I'm gonna go back and play with the sliders some more.

Nowhere Matt - try counting the windows in the buildings... don't forget to count the small ones way in the back

clawhammer · 09-30-2008, 06:03 PM

Kinda beating a dead horse, but the RAW seems to have more definition in the trestles on the bridge.

Konos · 09-30-2008, 08:04 PM

Agreed, RAW is much sharper - even for this newbie.

alohadave · 10-01-2008, 05:48 AM

Originally posted by Konos

Agreed, RAW is much sharper - even for this newbie.

It's not even that the the RAW is sharper, it has far less noise/compression artifacts than the JPEG does. The sky in the JPEG is mottled and looks like film grain (not to go down that path...), and the edges of objects look fuzzy where there is a tonal change.

This is a clear example of where the extra bits in the RAW format illustrate how much finer detail you can get with the same shot over in-camera JPEG.

ll_coffee_lP · 10-01-2008, 03:06 PM

The RAW image is certainly better (with some proper WB)...and Nowhere Matt is stoned. (he he)

c[_]

darthku
	View full profile
	Contact via private message
	Find other posts by darthku
	Find threads started by darthku
	Find threads in which darthku has posted

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Selecting RAW, but adds a jpg	41ants	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	5	04-09-2010 09:51 AM
K-x raw or jpg?	Mystic	Pentax DSLR Discussion	30	02-14-2010 09:25 PM
Fireworks, RAW or jpg?	Psyfalcon	Pentax DSLR Discussion	12	07-05-2007 08:27 PM
ist DS, RAW or JPG?	jdmidwest	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	9	06-01-2007 09:17 PM
RAW+JPG... why?	slip	Pentax DSLR Discussion	18	04-24-2007 11:30 AM

09-30-2008, 09:29 AM	#2
BBear Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: CT / NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 822	The processed JPED does look better, but the RAW is sharper.

09-30-2008, 09:33 AM	#3
eccs19 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Lisle, Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,510	I would agree with BBear. I can mostly see the difference in the tall building on the left side of the picture. The vertical lines are more defined. Plus the smaller building in the same location (one with the flag & clock) just seem more defined as well.

09-30-2008, 09:35 AM	#4
dsport Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Hong Kong Photos: Gallery Posts: 431	The RAW is sharper.

09-30-2008, 10:20 AM	#5
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	The RAW is definitely sharper (see the bird in the center of the pic), but the default PP in Lightroom did not do the image any good. You might want to zero the image and start over! Steve

09-30-2008, 10:32 AM	#6
YJD Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Monte Vista, CO Posts: 529	The RAW is sharper. I think the reason why the JPEG looks better is about the white balance, which you need to set in RAW anyway. So if you redo your RAW in whatever software, you should get a better IQ than the JPEG. That's the thought of a newbie

09-30-2008, 10:52 AM	#7
Frank Fletcher Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Photos: Albums Posts: 257	The raw file probably has more fidelity. It's defintely sharper looking and has less de-mosaicing artifacts. If people like the jpeg version, you can easily change the presets/calibration in lightroom to give you that - that's the beauty of raw. I PP'd the raw version (from the jpeg) to give it the same saturated punch as the original jpeg... if that's the look, one likes, it's easy to do.

09-30-2008, 12:26 PM	#8
Atindra Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bhavnagar (Gujarat),India Photos: Gallery Posts: 375	RAW definitely is sharper/crisp. JPG has fuzzy look. People telling JPG looks better are partially right. Choose a better WB adjustment option while processing RAW. I dont know what WB settings you used in JPEG and what did you use in processing the RAW but this is perfect daylight shot. Try processing the RAW shot with Daylight white balance and see if it looks closer to the real one what you saw with your eyes? Atindra

09-30-2008, 01:22 PM	#9
Nowhere Matt Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Nowhere Land Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,362	Oh is this one of those "spot the differences" like they have in Highlights? Let's see. The kid only has three buttons on his shirt in that picture. The clown is juggling plates instead of balls. Little girl's dress is shorter there. The dog is chasing the cat in this one and in that one the cat is chasing the dog. And if I stare at the image long enough and allow my eyes to cross, right in the center I can see what looks like a cowboy on a horse or flying saucer maybe. No? Not the responses you had in mind?

09-30-2008, 02:48 PM	#10
darthku Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Bay Area, CA Posts: 108 Original Poster	Thanks guys, great feedback. I just did an auto-tone in Lightroom for the RAW. I'm gonna go back and play with the sliders some more. Nowhere Matt - try counting the windows in the buildings... don't forget to count the small ones way in the back

09-30-2008, 06:03 PM	#11
clawhammer Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Logan, Utah Photos: Gallery Posts: 971	Kinda beating a dead horse, but the RAW seems to have more definition in the trestles on the bridge.

09-30-2008, 08:04 PM	#12
Konos New Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Northern Ontario, Canada Posts: 14	Agreed, RAW is much sharper - even for this newbie.

10-01-2008, 05:48 AM	#13
alohadave Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Quincy, MA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,024	Originally posted by Konos Agreed, RAW is much sharper - even for this newbie. It's not even that the the RAW is sharper, it has far less noise/compression artifacts than the JPEG does. The sky in the JPEG is mottled and looks like film grain (not to go down that path...), and the edges of objects look fuzzy where there is a tonal change. This is a clear example of where the extra bits in the RAW format illustrate how much finer detail you can get with the same shot over in-camera JPEG.

10-01-2008, 03:06 PM	#14
ll_coffee_lP Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,972	The RAW image is certainly better (with some proper WB)...and Nowhere Matt is stoned. (he he) c[_]