Why I shoot RAW...

JohnBee · 06-25-2011, 04:00 PM

Nothing scientific, but I wanted to do a quick comparo with the DNG/JPG output on my K-5. Granted, the JPG is likely more realistic to the conditions(lighting etc). However, its not what I would want in an image. And so I ran the DNG through my usual PP and found the results rather interesting.

Anyways, here are the images;

JPG

DNG

Colbyt · 06-25-2011, 04:31 PM

You would need to share what if any PP you did to the dng for that to have any real meaning to the average person.

I consider them both good. One is more saturated than the other. Other than that I don't see any difference.

Northern Soul · 06-25-2011, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by Colbyt

You would need to share what if any PP you did to the dng for that to have any real meaning to the average person.

I consider them both good. One is more saturated than the other. Other than that I don't see any difference.

The DNG looks significantly sharper to me, even at this size. But as you say, we have no idea what PP has been done.

song_hm · 06-25-2011, 05:32 PM

What I like most with the DNG is no shiny nose, cheek and forehead. What jumps out is the reduced saturation. I like the sharpness on the eyes in the DNG, but I find the hair too sharp.

foxhead · 06-25-2011, 05:37 PM

There is definitely more shadow detail in the DNG version. Look at the darkest areas in her hair.

JHD · 06-26-2011, 05:37 AM

The jpeg is much better. The PP DNG colors and contrast look washed out... and what's up with the eyes? The DNG image suggests there's something not quite right with the child. Not so with the jpeg!

reeftool · 06-26-2011, 06:02 AM

It really boils down to personal preference. You could easily make the DNG look exactly like the JPEG with a couple of tweaks in PP. That's the real difference in shooting RAW. You have much more control over the final output. I like the colors better in the JPEG also but again, that's personal preference.

stevewig · 06-26-2011, 06:28 AM

Originally posted by reeftool

It really boils down to personal preference. You could easily make the DNG look exactly like the JPEG with a couple of tweaks in PP. That's the real difference in shooting RAW. You have much more control over the final output. I like the colors better in the JPEG also but again, that's personal preference.

That is exactly correct!

The author adjusted the DNG in accordance with his personal preferences and therefore there is no point or value in a third party making value judgments (or "objective" comparisons) between JPG and DNG based upon his subjective decisions.

Now you could critique his judgment but that is probably not what he is requesting.

Colbyt · 06-26-2011, 07:11 AM

To those who pointed out the differences, thanks. I can see those things now that you mention them, but aren't most of them related to the saturation and contrast? Both of which could be tweaked in PS from the jpg?

Like jhd, I tend to have a preference for slightly more color than the second one offers. But as stevewig said that is all preference.

JHD · 06-26-2011, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by JHD

...and what's up with the eyes? The DNG image suggests there's something not quite right with the child. Not so with the jpeg!

Originally viewed this on my neighbors cheap monitor, which made the eyes look really bizarre. Now that I have my system running back up, the effect isn’t nearly as bad. There's no substitute for a good monitor.

JohnBee · 06-26-2011, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by JHD

Originally viewed this on my neighbors cheap monitor, which made the eyes look really bizarre. Not that I have my system running back up, the effect isn’t nearly as bad. There's no substitute for a good monitor.

No worries, I looked at the images on my wifes notebook and they looked horrible(washed-out, over-sharpened etc).

The problem is, I'm using my old backup CRT(21" NEC) and I think it's really leading me astray in terms of gama and calibration

Unfortunately, I won't be in a position to replace my trusty LCD for several more months to come. Guess its time to break-out the old Spyder and see if I can't get this old dinosaur up to spec.

JohnBee · 06-26-2011, 09:24 PM

PS. I calibrated my monitor and adjusted the image(tried again).

Unfortunately, my calibration tool seems broken, and so I did my best using passive tools until I can find out what's wrong with it,

If anyone can confirm whether or not the edit looks normal, that would be helpful. - thx

stevewig · 06-27-2011, 06:09 AM

Originally posted by JohnBee

PS. I calibrated my monitor and adjusted the image(tried again).

Unfortunately, my calibration tool seems broken, and so I did my best using passive tools until I can find out what's wrong with it,

If anyone can confirm whether or not the edit looks normal, that would be helpful. - thx

JohnBee - it remains highly subjective and i don't see a way around that but I offer you my opinion only - I am not a fan of high saturation and use it only as a correction device.

The DNG looks better to me generally - better contrast and more detail.

Then I hesitate a little..... possibly the flesh tones look better on the JPEG

wildman · 06-27-2011, 07:01 AM

Just looking at the two and ignoring what they are and how they were processed the DNG is clearly more accurate to my eye.

The tonal range is smoother and more accurate. The highlights across the bridge of the nose and nose tip and the cheeks are just on the verge of being blown on the jpg. The blue jacket does not have that over-processed glow and punch that always looks so fake to my eyes.

I'm not talking about "pretty" just what I consider is visually accurate to the real world. I have no idea what you had in mind for the final "look" of these images so "accuracy" is the only standard I can use.

One thing for sure, the difference between the two has nothing to do with being RAW or JPG just a difference in how they happened to be arbitrarily processed at the time.

One man's opinion...

reeftool · 06-27-2011, 07:09 AM

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.

