RAW & best jpg appear identical on Sony DSC-R1

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Chris Malcolm, Apr 13, 2007.

  1. I see no reason in principle why a high quality jpg should not be as
    good as a RAW file, but the conventional wisdom seems to be that RAW
    files have the ultimate edge on fine detail. So having been impressed
    by the image quality of the highest resolution jpg images from my Sony
    DSC-R1 I was prepared to be even more impressed by the quality from
    those huge RAW files.

    Not being able to see any significant difference between the too, I
    blamed handshake, poor focus, etc.. I ended up taking a photograph of
    a brick wall with very carefully adjusted focus from a solid tripod
    with delayed shutter release. And I still couldn't see any significant
    difference. The jpg files by the way seem to vary between 3 and
    4.9Mbytes in size.

    So if I can't see any significant difference at any magnification
    between these large jpgs and the much larger RAW files, is there any
    advantage to be gained from RAW files, for this camera, of course?

    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, Apr 13, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Chris Malcolm

    cgiorgio Guest

    >
    > So if I can't see any significant difference at any magnification
    > between these large jpgs and the much larger RAW files, is there any
    > advantage to be gained from RAW files, for this camera, of course?
    >
    > Chris Malcolm
    >

    A RAW file is not really a displayable picture, it is data fed to a RAW -
    converter program on your PC. If you use it with default settings, its
    results are probably very similar to the results of in-camera processing. A
    RAW converter program may offer you a lot more customizable parameters than
    what you can adjust on your camera, like noise reduction algorithms,
    individual color channel curves etc. It gives you an advantage in difficult
    situations like high contrast or low light. To tweak the parameters however
    also takes time, but it may allow to optimize a picture taken under
    difficult conditions.
    cgiorgio, Apr 13, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Chris Malcolm

    nospam Guest

    In article <>,
    Chris Malcolm <> wrote:

    > I see no reason in principle why a high quality jpg should not be as
    > good as a RAW file, but the conventional wisdom seems to be that RAW
    > files have the ultimate edge on fine detail. So having been impressed
    > by the image quality of the highest resolution jpg images from my Sony
    > DSC-R1 I was prepared to be even more impressed by the quality from
    > those huge RAW files.
    >
    > Not being able to see any significant difference between the too, I
    > blamed handshake, poor focus, etc.. I ended up taking a photograph of
    > a brick wall with very carefully adjusted focus from a solid tripod
    > with delayed shutter release. And I still couldn't see any significant
    > difference. The jpg files by the way seem to vary between 3 and
    > 4.9Mbytes in size.
    >
    > So if I can't see any significant difference at any magnification
    > between these large jpgs and the much larger RAW files, is there any
    > advantage to be gained from RAW files, for this camera, of course?


    the difference becomes apparent when you start making multiple
    adjustments to the image. for instance, in raw, you can white balance
    after you shoot the picture, including fixing it if you neglected to
    set it appropriately. adjusting levels and curves is also much better
    in raw than with jpeg.

    if all you do is convert the raw and compare, there will be virtually
    no difference at all.
    nospam, Apr 13, 2007
    #3
  4. Chris Malcolm wrote:
    > I see no reason in principle why a high quality jpg should not be as
    > good as a RAW file, but the conventional wisdom seems to be that RAW
    > files have the ultimate edge on fine detail. So having been impressed
    > by the image quality of the highest resolution jpg images from my Sony
    > DSC-R1 I was prepared to be even more impressed by the quality from
    > those huge RAW files.
    >
    > Not being able to see any significant difference between the too, I
    > blamed handshake, poor focus, etc.. I ended up taking a photograph of
    > a brick wall with very carefully adjusted focus from a solid tripod
    > with delayed shutter release. And I still couldn't see any significant
    > difference. The jpg files by the way seem to vary between 3 and
    > 4.9Mbytes in size.



    >
    > So if I can't see any significant difference at any magnification
    > between these large jpgs and the much larger RAW files, is there any
    > advantage to be gained from RAW files, for this camera, of course?
    >
    > Chris Malcolm


    Read Ken Rockwell's views - http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
    Dennis Pogson, Apr 13, 2007
    #4
  5. Chris Malcolm wrote:

    >
    > So if I can't see any significant difference at any magnification
    > between these large jpgs and the much larger RAW files, is there any
    > advantage to be gained from RAW files, for this camera, of course?


