Raw/jpeg comparisons.

[Anewman]

All of the following JPEGS were just opened in Photoshop and resized for web, that is it. Some maybe improvable with some levels adjustments and such.

Ok All of the following RAW files were converted using Pixmantec Raw Premium With Auto EVERYTHING and then preset(OEM) starting points and curves(for contrast). They could have been improved if I used custom curves/levels but I just used the presets.

After the conversion they were resized in Photoshop and nothing else.

POC, Straight out of camera

Same exposure RAW conversion

================================================================

JPEG

Raw Conversion

================================================================

JPEG

Raw Conversion

================================================================

Jpeg(left to right= My DAD, MOM, Daughter, Son, Wife, Sister).

Raw

 

[OCSurfCity]

I never waste my time using RAW because the images needs so much Photo Shop work. The only time I use RAW is when I know it will be blwon up for commerical use or when text and other graphics will be added onto the orginial print.

I shoot most professional and youth sports and I have used RAW only a handful of times.

That PofC shot should be that reddish color. That is because the lighting inside that ride gives off a reddish hue!

 

[MarkBarbieri]

There are advantages and disadvantages to both RAW and JPEG shooting. The main difference (at least in the Canon world) is that RAW keeps 12 bits of data for each color channel while JPEG only keeps 8. Also, RAW uses a lossless compression algorythm as opposed to JPEG's lossy compression. I shoot whichever makes more sense for what I'm doing.

JPEG Advantages
1) JPEG allows you to store more shots on a memory card.
2) You can take shots more quickly because they can be written to the card faster. If you DS or DD is about to do their 2 minute performance in the school play and you want to fire off as many shots as possible, JPEG is the way to go.
3) If you store them on an external device (like an iPOD or most photo wallets), you can see your JPEGs but not your RAW files.
4) JPEG is a standard but RAW is a proprietary file format.
5) You can directly display/print your JPEG files without any extra conversion or processing.
6) Your files take up much less space.

RAW Advantages
1) You can make more adjustments to a photo without losing information. For a well exposed and white balanced shot, this is irrelevant. For a shot where you missed on the exposure or white balance, this can be very helpful.

RAW files do not have higher resolution than JPEG. If you shoot large/fine JPEG, you will almost never notice a difference in the level of detail present.

Converting RAW to JPEG, provided that you want to let the computer make all of the decisions is pretty quick and easy once you know how. Of course, if you let your software make all the decisions, have you gained much over letting the camera make those decisions? It's usually best to do a hybrid approach where you take the defaults on the shots where it makes sense and override on the others.

For me, I shoot RAW most of the time. I'm not terribly concerned about storage space or processing time. It gives me the extra opportunity to fix shots that I get wrong (which is more frequent than I'd like to admit).

I shoot JPEG when I either have an absolute need for speed or the shots aren't that important to me.

A few times I've taken RAW+JPEG. These were cases when I wanted the advantages of both. I wanted to quickly share the JPEG photos with others but still wanted the RAW versions for any good shots that could be significantly improved by adjusting the exposure or white balance.

They both use the same sensor. They both start with the same Bayer conversion algorythms. They all end up getting displayed on 8-bit per channel monitors and printers. The main difference is where you do the 12-bit to 8-bit conversion. Do you want to have the camera do the work for you or would you rather have the extra control (and work) provided by shooting RAW?

 

[Charade]

The differences are quite dramatic. Where those shot in RAW+JPG mode? If so, isn't the JPG a much more compressed and smaller (pixel dimensions) than the normal full res, least compression (just) JPG?

While the RAW certainly has much better highlights and shadow detail, the contrast is a little dull but I'm sure that could be adjusted.

 

[carolina_yankee]

I like the Pirates photo straight out of the camera much better than the RAW conversion, but the others did clean up quite nicely. If you look at Disney's own PoC photos, you''ll see they keep the reddish cast. You can always tone it done a wee bit if it seems too much, but I think that's the creative intent.

For me, I notice RAW gets the colors just a bit sharper in my XT. For the most part, I do fine with exposure in either RAW or JPEG as long as I have my exposure compensation set to my -2/3. I read somewhere that digital cameras almost always do better at that setting, and it seems true. No exposure compensation results in blown out highlights in every shot daytime shot I take at WDW. If the compensation seems to be a bit dark, I've had eqaully good look getting the highlights back in both RAW and JPEG.

Dirk

 

[0bli0]

just a few comments re: jpeg advantages...

-buffer: if you are shooting with any body which has a bigger buffer than the 300d/digital rebel, you won't fill the buffer with RAW unless you are bursting. if you do manage to fill it, you can take another picture a few seconds after.

-some of the photo wallets do display the embedded .jpg within the raw file. you can't zoom in but you can view the images.

-if you are a mac user, most camera's RAW images are supported natively by the OS, so you can print and view in most every program.

