Home Forums Gear Photography raw vs jpeg

Best I've seen.

WyoWhimper,

I wonder why it is,you never elaborated on the "dreaded" Bee and Cellphone "End Of The World" pearls dispersed,via your quivering lips?

Please find me "mistaken",it will be FUNNY.

Bless your heart...you are quite a photographer.

Laughing!..................

Looks metered off the sun rather than the horse.

[bleep] ain't hard.

But Bees and Cellphones are scary.

Laughing!................

Everyone has their own opinions as to why to shoot RAW or why to shoot JPEG. Be your own judge. This is a shot from a sequence I did for an HDR picture. When a shot is over or especially under exposed and you correct for the details you get noise and lose color. The chairs in the final shots are completely hidden in shadow in the original shot. I developed the shot in Lightroom 5 using the RAW file, then copied the develop settings and used them to process the JPEG. Even a blind man can see the difference in the details of the shot. There is much more detail in the shadow area with less contrast and if you notice the color to the left of the chair, the JPEG file completely falls apart.
Again a JPEG is an image that the processor in the camera makes development decisions, RAW allows the photographer to choose what it will look like. Any file will look pretty good in flat bright even light. When there is high contrast in the image a JPEG can not handle it anywhere nearly as nicely as the RAW file.

Original JPEG shot SSOC



JPEG processed to the same settings as the RAW file



RAW file processed and saved as a JPEG

Here is the full frame of the processed RAW file.

I think you are confusing the issue with misinformation. There is absolutely NO reason to require a RAW file in order to correct a bad exposure. It can be easily done to a jpeg file using something like PS Elements.

I had no idea "The View" had moved to this station.

The list of things you don't know,is in fact rather impressive. That being said,it pales to the list of things you "think" you know...but assuredly do not.

I suggest you take notes and apply same................

It ALL flew over your head...............

Bingo................

pal,
I totally understand that JPEG and RAW are not the difference when dealing with bad exposure, instead it is the way it handles details in the areas. The dynamic range of a sensor can only do so much, the quality of the information you are working with when stretching that range beyond the amount capable in the sensor is the key. Can you stretch a JPEG? Yes, easily. Can you maintain the sharpness, detail and keep noise down as well in the image? No. Because the camera processing engine has already made changes to the exposure and produced a second generation of the image, you can only work with what the file contains at that point.

With RAW, nothing has been done and all the information is there. Part of what I do in my business is reworking images for other photographers when a shot is muffed. Opening a JPEG as a RAW file in PS gives you some added opportunities, but it will never match a RAW file.

I sell prints, mainly 24x36 and larger. Working off a file that was originally a JPEG vs. a RAW converted to a TIFF or even a JPEG is painfully obvious in prints that big. The breakdown in the individual pixels is noticeable. I work with just JPEGs often when I am shooting in flat light and low contrast.

1minute, it is a pretty cool place to sit and unwind. My nearest neighbor is about a 1/4 mile away as the crow flies.

BS,
I have nothing for you. You will argue the color of sky given the opportunity. You truly may be the smartest man alive so it does me no good to even discuss it with you.

Somewhere I did a Post on HDR,with numerous subjects and 6-stop swings in extrapolation,as to how a tough scene could stretch a camera's meter and dynamic range. Though I guess the Whiners here,will cite that all cameras are the "same". They ain't. Hint.(grin)

JPEG of course and but a slice of the pie. Where this image sets in the exposure swing,I do not recall,but obviously the light was exceptionally harsh and shadows
etched in stone. In a single [bleep] exposure,that swing was beyond the DR of the system and both ends of the spectrum were clipped.



Lotsa different ways to look at HDR and some really like things over-cooked and strive to do same,which is of course a subjective determination. My stance is,that I like to replicate what's actually there and massage a sensor's inability to gather it all in a single poke. More of an artsy-fartsy Play Toy for me,rather than a mainstay crutch.



Good talk.................

You are in well over your head,if only obviously................

I must have missed it,what body(ies) and glass are you shooting,as per your discussion(s)?

Thanks.................

BS, you obviously understand exposure and dynamic range, no question. Do me and you a favor and crop down to an extremely small section of the image and look at the breakdown.

I am asking this as a serious question, have you shot RAW? I am sure you have. I am curious as to why you don't anymore. I know it is much more convenient to shoot JPEG but there had to be distinct disadvantages to not continuing to shoot it.

My point was, and is, it will differ for everyone who shoots. I have shot both and there is no comparison for my finished product as to what gives me better results. If JPEGs work for you great. I respect people's choices and decisions as to what they do. I think it is fair to the original question though to show choices and options with pictures to show the differences. Why argue the point with other posters on the thread? I just find there are way too many things in life to keep me busy and enjoy vs. arguing with you on the forum.

Never even heard of RAW until you "told" me about it. Laughing!

I asked what camera body(ies) and glass.

Thee's nothing to argue,simply hang some pics...it'll be funny...............(hint)

Perhaps that was an awkward question,due the requisite awkward answer?..................

I hadn't seen your question about bodies and glass. I will have to look for sure but I believe that was shot with the Sony RX-100 M3 point and shoot camera. Which is a great camera with a fantastic dynamic range.

The camera body and type aren't going to dictate JPEG vs RAW benefits. Again, you just like to argue. I have other things to do honestly. I see from your 36,705(and counting) posts you probably don't.

Seriously shoot what you want, I will shoot what I want. You see your benefits, I see mine. Enjoy.

I will venture to say that most, here, will not be selling 24x36 prints. And few will be offering to fix others' botched photos, for money.

Some photographers get off on heavy post processing, thinking they are "improving" an image. Mostly that look offends me. Still, it is good advice to buy a camera which has RAW capability.