    The difference is not in resolution. The difference, for many cameras, is
    in how the bits are distributed. **IF** the JPEG that the camera
    saves is exactly the one you actually want, then using raw will
    give you the same picture, exactly, as jpeg (with enough bits in the
    jpeg, of course.) BUT if you need to adjust things like color balance
    or contrast or "sharpness" then having the raw available may
    give you a better final product than manipulating even the very best
    possible jpeg. In particular ... and I have actually seen this
    recently with pictures from my Canon 30D ... after manipulation the
    jpeg may produce banding in the final print, and using raw, with
    most of the manipulations done in the raw->jpeg conversion, or at
    least converting raw to 16 bit Photoshop and then converting that
    to 8 bits just before storing as a jpeg, there is no banding. On my
    tests the results are clearly different, and the raw is better, but only
    because of the banding.

    Doug McDonald
    Doug McDonald, Apr 13, 2007
    #5
  6. Chris Malcolm

    gpaleo Guest

    Ï "Chris Malcolm" <> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
    news:...
    >
    > I see no reason in principle why a high quality jpg should not be as
    > good as a RAW file,

    ........................................................
    > Chris Malcolm



    JPG is a LOSSY compression algorithm (in detail AND color bit depth) which
    represents the actual captured data after considerable manipulation
    (regardless if its fast or very close to the original data).
    In other words, jpg can NEVER be as good as RAW, no matter what, being, by
    DEFINITION, a subset of the captured data. Check out the standard and the
    math/manipulations involved.
    gpaleo, Apr 13, 2007
    #6
  7. Chris Malcolm

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > I see no reason in principle why a high quality jpg should not be as
    > good as a RAW file, but the conventional wisdom seems to be that RAW
    > files have the ultimate edge on fine detail. So having been impressed
    > by the image quality of the highest resolution jpg images from my Sony
    > DSC-R1 I was prepared to be even more impressed by the quality from
    > those huge RAW files.
    >
    > Not being able to see any significant difference between the too, I
    > blamed handshake, poor focus, etc.. I ended up taking a photograph of
    > a brick wall with very carefully adjusted focus from a solid tripod
    > with delayed shutter release. And I still couldn't see any significant
    > difference. The jpg files by the way seem to vary between 3 and
    > 4.9Mbytes in size.
    >
    > So if I can't see any significant difference at any magnification
    > between these large jpgs and the much larger RAW files, is there any
    > advantage to be gained from RAW files, for this camera, of course?


    Actually JPEG files of the R1 suck terribly. On the one hand, they do
    not have as much resolution as a properly processed RAW files from the
    R1. Do a test, shooting RAW+JPEG. Then there is the issue of the white
    balance, which most of the time is off in R1 JPEG files, and lastly you
    have a better control over exposure with RAW files.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330, E400 and E500 forum at
    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
    Alfred Molon, Apr 13, 2007
    #7
  8. Chris Malcolm

    AustinMN Guest

    On Apr 13, 10:16 am, "Chris Malcolm" <> wrote:
    > I see no reason in principle why a high quality jpg should not be as
    > good as a RAW file, but the conventional wisdom seems to be that RAW
    > files have the ultimate edge on fine detail. So having been impressed
    > by the image quality of the highest resolution jpg images from my Sony
    > DSC-R1 I was prepared to be even more impressed by the quality from
    > those huge RAW files.
    >
    > Not being able to see any significant difference between the too, I
    > blamed handshake, poor focus, etc.. I ended up taking a photograph of
    > a brick wall with very carefully adjusted focus from a solid tripod
    > with delayed shutter release. And I still couldn't see any significant
    > difference. The jpg files by the way seem to vary between 3 and
    > 4.9Mbytes in size.
    >
    > So if I can't see any significant difference at any magnification
    > between these large jpgs and the much larger RAW files, is there any
    > advantage to be gained from RAW files, for this camera, of course?


    The difference is primarily in how much you can manipulate the image.
    Try the comparison again, but increase the brightness and compare a
    shadow area. Then darken the image and compare a highlight area. You
    *should* get more depth in the RAW image in both cases.