-RAW files are bigger than .jpg, but much smaller than .tif or .psd. if i'm making many changes, versions, etc. it affords me far less storage space (not that it matters as i have well over a terrabyte just for photos )

for me, the biggest luxury afforded by RAW is the dynamic headroom - it gives you at least a stop either way. this is articulated pretty well in the example above.

i shoot jpg for outdoor team sports due to the sheer volume and because i often print on the spot. i almost never process them - occasionally maybe a bit of a crop. i can still easily blow them up to poster size. if i'm shooting ice hockey, (indoor) basketball, (indoor) volleyball, or any other sport which uses indoor lighting, i generally shoot raw as white balance generally changes several times per second.

i use Apple Aperture for 99% of my shots and this includes my raw conversions. i seldom use CS2 - maybe 5% of my shots, if that. Aperture lets me find shots easily - its image management tools are fantastic.

 

[pyrxtc]

I like your SOC shots much better than your RAW conversions cuz the conversions are all off-color from true colors of the subject and look wrong. We all know that in sun that brihgt, the sky is never that blue and in the pirates photo, your fix makes it look wrong and in the third pic, the people all have a blue cast to them and the tree, it should be bright green not blue and flat and dull. The sky only looks liek that blue on certain days and not in real life ina bright sun so we shouldn't try to make it that we. Photos should be more realistic than you ahve them or else they are artwork and not photos at all cuz you played with them so much.

 

[Anewman]

Yes the POC photo typically has a red cast, As I said I used AUTO EVERYTHING in the conversion that includes white balance. That is another plus to raw that no one mentioned, you can always go back and adjust it and still end up with a first gen JPEG. If you shoot Jpeg any edit will give you a second gen JPEG, not saying it is a big deal but it is a fact.

Also I just rode the ride, and I do not remember the dog looking Reddish at all. And did they add the dog into more scenes in the update?

I never waste my time using RAW because the images needs so much Photo Shop work.

I have found it takes just as much time to browse JPEGS and select which will be printed as it takes to add a raw file to the batch queue(one click) and it is converted to jpeg as I continue to browse.

Yes the examples I posted would obviously take longer, but it would take even longer to try and salvage the JPEG.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both RAW and JPEG shooting. The main difference (at least in the Canon world) is that RAW keeps 12 bits of data for each color channel while JPEG only keeps 8. Also, RAW uses a lossless compression algorythm as opposed to JPEG's lossy compression. I shoot whichever makes more sense for what I'm doing.


RAW Advantages
1) You can make more adjustments to a photo without losing information. For a well exposed and white balanced shot, this is irrelevant. For a shot where you missed on the exposure or white balance, this can be very helpful.


They both use the same sensor. They both start with the same Bayer conversion algorythms. They all end up getting displayed on 8-bit per channel monitors and printers. The main difference is where you do the 12-bit to 8-bit conversion. Do you want to have the camera do the work for you or would you rather have the extra control (and work) provided by shooting RAW?

I understand and AGREE with you 100%, but I also look at it a bit different.

Raw is not just about saving bad exposures.
With film you judge over/under exposure based on detail that is captured by the NEGATIVE not the print.

In digital most base their opinion of over/under exposer on the in camera processed JPEG. IMO if an image is truly over/under exposed, detail would not be present in the RAW file period.

In other words(and my opinion).
It is not that RAW gives you an extra stop on each end, it is that in camera processors(digic and such) toss out a stop on each end.

The differences are quite dramatic. Where those shot in RAW+JPG mode? If so, isn't the JPG a much more compressed and smaller (pixel dimensions) than the normal full res, least compression (just) JPG?

While the RAW certainly has much better highlights and shadow detail, the contrast is a little dull but I'm sure that could be adjusted.

Yes all were shot RAW+Jpeg, but only option on my camera is FULL sized jpeg. The same jpeg you would get if you shot max rez JPEG only.

Yes I did the conversion without adjusting levels/curves which is available in Pixmantec premium.

All images(cept POC) were a shot in a series(worst result) of bracketed exposures, And I found it night and day so I posted it.

 

[JR6ooo4]

So would a good comparison be like
good film and cheap film
or
good paint and cheaper paint
maybe no difference will be noticed until you are at the top end of judging quality.

Windows now has a patch for the CR2 file type and its own raw viewer. So no more problems viewing CR2 files on my local machine.

Loss-les white balance adjustment was a dream after coming back from WDW with cloudy, rainy and sunny pictures all shot within minutes of each other. Though auto WB would work for the light in the scene I did not want two pictures in my gallery, of neighboring subjects, to be so different in appearance when posted to my galleries.

Auto everything rarely turns out well. I have seen beautiful white clouds turned blue.
I think less pleasing results compared to adding sharpening and saturation with in camera settings for jpegs.


Mikeeee