RAW versus JPEG

[richardkm]

There's a lot of discussion over whether to record images in raw or jpeg, well here are two images for comparison. Okay, okay, I know they're not wildlife, but the extremes of contrast on the dog's coat is good for comparison.

Firstly the jpeg:



now the raw:



Apart for resizing, I've done nothing to these images, but look at the extra detail in the blacks, especially around the eyes on the raw image. Decide for yourself, I know which I prefer to use.

[nightshade]

Hi Richard I was not sure is this a reply to this thread
http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/fo...highlight=jpeg

[matt_xyz]

to an extent I am a RAW cynic in that I think the benefits are minimal. That said, I do now acknowledge there are benefits and I do now shoot entirely in RAW.

This debate will run and run. As I say, RAW does provide benefits but in my opinion they're not as great as some would have you believe.

Matt

[rolf]

That's a very noticable difference Richard, didn't know it would be that clear cut, will have to do some comparisons myself with the E-500, .

[glsammy]

If I saw that much difference in my shots I'd always shoot in Raw. I haven't so I don't! My own test show minimal differences, and only at maximum magnification, which is hardly ever used.

[Roy C]

I shoot RAW only and have done for a while - I am not good enough to get the exposure spot on every time so RAW gives me a bit of latitute. Also, for Landscapes I find blending a couple of exposures of the same image invaluable. Adjustments in RAW and then 16 bit Tiffs are not destructive but trying to edit a jpeg is very dodgy as far as I am concerned.

[ollyk]

Originally Posted by Roy C

I shoot RAW only and have done for a while - I am not good enough to get the exposure spot on every time so RAW gives me a bit of latitute. Also, for Landscapes I find blending a couple of exposures of the same image invaluable. Adjustments in RAW and then 16 bit Tiffs are not destructive but trying to edit a jpeg is very dodgy as far as I am concerned.

I am new to the world of RAW, as the 20 second between shots of my old P&S was rather off putting to say the least! I have been shooting RAW & JPEG on my 350D and noticed the hystograms are quite different for identical images! I am sure contrast is compressed in JPEG which seems to result in a loss of detail in shadow!

So I am slowly becoming a RAW convert - just gotta learn how to manage the files now!

[paulthomas]

My view is that apart easy white balance correction, you're only going to get a noticable benefit in shooting RAW if your camera has a rubbish JPEG engine. I've shot using a RAW+JPEG recording mode and haven't found the "developed" RAW files to be any better than the JPEGs even when pixel peeping. I have a sneeking suspicion that there's this old film-based mindset which somehow needs a "magic" extra step to create a photograph. It takes all sorts I suppose

[Roy C]

Originally Posted by paulthomas

I have a sneeking suspicion that there's this old film-based mindset which somehow needs a "magic" extra step to create a photograph. It takes all sorts I suppose

Wrong in my case as I only started photography two years ago when I retired and have only used digital.. I have the the Canon 350D and 30D Cameras maybe you are right and they are not very good at processing jpegs as you say.
Although I only shoot in RAW I would never knock anyone who prefers Jpegs only - best of luck to you all which ever method you use. As I stated in my previous post I do not consider myself a good enough photographer to shoot jpeg only. You are obviously very good and can get away it, well done you. Maybe I will become that good one day.

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by Roy C

I do not consider myself a good enough photographer to shoot jpeg only. You are obviously very good and can get away it, well done you. Maybe I will become that good one day.

I think the point that Graham and I made in previous threads on this topic (there have been at least two!) is that 95% of the adjustments that can be made in RAW can also be made in JPEG (with the obvious exception of white balance). Images taken in JPEG fine can have levels adjusted to a very similar degree as RAW images and differences between the two will often be minimal (assuming you can even spot the difference, I often can't) even when viewed at 100%.

In my experience it's normally the increase in noise which limits the extent to which a badly underexposed RAW or JPEG image can be rescued rather than any lack of detail in the JPEG shadows.

Matt