    Austin
    AustinMN, Apr 13, 2007
    #8
  9. On 13 Apr, 17:21, "gpaleo" <> wrote:
    > Ï "Chris Malcolm" <> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìánews:...
    >
    > > I see no reason in principle why a high quality jpg should not be as
    > > good as a RAW file,

    >
    > .......................................................
    >
    > > Chris Malcolm

    >
    > JPG is a LOSSY compression algorithm (in detail AND color bit depth) which
    > represents the actual captured data after considerable manipulation
    > (regardless if its fast or very close to the original data).
    > In other words, jpg can NEVER be as good as RAW, no matter what, being, by
    > DEFINITION, a subset of the captured data. Check out the standard and the
    > math/manipulations involved.


    I'm familiar with the spec and processing. The point you seem to miss
    is that it is possible to control the amount of loss, and at the
    highest level it can be so small as to imperceptible. The question
    simply is whether the R1's jpegs are that good. It's am empirical
    question.

    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, Apr 14, 2007
    #9
  10. On 13 Apr, 21:48, "AustinMN" <> wrote:
    > On Apr 13, 10:16 am, "Chris Malcolm" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > I see no reason in principle why a high quality jpg should not be as
    > > good as a RAW file, but the conventional wisdom seems to be that RAW
    > > files have the ultimate edge on fine detail. So having been impressed
    > > by the image quality of the highest resolution jpg images from my Sony
    > > DSC-R1 I was prepared to be even more impressed by the quality from
    > > those huge RAW files.

    >
    > > Not being able to see any significant difference between the too, I
    > > blamed handshake, poor focus, etc.. I ended up taking a photograph of
    > > a brick wall with very carefully adjusted focus from a solid tripod
    > > with delayed shutter release. And I still couldn't see any significant
    > > difference. The jpg files by the way seem to vary between 3 and
    > > 4.9Mbytes in size.

    >
    > > So if I can't see any significant difference at any magnification
    > > between these large jpgs and the much larger RAW files, is there any
    > > advantage to be gained from RAW files, for this camera, of course?

    >
    > The difference is primarily in how much you can manipulate the image.
    > Try the comparison again, but increase the brightness and compare a
    > shadow area. Then darken the image and compare a highlight area. You
    > *should* get more depth in the RAW image in both cases.


    That's the next thing I'll try, also subjects with difficult lighting.
    But I'll wait unyil opportunities turn up. I'm now sufficiently
    impressed with the jpg quality that I won't bother with RAW files
    except to experiment with the odd difficult case that turns up.

    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, Apr 14, 2007
    #10
  11. On 13 Apr, 21:06, Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > says...
    >
    >
    >
    > > I see no reason in principle why a high quality jpg should not be as
    > > good as a RAW file, but the conventional wisdom seems to be that RAW
    > > files have the ultimate edge on fine detail. So having been impressed
    > > by the image quality of the highest resolution jpg images from my Sony
    > > DSC-R1 I was prepared to be even more impressed by the quality from
    > > those huge RAW files.

    >
    > > Not being able to see any significant difference between the too, I
    > > blamed handshake, poor focus, etc.. I ended up taking a photograph of
    > > a brick wall with very carefully adjusted focus from a solid tripod
    > > with delayed shutter release. And I still couldn't see any significant
    > > difference. The jpg files by the way seem to vary between 3 and
    > > 4.9Mbytes in size.

    >
    > > So if I can't see any significant difference at any magnification
    > > between these large jpgs and the much larger RAW files, is there any
    > > advantage to be gained from RAW files, for this camera, of course?

    >
    > Actually JPEG files of the R1 suck terribly. On the one hand, they do
    > not have as much resolution as a properly processed RAW files from the
    > R1. Do a test, shooting RAW+JPEG.


    I did several careful tests involving a variety of subject matter. I
    could detect occasional very small differences down at the pixel
    level, but only by looking very carefully at very high magnifications.

    > Then there is the issue of the white
    > balance, which most of the time is off in R1 JPEG files,


    I can only speak from experience of my own R1, which has impressed me
    with how good its natural white balance is. I viewed the RAW files
    using Sony's own RAW file processor, and that gave identical colour
    balance to the jpgs from the camera. Each of my test subjects did
    contain at least one small area of pure white to test the white
    balance, and I could find nothing to criticise in it. However, all
    tests were out of doors at midday, nothing difficult like artificial
    light or low sun. I compared the images by arranging equal sized high
    magnifications of the same portions of the image, so that I could
    click instantly back and forth between the two images to see if
    anything moved. which is a very sensitive test.

