A real test of RAW V JPEG... You decide.

Whilst lazing away at Tangalooma over the weekend, many thoughts and ideas
occurred to me. Not the least being that the only images of mine anyone has
pinched, are the very ones I used to prevent theft! When I post good ones,
few detractors even bothers to pass comment on them!

Anyway...
I decided to take the opportunity to produce some comparative examples to
show what a JPEG file compared to a Camera RAW file really looks like when
the camera is setup for JPEG capture and the files are processed to extract
the best from each format. Read that as the best I can produce at this time.
Maybe others can do it better.

There are some times when a RAW capture will yield that tiny bit extra
detail and perhaps save an otherwise lost image. Shooting backlit, black and
white Pelicans in the glaring sun of an Australian winter - over shallow
water, is challenging enough. To then attempt to "match" a JPEG to a
correctly developed RAW file might seem to some, an impossible task.

Certainly my examples are substantially different to those exhibited by
Scott W in his attempt to show everyone how "bad" JPEG capture is. To me
it's another weapon in the war against time consuming post shoot processing.
450 clicks at Saturday's wedding equates to a saving of nearly half an hour
in processing when I use JPEG for all but the bridal portraits.

To further enhance this thread, anyone who wants the Siamese files of JPEG
and RAW for their own exploration, only needs to ask.

You be the judge, eh? http://www.ryadia.com/jpeg-V-raw.htm

Douglas.

On Apr 3, 4:59 am, "\(The real\) Douglas"
wrote:
Whilst lazing away at Tangalooma over the weekend, many thoughts and ideas
occurred to me. Not the least being that the only images of mine anyone has
pinched, are the very ones I used to prevent theft! When I post good ones,
few detractors even bothers to pass comment on them!

Anyway...
I decided to take the opportunity to produce some comparative examples to
show what a JPEG file compared to a Camera RAW file really looks like when
the camera is setup for JPEG capture and the files are processed to extract
the best from each format. Read that as the best I can produce at this time.
Maybe others can do it better.

There are some times when a RAW capture will yield that tiny bit extra
detail and perhaps save an otherwise lost image. Shooting backlit, black and
white Pelicans in the glaring sun of an Australian winter - over shallow
water, is challenging enough. To then attempt to "match" a JPEG to a
correctly developed RAW file might seem to some, an impossible task.

Certainly my examples are substantially different to those exhibited by
Scott W in his attempt to show everyone how "bad" JPEG capture is. To me
it's another weapon in the war against time consuming post shoot processing.
450 clicks at Saturday's wedding equates to a saving of nearly half an hour
in processing when I use JPEG for all but the bridal portraits.

To further enhance this thread, anyone who wants the Siamese files of JPEG
and RAW for their own exploration, only needs to ask.

You be the judge, eh?http://www.ryadia.com/jpeg-V-raw.htm

Douglas.

Douglas,
Nice shot. I can't tell the difference on my monitor and wont
pretend to say there is a difference. For as long as the final image
is sharp and there is detail in both high lights and shadows, who
gives a frick if it is JPEG or RAW? What matters is what the client
will like.
Now that being said, only one small thing I would critized was
there is no catch light in the eye. Other than that a nice shot. There
does seem to be a color shift, slight, between the first and second
image. Again it might just be my monitor. For some reason a catch
light brings "life" to the image.
You and I have "bumped heads" on some things and that's okay. Just
don't out and out dismiss my opinion as I haven't dismissed yours.
Everyone has the right to their opinions and everyone has the right to
disagree.

Keep shooting Douglas. All the great masters of photography shot
everyday. Weither they had a paying client or not.


Draco


Getting even isn't good enough.


Being better does.

what does this have to do with 35mm equipment? are you aware there are
diital newsgroups to post this kind of material in?

In article ,
"\(The real\) Douglas" wrote:

Whilst lazing away at Tangalooma over the weekend, many thoughts and ideas
occurred to me. Not the least being that the only images of mine anyone has
pinched, are the very ones I used to prevent theft! When I post good ones,
few detractors even bothers to pass comment on them!

Anyway...
I decided to take the opportunity to produce some comparative examples to
show what a JPEG file compared to a Camera RAW file really looks like when
the camera is setup for JPEG capture and the files are processed to extract
the best from each format. Read that as the best I can produce at this time.
Maybe others can do it better.

There are some times when a RAW capture will yield that tiny bit extra
detail and perhaps save an otherwise lost image. Shooting backlit, black and
white Pelicans in the glaring sun of an Australian winter - over shallow
water, is challenging enough. To then attempt to "match" a JPEG to a
correctly developed RAW file might seem to some, an impossible task.

Certainly my examples are substantially different to those exhibited by
Scott W in his attempt to show everyone how "bad" JPEG capture is. To me
it's another weapon in the war against time consuming post shoot processing.
450 clicks at Saturday's wedding equates to a saving of nearly half an hour
in processing when I use JPEG for all but the bridal portraits.

To further enhance this thread, anyone who wants the Siamese files of JPEG
and RAW for their own exploration, only needs to ask.

You be the judge, eh? http://www.ryadia.com/jpeg-V-raw.htm

Douglas.


