[GeneV]

Frankly, well-exposed shots like these are not why I shoot raw. This is a shot that looks good in either JPEG or DNG, though we may have preference for one or the other. (I find subtle differences hard to reproduce on the web). The kind of shot that has me shooting raw is the one where I miss the exposure by a stop, or the scene has a dynamic range that is pushing the envelope--or both. Some of these, I don't realize until later, and it is good to have a format that lets me push shadow detail or recover highlights to the best extent possible.

[stevewig]

I can understand the monitor difference and the differences between different computers also as I have dealt with it myself. Both of the shots look pretty good to me. The DNG appears slightly sharper. Also, the blue jacket is a little less saturated. For a portrait, I prefer the slightly softer look of the JPEG myself. Again, we're back to preference. I have 3 daughters (all grown) and I learned long ago that razor sharp shots that show the pores in their skin are a sure fire way to get your family hiding from the camera. For myself, I tend to make my final judgement looking at a print, not a monitor.

Good point about the pores in the skin, pimples, facial hair, etc.,etc.,....... that is why most people prefer a soft lens be used for their own portrait (even if they don't express it that way)!

[Skog]

I saw the first jpg and thought it looked good. Then I saw the DNG and thought, ok that looks good too, sharper eyes. Then I read all the comments about over sharpening and saturation and whatnot and I start to notice that too. Makes me nervous about my own editing skills hehe! I tend to make everything as sharp, contrasty and vibrant as possible. Both your pictures looked nice and subtle to me. Maybe I'd better leave it to the camera !