    >and lastly you
    > have a better control over exposure with RAW files.


    I'm quite prepared to accept that if I want to do more than a little
    post processing that it would be better to start with a RAW file. My
    question concerned detail resolution.

    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, Apr 14, 2007
    #11
  12. Chris Malcolm

    Mike Russell Guest

    "Chris Malcolm" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I see no reason in principle why a high quality jpg should not be as
    > good as a RAW file, but the conventional wisdom seems to be that RAW
    > files have the ultimate edge on fine detail. So having been impressed
    > by the image quality of the highest resolution jpg images from my Sony
    > DSC-R1 I was prepared to be even more impressed by the quality from
    > those huge RAW files.
    >
    > Not being able to see any significant difference between the too, I
    > blamed handshake, poor focus, etc.. I ended up taking a photograph of
    > a brick wall with very carefully adjusted focus from a solid tripod
    > with delayed shutter release. And I still couldn't see any significant
    > difference. The jpg files by the way seem to vary between 3 and
    > 4.9Mbytes in size.
    >
    > So if I can't see any significant difference at any magnification
    > between these large jpgs and the much larger RAW files, is there any
    > advantage to be gained from RAW files, for this camera, of course?


    Shhh - careful. The emperor does not take kindly to having his nudity
    pointed out.

    Those who want to make comments about raw will kindly confine themselves to
    theoretical discussions of bit depth, posterization, histograms, data loss,
    and the ability of certain gifted people to see the "obvious" advantage of
    raw processing for well-exposed originals. The use of actual image examples
    to show this makes any difference is strictly forbidden.
    --
    Mike Russell
    www.curvemeister.com/forum/
    Mike Russell, Apr 14, 2007
    #12
  13. Chris Malcolm

    acl Guest

    On Apr 14, 5:04 am, "Mike Russell" <-
    MOVE> wrote:
    > "Chris Malcolm" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    >
    >
    > >I see no reason in principle why a high quality jpg should not be as
    > > good as a RAW file, but the conventional wisdom seems to be that RAW
    > > files have the ultimate edge on fine detail. So having been impressed
    > > by the image quality of the highest resolution jpg images from my Sony
    > > DSC-R1 I was prepared to be even more impressed by the quality from
    > > those huge RAW files.

    >
    > > Not being able to see any significant difference between the too, I
    > > blamed handshake, poor focus, etc.. I ended up taking a photograph of
    > > a brick wall with very carefully adjusted focus from a solid tripod
    > > with delayed shutter release. And I still couldn't see any significant
    > > difference. The jpg files by the way seem to vary between 3 and
    > > 4.9Mbytes in size.

    >
    > > So if I can't see any significant difference at any magnification
    > > between these large jpgs and the much larger RAW files, is there any
    > > advantage to be gained from RAW files, for this camera, of course?

    >
    > Shhh - careful. The emperor does not take kindly to having his nudity
    > pointed out.
    >
    > Those who want to make comments about raw will kindly confine themselves to
    > theoretical discussions of bit depth, posterization, histograms, data loss,
    > and the ability of certain gifted people to see the "obvious" advantage of
    > raw processing for well-exposed originals. The use of actual image examples
    > to show this makes any difference is strictly forbidden.
    > --


    While I agree in general that higher bit depth and starting from raw
    are both overrated (not that I'm much good at processing, but...),
    there are times when it does make a difference, if for no other reason
    than that it offers greater control over various conversion
    parameters. For example,
    http://www.pbase.com/al599/image/75823118
    and
    http://www.pbase.com/al599/image/75823122
    are crops, one from the camera's jpeg and the other from a raw
    conversion I made. While both have numerous problems (mostly related
    to my "processing" experiments), I think colour smoothness is much
    better in the converted example (admittedly, perhaps it's possible
    that I could get the jpeg to look better, but I did not manage to).
    This has more to do with the type and amount of NR done by the camera,
    I suppose, but it was set to "off" (which isn't off, it still tries to
    smooth the colour channels at higher ISOs), so if you don't like the
    result, tough. Or this
    http://www.pbase.com/al599/image/73360346
    and this
    http://www.pbase.com/al599/image/73422697
    (these are quite large in full-size). Look at the gray book on the
    right: the camera jpeg renders it as smooth gray, while in fact it is
    not! Note that here NR was "low" for the jpeg, and I did some extra NR
    and sharpening on the raw converted result (I could not get the jpeg
    to look like that no matter what I tried; the jpeg I have there is
    completely unprocessed, so can be improved, but not to the level of
    the raw converted file-at least not by me). Again, it primarily has to
    do with the amount of NR applied.