More power to ya.....There are MANY advantages to RAW....but if you dont
want to use it, and you are skilled enough to get it right in the camera
then go for it....JPEG will be fine for 99.9% of your shots....Where RAW
is amazing is when you make changes WITHOUT degrading the images....For
example....wierd light situations where the white balance may be tough
to get right...RAW allows you to shoot it and do your white balance on
your monitor where you can more accurately judge it and get it perfect.
B&W conversions...custom curves, contrast adjustments...etc...some
things are IMPOSSIBLE to get perfect in the camera, for those jobs RAW
is amazing....if you are not making any adjustments, then why use
it....but having the ability makes it nice....Also the theory is the RAW
conversion done in your computer will be better than the one done in
your camera because its a more powerful processor....

JR

On Apr 3, 3:59 am, "\(The real\) Douglas"
wrote:

Whilst lazing away at Tangalooma over the weekend, many thoughts and ideas
occurred to me.

You should go there more often.

On Apr 3, 3:59 am, "\(The real\) Douglas"
wrote:
To further enhance this thread, anyone who wants the Siamese files of JPEG
and RAW for their own exploration, only needs to ask.

Please send me the RAW file.

On Apr 3, 5:28 am, "joe mama" wrote:
what does this have to do with 35mm equipment? are you aware there are
diital newsgroups to post this kind of material in?

You do know that you don't have to reply to the last post in the
thread don't you?
You can reply directly to the OP. Draco did not originate this
thread so why are you telling him there are other newsgroups? Why are
you not telling Douglas this?

Scott

On Apr 3, 2:59 am, "\(The real\) Douglas"
wrote:
Whilst lazing away at Tangalooma over the weekend, many thoughts and ideas
occurred to me. Not the least being that the only images of mine anyone has
pinched, are the very ones I used to prevent theft! When I post good ones,
few detractors even bothers to pass comment on them!

Anyway...
I decided to take the opportunity to produce some comparative examples to
show what a JPEG file compared to a Camera RAW file really looks like when
the camera is setup for JPEG capture and the files are processed to extract
the best from each format. Read that as the best I can produce at this time.
Maybe others can do it better.

There are some times when a RAW capture will yield that tiny bit extra
detail and perhaps save an otherwise lost image. Shooting backlit, black and
white Pelicans in the glaring sun of an Australian winter - over shallow
water, is challenging enough. To then attempt to "match" a JPEG to a
correctly developed RAW file might seem to some, an impossible task.

Certainly my examples are substantially different to those exhibited by
Scott W in his attempt to show everyone how "bad" JPEG capture is. To me
it's another weapon in the war against time consuming post shoot processing.
450 clicks at Saturday's wedding equates to a saving of nearly half an hour
in processing when I use JPEG for all but the bridal portraits.

To further enhance this thread, anyone who wants the Siamese files of JPEG
and RAW for their own exploration, only needs to ask.

You be the judge, eh?http://www.ryadia.com/jpeg-V-raw.htm

Douglas.

The difference is pretty obvious on my monitor.

Top photo: more highlight and shadow detail. Beak is lighter overall
with a finder gradation in the pink color. The water appears more
transparent and "sparkle-y". More detail in the eye although dark.

Bottom photo: detail lost in shadows in dark feather area. More
contrast overall. More color saturation. Water appears "muddy" when
compared to top image. Less detail in the eye - eye itself is darker.

But as you point out, these differences may or may not show up in a
print. I would contend that they would, if printed properly. But to
your other point: the amount of storage available may dictate the use
of JPG for your original files. I typically shoot in RAW + JPG (basic,
small) to have files for quick previewing. If I like the shots, then I
open up the RAW file for fine tuning.

YMMV

Karl Winkler
http://www.karlwinkler.com

On Apr 3, 1:03 pm, "Scott W" wrote:
On Apr 3, 5:28 am, "joe mama" wrote:

what does this have to do with 35mm equipment? are you aware there are
diital newsgroups to post this kind of material in?

You do know that you don't have to reply to the last post in the
thread don't you?
You can reply directly to the OP. Draco did not originate this
thread so why are you telling him there are other newsgroups? Why are
you not telling Douglas this?

Scott

Scott,
I think Joe was responding to Douglas. His post just fell in
under mine. If it was to be pointed at me then ID it that way.
Joe,
The Canon 20D uses the same lenses that any Canon EOS film camera
uses. I do understand your objections in folks asking questions and
posting images that are in nature, digital. If you have a question on
the type of lens Douglas used or even the ISO and settings of the
camera when he took the image, that would go further than the constant
"...what does this have to do with 35mm equipment? are you aware there
are diital newsgroups to post this kind of material in?..." I am quite
sure that we are all aware that this is an equipment NG. Not being
able to share information on how an image is captured, film or
digital, does not help anyone. Being able to say, 'this was capture
with a 300mm f/4 lens at 400 ISO at 250s-f/5.6 - what you all think'
doesn't matter if it was digital or analog(film). Does it?
If you want nothing but equipment talk then fine. Boring but, fine.
No more talk about images, film types, developing, printing, the way
light falls to bring out highlights. Just boring facts on equipment.


Is that what you really want? How about we let all the folks who post
here decide?


Draco



Getting even isn't good enough.


Doing better does.

(The real) Douglas wrote:

WTF man? That's now *9* douglas's in my plonk file over just a couple
months.