[wsteffey]

This afternoon I photographed a passion flower first in JPEG, then a second time in RAW, using my K100d with my Sigma 70-300 APO DG. This evening I processed both in Elements 9.0.

The JPEG required only a little sharpening, using the High Pass method. Nothing else was done.

On the RAW I applied a little clarity, a little vibrance, and a little sharpening. Nothing else was done.

I then converted the RAW image to JPEG and pasted it onto the JPEG image. I then erased the right side of the JPEG layer, allowing the RAW layer to show through. I then flattened the layers and saved for web. The left side of the posted image is the portion shot as a JPEG, the right side is the portion shot as RAW and converted to JPEG. The seam is vertical, right through the center of the flower. For some reason, the seam shows up on the bottom as a missing portion of a brown stem.

If my editing protocol has a fault will someone please let me know and I'll correct it and try again. In the meantime, I might shoot fewer RAW images.

Attached Images

 

[Deimos]

Ok but lets say you had underexposed your jpeg shot...

[GabrielFFontes]

Here is my RAW vs JPEG test




http://i48.tinypic.com/2ln8e89.jpg
Click on the link to see the big version


You can REALLY see how RAW handles detail better

[alohadave]

If my editing protocol has a fault will someone please let me know and I'll correct it and try again. In the meantime, I might shoot fewer RAW images.

Shoot how you like, you don't need to explain to anyone why you use either one.

[Ferdinand]

I thought in a photography forum it is normal to explain about such things. I like the post.

[SpecialK]

Easy shots won't show much difference. It's the tougher shots that will benefit from RAW. Also the processing software usually has much more control. If you are "only sharpening, nothing else", you're not really doing anything to appreciate the difference or capabilities.

[John Poirier]

This afternoon I photographed a passion flower first in JPEG, then a second time in RAW, using my K100d with my Sigma 70-300 APO DG. This evening I processed both in Elements 9.0.

The JPEG required only a little sharpening, using the High Pass method. Nothing else was done.

On the RAW I applied a little clarity, a little vibrance, and a little sharpening. Nothing else was done.

I then converted the RAW image to JPEG and pasted it onto the JPEG image. I then erased the right side of the JPEG layer, allowing the RAW layer to show through. I then flattened the layers and saved for web. The left side of the posted image is the portion shot as a JPEG, the right side is tAmon n shot as RAW and converted to JPEG. The seam is vertical, right through the center of the flower. For some reason, the seam shows up on the bottom as a missing portion of a brown stem.

If my editing protocol has a fault will someone please let me know and I'll correct it and try again. In the meantime, I might shoot fewer RAW images.

It's nice that you're making the effort, but all you've demonstrated is that it is rather easy to downgrade a RAW file to match the character of an in-camera JPEG.

I fail to see what that has to do with uitilizing the extra data in RAW images to produce results better than JPEG, which is why most people with substantial experience in digital imaging choose to shoot RAW.

If your goal was to process a RAW file to look like a JPEG, your protocol was correct. If your overall goal in photography is to produce superior images under widely varied conditions, you have missed the point.

It is very simple. RAW files carry more data and can be interpreted more flexibly than JPEG. That's a fact. An expert working with the best available image editing software will produce better images from RAW files than from JPEG. That's a fact too.

Your belief that editing a RAW file in a crippled program such as Elements constitutes a meaningful comparison demonstrates the limits of your knowledge. I commend you for testing things for yourself, and having the guts to offer the results for public discussion, but you have a lot to learn. Buy or borrow a good Photoshop book and see what it is really all about.

If you're happy working with JPEGs, that's fine. Your flower shot is decent. Carry on.

However, speaking as someone who has done digital imaging professionally for 20 years, I see absolutely no point in shooting JPEG when I can shoot RAW. JPEG is a dead end. RAW is one of several areas where you can bring out quaities in images that make the difference between mediocrity and excellence. Excellence takes extra time, effort and knowledge, as does working with RAW files.

I generally avoid RAW/JPEG discussions as I view them as pointless. However, I dislike seeing the blind leading the blind. This one caught my eye, so there you go.

Cheers

John

[amoringello]

Also, scaling down to a tiny web-sized image removes a lot of detail. Unless it is a 100% crop, it is hardly worth comparing render quality when you remove 75% of the image data.

Anyway, if you can get the exposure right and within the limits of your camera you don't need to shoot RAW. You're going to convert to JPEG eventually anyway so what's the point?
But if your exposure is at its limits or if you're doing a lot of processing, those extra bits in the data are going to help a lot.

Although, I might suggest dropping JPEG settings for contrast and sharpening down a tad to give yourself more room for personal adjustments. Unless of course you like the results the camera gives you.