    Also with some converters one does get slightly more resolution than
    with camera jpegs, but I found the difference to be completely
    inconsequential. What is useful is if the noise is rendered as higher
    frequency, because high frequency noise prints much better (and I
    would think that a converter that gives higher resolution would also
    give a noise spectrum with higher frequencies dominating-but did I
    plot spectra? No!).

    But in general I think you're right, the differences are minute and
    only significant in fairly unusual cases, and the price paid (in time
    and effort) usually not worth it.
    acl, Apr 14, 2007
    #13
  14. Chris Malcolm

    Mike Russell Guest

    "acl" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Apr 14, 5:04 am, "Mike Russell" <-
    > MOVE> wrote:
    >> "Chris Malcolm" <> wrote in message
    >>
    >> news:...
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> >I see no reason in principle why a high quality jpg should not be as
    >> > good as a RAW file, but the conventional wisdom seems to be that RAW
    >> > files have the ultimate edge on fine detail. So having been impressed
    >> > by the image quality of the highest resolution jpg images from my Sony
    >> > DSC-R1 I was prepared to be even more impressed by the quality from
    >> > those huge RAW files.

    >>
    >> > Not being able to see any significant difference between the too, I
    >> > blamed handshake, poor focus, etc.. I ended up taking a photograph of
    >> > a brick wall with very carefully adjusted focus from a solid tripod
    >> > with delayed shutter release. And I still couldn't see any significant
    >> > difference. The jpg files by the way seem to vary between 3 and
    >> > 4.9Mbytes in size.

    >>
    >> > So if I can't see any significant difference at any magnification
    >> > between these large jpgs and the much larger RAW files, is there any
    >> > advantage to be gained from RAW files, for this camera, of course?

    >>
    >> Shhh - careful. The emperor does not take kindly to having his nudity
    >> pointed out.
    >>
    >> Those who want to make comments about raw will kindly confine themselves
    >> to
    >> theoretical discussions of bit depth, posterization, histograms, data
    >> loss,
    >> and the ability of certain gifted people to see the "obvious" advantage
    >> of
    >> raw processing for well-exposed originals. The use of actual image
    >> examples
    >> to show this makes any difference is strictly forbidden.
    >> --

    >
    > While I agree in general that higher bit depth and starting from raw
    > are both overrated (not that I'm much good at processing, but...),
    > there are times when it does make a difference, if for no other reason
    > than that it offers greater control over various conversion
    > parameters. For example,
    > http://www.pbase.com/al599/image/75823118
    > and
    > http://www.pbase.com/al599/image/75823122
    > are crops, one from the camera's jpeg and the other from a raw
    > conversion I made. While both have numerous problems (mostly related
    > to my "processing" experiments), I think colour smoothness is much
    > better in the converted example (admittedly, perhaps it's possible
    > that I could get the jpeg to look better, but I did not manage to).
    > This has more to do with the type and amount of NR done by the camera,
    > I suppose, but it was set to "off" (which isn't off, it still tries to
    > smooth the colour channels at higher ISOs), so if you don't like the
    > result, tough. Or this
    > http://www.pbase.com/al599/image/73360346
    > and this
    > http://www.pbase.com/al599/image/73422697
    > (these are quite large in full-size). Look at the gray book on the
    > right: the camera jpeg renders it as smooth gray, while in fact it is
    > not! Note that here NR was "low" for the jpeg, and I did some extra NR
    > and sharpening on the raw converted result (I could not get the jpeg
    > to look like that no matter what I tried; the jpeg I have there is
    > completely unprocessed, so can be improved, but not to the level of
    > the raw converted file-at least not by me). Again, it primarily has to
    > do with the amount of NR applied.
    >
    > Also with some converters one does get slightly more resolution than
    > with camera jpegs, but I found the difference to be completely
    > inconsequential. What is useful is if the noise is rendered as higher
    > frequency, because high frequency noise prints much better (and I
    > would think that a converter that gives higher resolution would also
    > give a noise spectrum with higher frequencies dominating-but did I
    > plot spectra? No!).
    >
    > But in general I think you're right, the differences are minute and
    > only significant in fairly unusual cases, and the price paid (in time
    > and effort) usually not worth it.