06-25-2011, 04:00 PM	#1
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667	Why I shoot RAW... Nothing scientific, but I wanted to do a quick comparo with the DNG/JPG output on my K-5. Granted, the JPG is likely more realistic to the conditions(lighting etc). However, its not what I would want in an image. And so I ran the DNG through my usual PP and found the results rather interesting. Anyways, here are the images; JPG DNG

06-26-2011, 06:48 PM	#10
JHD Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,406	Originally posted by JHD ...and what's up with the eyes? The DNG image suggests there's something not quite right with the child. Not so with the jpeg! Originally viewed this on my neighbors cheap monitor, which made the eyes look really bizarre. Now that I have my system running back up, the effect isn’t nearly as bad. There's no substitute for a good monitor. Last edited by JHD; 06-26-2011 at 07:37 PM. Reason: Spelling - "not" changed to "now"

06-27-2011, 07:01 AM	#14
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469	Just looking at the two and ignoring what they are and how they were processed the DNG is clearly more accurate to my eye. The tonal range is smoother and more accurate. The highlights across the bridge of the nose and nose tip and the cheeks are just on the verge of being blown on the jpg. The blue jacket does not have that over-processed glow and punch that always looks so fake to my eyes. I'm not talking about "pretty" just what I consider is visually accurate to the real world. I have no idea what you had in mind for the final "look" of these images so "accuracy" is the only standard I can use. One thing for sure, the difference between the two has nothing to do with being RAW or JPG just a difference in how they happened to be arbitrarily processed at the time. One man's opinion... Last edited by wildman; 06-27-2011 at 07:43 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Do you shoot RAW or JPEG?	Student	Photographic Technique	22	02-21-2011 09:58 PM
K20D suddenly cannot shoot RAW	geckogrin	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	8	01-22-2011 02:01 PM
Shoot RAW Format for a Beginner?	VelvetFoot	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	15	12-04-2010 09:56 AM
Why I shoot RAW...	m8o	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	7	08-19-2010 07:57 PM
Do you shoot in Raw Vs JPeg??	Softsoap	Photographic Technique	14	02-25-2010 02:52 PM

06-25-2011, 04:31 PM	#2
Colbyt Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Central Kentucky Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,418	You would need to share what if any PP you did to the dng for that to have any real meaning to the average person. I consider them both good. One is more saturated than the other. Other than that I don't see any difference.

06-25-2011, 04:35 PM	#3
Northern Soul Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: The North of England Photos: Albums Posts: 494	Originally posted by Colbyt You would need to share what if any PP you did to the dng for that to have any real meaning to the average person. I consider them both good. One is more saturated than the other. Other than that I don't see any difference. The DNG looks significantly sharper to me, even at this size. But as you say, we have no idea what PP has been done.

06-25-2011, 05:32 PM	#4
song_hm Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Pennsylvania, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 797	What I like most with the DNG is no shiny nose, cheek and forehead. What jumps out is the reduced saturation. I like the sharpness on the eyes in the DNG, but I find the hair too sharp.

06-25-2011, 05:37 PM	#5
foxhead Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 55	There is definitely more shadow detail in the DNG version. Look at the darkest areas in her hair.

06-26-2011, 05:37 AM	#6
JHD Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,406	The jpeg is much better. The PP DNG colors and contrast look washed out... and what's up with the eyes? The DNG image suggests there's something not quite right with the child. Not so with the jpeg!

06-26-2011, 06:02 AM	#7
reeftool Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Upstate New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,555	It really boils down to personal preference. You could easily make the DNG look exactly like the JPEG with a couple of tweaks in PP. That's the real difference in shooting RAW. You have much more control over the final output. I like the colors better in the JPEG also but again, that's personal preference.

06-26-2011, 06:28 AM	#8
stevewig Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 773	Originally posted by reeftool It really boils down to personal preference. You could easily make the DNG look exactly like the JPEG with a couple of tweaks in PP. That's the real difference in shooting RAW. You have much more control over the final output. I like the colors better in the JPEG also but again, that's personal preference. That is exactly correct! The author adjusted the DNG in accordance with his personal preferences and therefore there is no point or value in a third party making value judgments (or "objective" comparisons) between JPG and DNG based upon his subjective decisions. Now you could critique his judgment but that is probably not what he is requesting.

06-26-2011, 07:11 AM	#9
Colbyt Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Central Kentucky Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,418	To those who pointed out the differences, thanks. I can see those things now that you mention them, but aren't most of them related to the saturation and contrast? Both of which could be tweaked in PS from the jpg? Like jhd, I tend to have a preference for slightly more color than the second one offers. But as stevewig said that is all preference.

06-26-2011, 06:54 PM	#11
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667 Original Poster	Originally posted by JHD Originally viewed this on my neighbors cheap monitor, which made the eyes look really bizarre. Not that I have my system running back up, the effect isn’t nearly as bad. There's no substitute for a good monitor. No worries, I looked at the images on my wifes notebook and they looked horrible(washed-out, over-sharpened etc). The problem is, I'm using my old backup CRT(21" NEC) and I think it's really leading me astray in terms of gama and calibration Unfortunately, I won't be in a position to replace my trusty LCD for several more months to come. Guess its time to break-out the old Spyder and see if I can't get this old dinosaur up to spec.

06-26-2011, 09:24 PM	#12
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667 Original Poster	PS. I calibrated my monitor and adjusted the image(tried again). Unfortunately, my calibration tool seems broken, and so I did my best using passive tools until I can find out what's wrong with it, If anyone can confirm whether or not the edit looks normal, that would be helpful. - thx

06-27-2011, 06:09 AM	#13
stevewig Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 773	Originally posted by JohnBee PS. I calibrated my monitor and adjusted the image(tried again). Unfortunately, my calibration tool seems broken, and so I did my best using passive tools until I can find out what's wrong with it, If anyone can confirm whether or not the edit looks normal, that would be helpful. - thx JohnBee - it remains highly subjective and i don't see a way around that but I offer you my opinion only - I am not a fan of high saturation and use it only as a correction device. The DNG looks better to me generally - better contrast and more detail. Then I hesitate a little..... possibly the flesh tones look better on the JPEG

06-27-2011, 07:09 AM	#15
reeftool Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Upstate New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,555	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.