Is up to your personal preference.
The problem with personal preference is similar to opinions...... they are like arse-holes.
Everyone's got one, and everyone thinks their's don't stink. :-)


If the method you'r using doesn't work, switch.
No one is holding your feet to the fire to stay with the same method your whole life... how boring would that be?!?!? :-) :-)

[wsteffey]

Raw vs. JPEG is a personal thing, and I rarely even discuss the matter with experienced photographers. Only when I see "experts" telling beginners they must use RAW to get good photos do I get involved. The proper approach is to advise beginners who appear to have the interest, camera, software and ability to process RAW to experiment and see if they like the results. If one suspects that RAW is a little too much for a particular beginner then back off for a while. The vast majority of amateurs, and many professionals, achieve very good results with JPEG. Don't scare new photographers by making it more complicated than necessary.

[Pablom]

The Jpegs from the camera are processes RAW files, if you can't do a better job with your software than your camera does then let the camera do the job

[Deimos]

Raw vs. JPEG is a personal thing, and I rarely even discuss the matter with experienced photographers. Only when I see "experts" telling beginners they must use RAW to get good photos do I get involved. The proper approach is to advise beginners who appear to have the interest, camera, software and ability to process RAW to experiment and see if they like the results. If one suspects that RAW is a little too much for a particular beginner then back off for a while. The vast majority of amateurs, and many professionals, achieve very good results with JPEG. Don't scare new photographers by making it more complicated than necessary.

When I started RAW would have been too much for me. I didnt even make minor edits to jpeg at first because I didnt even understand aperture/shutter and ISO at that point.

Now however, I couldnt imagine (personally) shooting only jpeg except for certain casual (or well planned) scenarios because I like the extra room in the files and more so I like the ability to add "my vision" to a shot insofar as my abilities allow.

Aside from that I find RAW to be insurance because you have so much room to correct under/over exposure etc, from a black useless photo to properly exposed (with a K-5). From what I now understand after the initial jpeg save, any further resaves to the file (say after an edit) degrade the image leaving artifacts and killing sharpness.

The analogy I like to use for RAW/jpeg is this: RAW is the ingredients to bake 100 cakes, Jpeg is a baked cake.

So you better have a good recipe and cooking skills to ensure you get that cake right. When I started I messed up many jpegs that I couldnt reshoot. For the RAW user, you can always toss the burnt one and cook another, or make a whole batch of new flavors But at the end of the day to each their own.

Here is an example of what I do with RAW that I couldnt do with jpeg:

[JHD]

Although the video below is a basic intro to LR3, it illustrates the power and possiblity of raw vs inferiority of jpegs.

You Tube

You Tube

[clutch]

Early on, I shot mostly jpeg's because RAW just seemed like it was taking up more space on memory cards and hard drives. At some point I read about the benefits of RAW so I started shooting in it more, even though the software I was using didn't seem to take advantage of it. Then I got Lightroom. When I realized what I could do with it to improve everything in my collection, I really regretted shooting so much of my early work in JPEG. I have a lot of merely decent JPEGs that could've been excellent had I shot them in RAW and post-processed them in LR. RAW makes your collection more future-proof.

Another analogy - RAW is like having all of the original master recordings for each individual instrument in a song. A JPEG is a compressed MP3 of the final mix. Not only is the final product lower quality, but there are significant limits to what you can do to manipulate it into something different or better.

[pingflood]

The analogy I like to use for RAW/jpeg is this: RAW is the ingredients to bake 100 cakes, Jpeg is a baked cake.

Why not use an analogy from photography? Jpeg is like shooting slides, raw is like shooting negatives.

Or to paraphrase Ansel Adams, the raw is the score and the final image is the performance.

[Lowell Goudge]

Early on, I shot mostly jpeg's because RAW just seemed like it was taking up more space on memory cards and hard drives. At some point I read about the benefits of RAW so I started shooting in it more, even though the software I was using didn't seem to take advantage of it. Then I got Lightroom. When I realized what I could do with it to improve everything in my collection, I really regretted shooting so much of my early work in JPEG. I have a lot of merely decent JPEGs that could've been excellent had I shot them in RAW and post-processed them in LR. RAW makes your collection more future-proof.

Another analogy - RAW is like having all of the original master recordings for each individual instrument in a song. A JPEG is a compressed MP3 of the final mix. Not only is the final product lower quality, but there are significant limits to what you can do to manipulate it into something different or better.

This is the best analogy I have seen so far, you can modify the overall result but you can't tchange the different level of the flutes to violins

Why not use an analogy from photography? Jpeg is like shooting slides, raw is like shooting negatives.

Or to paraphrase Ansel Adams, the raw is the score and the final image is the performance.

again close but I shot slides and printed cibachrome. Using a film analogy is not good emu because too much gets done per exposure including WB and color temperature overall because each film is s different