    I appreciate your providing examples, and also the fact that we don't differ
    significantly, at least in general terms, in our assessment of the value of
    raw over in-camera processing.
    --
    Mike Russell
    www.curvemeister.com/forum/
    Mike Russell, Apr 14, 2007
    #14
  15. Chris Malcolm

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <>,
    says...

    > I did several careful tests involving a variety of subject matter. I
    > could detect occasional very small differences down at the pixel
    > level, but only by looking very carefully at very high magnifications.


    I've been using the R1 for over a year now, and have been observing the
    same thing again and again. The JPEGs simply do not have the resolution
    you get if you process that RAW files. Phil Askey reaches the same
    conclusion in his dpreview test:
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscr1/page19.asp

    "My only disappointment with the DSC-R1 was that its JPEG images out-of-
    the-camera didn't have that "digital SLR look". They appear a little
    over-processed and over-sharpened for my liking and didn't exhibit the
    per-pixel sharpness we're used to seeing from digital SLR images (yes
    you can reduce sharpening and post-process every image).

    You can get this per-pixel crisp appearance from the R1 but only by
    shooting RAW (at 20 MB a go) and then converting in a third party
    converter (currently only Adobe Camera RAW). It's a pity that Sony
    appear to have just dropped the same 'consumer grade' algorithms (for
    demosaicing, sharpening, color) into the DSC-R1 when it really would
    have gained considerably from something a little more sophisticated. It
    would also be refreshing to see more sensor manufacturers taking a risk
    on using lighter anti-alias filter which would mean images would require
    less sharpening. "

    > I can only speak from experience of my own R1, which has impressed me
    > with how good its natural white balance is. I viewed the RAW files
    > using Sony's own RAW file processor, and that gave identical colour
    > balance to the jpgs from the camera. Each of my test subjects did
    > contain at least one small area of pure white to test the white
    > balance, and I could find nothing to criticise in it. However, all
    > tests were out of doors at midday, nothing difficult like artificial
    > light or low sun. I compared the images by arranging equal sized high
    > magnifications of the same portions of the image, so that I could
    > click instantly back and forth between the two images to see if
    > anything moved. which is a very sensitive test.


    Maybe we have different standards? I get these shots by processing R1
    RAWs:
    http://www.molon.de/galleries/Morocco/Merzouga/Sand/

    The out-of-the-camera R1 JPEGs have much different colours.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330, E400 and E500 forum at
    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
    Alfred Molon, Apr 14, 2007
    #15
  16. > Those who want to make comments about raw will kindly confine themselves to
    > theoretical discussions of bit depth, posterization, histograms, data loss,
    > and the ability of certain gifted people to see the "obvious" advantage of
    > raw processing for well-exposed originals. The use of actual image examples
    > to show this makes any difference is strictly forbidden.


    When I looked into this I concluded the differences *were* obvious. Not
    for JPEG artifacts - that's complete red herring, as the OP has spotted
    - but for detail in the shadows and highlights the benefits of RAW are
    plain to see.

    Do my examples not count?

    http://www.derekfountain.org/raw_vs_jpeg.php

    --
    Derek Fountain on the web at http://www.derekfountain.org/
    Derek Fountain, Apr 14, 2007
    #16
  17. Chris Malcolm

    Mike Russell Guest

    "Derek Fountain" <> wrote in message
    news:46214e66$0$21839$...
    >> Those who want to make comments about raw will kindly confine themselves
    >> to
    >> theoretical discussions of bit depth, posterization, histograms, data
    >> loss,
    >> and the ability of certain gifted people to see the "obvious" advantage
    >> of
    >> raw processing for well-exposed originals. The use of actual image
    >> examples
    >> to show this makes any difference is strictly forbidden.

    >
    > When I looked into this I concluded the differences *were* obvious. Not
    > for JPEG artifacts - that's complete red herring, as the OP has spotted
    > - but for detail in the shadows and highlights the benefits of RAW are
    > plain to see.
    >
    > Do my examples not count?
    >
    > http://www.derekfountain.org/raw_vs_jpeg.php


    Your examples certainly do count. My statement was tongue in cheek, and
    aimed at people who believe that "raw is mo better" in all situations, and
    do not take advantage of the ability to individually adjust each raw image,
    or even groups of raw images taken under similar circumstances.

    An extreme example of this would be someone who posted (to another forum)
    that batch processing of thousands of raw images from each day's shoot was
    taking many hours each day, and what system should he upgrade to to get the
    speed up. This, IMHO, is mere genuflection to the great god of raw, and is
    unlikely to result in an increase in quality.
    --
    Mike Russell
    www.curvemeister.com/forum/
    Mike Russell, Apr 15, 2007
    #17
  18. Mike Russell wrote:
    > Your examples certainly do count. My statement was tongue in cheek...


    Oh right. I completely missed that. It was late... :eek:}

    --
    Derek Fountain on the web at http://www.derekfountain.org/
    Derek Fountain, Apr 15, 2007
    #18
  19. Chris Malcolm

    John Sheehy Guest

    "Mike Russell" <-MOVE> wrote in
    news:eMVTh.8328$:

    > Shhh - careful. The emperor does not take kindly to having his nudity
    > pointed out.
    >
    > Those who want to make comments about raw will kindly confine
    > themselves to theoretical discussions of bit depth, posterization,
    > histograms, data loss, and the ability of certain gifted people to see
    > the "obvious" advantage of raw processing for well-exposed originals.


    That's because most such comparisons don't take advantage of the real
    differences. RAW is a different medium, with more potential, and if you
    don't *SHOOT* to use it, it goes to waste for the most part, and is only
    a safety net for exposure and WB errors.

    I'll shoot any DSLR with more positive EC in RAW mode than I would in
    JPEG mode, because the RAW catpure is actually a lesser ISO (if you gauge
    ISO by the exposure index required for a fixed highlight headroom), with
    a higher signal-to-noise ratio, which you will not benefit from if you
    expose for the JPEG, which is what 99.99% of the people "trying RAW" do.

    > The use of actual image examples to show this makes any difference is
    > strictly forbidden.


    Same shutter actuation:

    http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/25925162

    http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/25925164



    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    John Sheehy, Apr 15, 2007
    #19
  20. Chris Malcolm

    craig16229 Guest

    On Apr 13, 10:16 am, "Chris Malcolm" <> wrote:
    > I see no reason in principle why a high quality jpg should not be as
    > good as a RAW file, but the conventional wisdom seems to be that RAW
    > files have the ultimate edge on fine detail. So having been impressed
    > by the image quality of the highest resolution jpg images from my Sony
    > DSC-R1 I was prepared to be even more impressed by the quality from
    > those huge RAW files.
    >
    > Not being able to see any significant difference between the too, I
    > blamed handshake, poor focus, etc.. I ended up taking a photograph of
    > a brick wall with very carefully adjusted focus from a solid tripod
    > with delayed shutter release. And I still couldn't see any significant
    > difference. The jpg files by the way seem to vary between 3 and
    > 4.9Mbytes in size.
    >
    > So if I can't see any significant difference at any magnification
    > between these large jpgs and the much larger RAW files, is there any
    > advantage to be gained from RAW files, for this camera, of course?
    >
    > Chris Malcolm


    Although really only useful for static scenes like landscapes and
    still life, also consider RAW for creating High Dynamic Range (HDR)
    images. You do need Adobe PhotoShop, and some more info about HDR can
    be found here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/hdr.shtml


    Craig --<>.
    www.craigwasselphotoart.com
    craig16229, Apr 17, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. digcam

    Sony DSC-V1 vs Sony DSC-F717

    digcam, Oct 30, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    566
    Unclaimed Mysteries
    Oct 31, 2003
  2. luke

    Sony DSC P10 (or the DSC P5, DSC P9 or DSC P12)

    luke, Dec 24, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    577
  3. MJL Photo

    <JPG from RAW> vs. <JPG only>

    MJL Photo, Nov 28, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    323
    kctan
    Nov 28, 2005
  4. Not4wood

    Shooting RAW vs RAW and JPG

    Not4wood, Nov 9, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    877
    Paul Furman
    Nov 11, 2007
  5. Sardine
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,304
    John Barnes
    Mar 13, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page