Skip navigation
This discussion is locked
Currently Being Moderated

RAW better than JPG??? Nah!

Dec 27, 2011 10:17 PM

Here a picture I took with my Fuji Finepix.

A Kingfisher sitting about 6, 7 m away from me on a tree.

 

I took the Picture as JPG+RAW.

 

Here what the JPG looks like

 

DSCF1746 (1000x702)s.jpg

 

and here the best I could make out of the RAW image

 

DSCF1746 (1000x702)raws.jpg

RAW doesnt seem to be necessarily better

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 28, 2011 12:15 PM   in reply to Eireannsg1

    No, that just shows you don't know how to use Camera Raw.  That's all.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 28, 2011 4:49 PM   in reply to Eireannsg1

    So you are saying a raw file that includes all the data your sensor can capture,verses a jpg file that has data thrown out is better?  Does that make sense to you? Your camera can do all kinds of in camera processing that you can also emulate in acr if you make the effort. You can mislead people with such comments. go ahead and shoot jpg,and hope you never need raws power to work an image.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 28, 2011 6:25 PM   in reply to Eireannsg1

    I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything.

     

    We're here to help those who genuinely want to learn that is all.

     

     

    Eireannsg1 wrote:

     

    …I tried a lot but cant match the good result of the original JPG image…

     

    Which emphasizes what I said earlier about your not knowing how to use Adobe Camera Raw.  Based on the meager photographic talent evidenced by that shot, I can't say that I'm surprised either.

     

    Anyone else who reads this thread and is interested in learning how to use ACR, here's a suggestion on how to start:

     

    Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS5

     

     

    ____________

    Wo Tai Lao Le

    我太老了


     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 29, 2011 12:21 AM   in reply to Eireannsg1

    Coming to a blanket conclusion based on one image that does not show a large difference between raw and jpeg is coming to a false conclusion. With this particular image, you've already blown out the highlights, so there's nothing to try and recover. The Raw version is lighter but it's not far enough away from the in camera jpeg to worry about if you wanted to match them tonally.

     

    Where you would really see the difference, you need to compare images like those with subtle gradations in blue skies, or images where you are trying to pull usable detail from deep shadows, or images that need a lot of color or tonal correction. Start shooting those types of images, and the advantages of shooting raw will at least leave the tonal decisions in your hands rather than with whatever "look" you've chosen in your camera menu, which invariably clips highlight and shadow details in order to make a more "pleasing" image with more "pop" right out of the box.

     

    There are valid reasons for shooting jpegs for certain projects, but I wouldn't do it based on this comparison. Most photographers seem to be obsessed with pulling as much as they can from the rather limited range of their digital captures, and shooting RAW is the best way to do it. But the bottom line for you is to use whatever settings and tools that make your images the way you imagined them to be. One man's trash is another man's treasure.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 29, 2011 4:24 PM   in reply to Eireannsg1

    Eireannsg1 wrote:

     

    …Tai Lao, what do you mean meager photographic talent?…

     

    I mean exactly what you think I mean:  the shot is nothing to write home about.

     

     

    ____________

    Wo Tai Lao Le

    我太老了

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 29, 2011 5:30 PM   in reply to Eireannsg1

    Most cameras create 2 seperate files. Your camera is doing some sort of sharpening or whatever to the file,so you need to figure out what you need to do in camera raw to mimic that result. have no clue what silky pix can do.it comes down to how the file is being processed. raw has all the data your sensor can capture, so experiment some more.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 6, 2012 2:06 PM   in reply to Eireannsg1

    Always an interesting discussion, couldn't help but want to toss my two cents into the mix. In my opinion, it all comes down to this, whether you want to do the work or whether you want the intelligence built into the camera to do it for you. If you want the greatest amount of flexibility as far as being able to tweak and perfect the image after taking the shot, then shoot in raw. If you don't have the time, know how, or more want what appeared on the LCD, then you probably want JPG. One of the areas where RAW really shines, is correcting under exposure problems. If you have a really under exposed image and are using the recovery and fill light options on a raw image to try to fix the photo, raw is amazing and jpeg looks washed out and grey (the data is no longer there to work with to get the best fix). Generally RAW images straight from the camera look terrible but with the proper know how and artistry in camera raw one should be able to meet or beat anything that the built in camera processing could do.

     

    -Dave

     

    The following is an example of attempting to correct an under exposed image, the camera was set to capture both a jpeg and raw files when the shot was taken. (click image for larger version)

     

    raw_jpeg.jpg

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 6, 2012 4:43 PM   in reply to Eireannsg1

    Yeah, every situation and camera is a little different, and we all need to find our own way. I mostly shoot in jpeg because I don't have time to do adjustments in ACR, but in situations where I have an important shot and am struggling make things work, shooting in RAW can be the saving grace when you need it. My camera (7D) has the button to switch to capture both RAW and Jpeg when shooting which is really convenient.

     

    -Dave

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 6, 2012 7:09 PM   in reply to David__B

    Adobe Camera Raw is not designed to emulate the in-camera raw-to-JPEG conversion nor the conversion performed by the software provided by the camera manufacturer by default.

     

    Camera manufacturers design their raw conversion, in-camera  and otherwise, to compress the shadows to hide digital chroma noise, and to provide an over-contrasty, over-saturated and over-sharpened look that appeals to the majority of consumers.

     

    However, Adobe Camera Raw gives you full control if you learn how to use it:

     

    Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS5

     

    Once you learn how to use it to its full extent, you can emulate any result you want, including the over-contrasty, over-saturated and over-sharpened look that appeals to the majority of consumers and which the camera manufacturers build into their in-camera JPEG conversion.

     

    The raw image always contains the full information contained in the original capture.  JPEGs do not.  It's that simple.

     

     

    ____________

    Wo Tai Lao Le

    我太老了


     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 7, 2012 2:49 AM   in reply to Eireannsg1

    Eireannsg1 wrote:

     

    …TaiLao, I have seen your recommendation before and I will still not buy the book. Maybe I will read it when books.google has scanned it in.

    The options are not soooo complicated but it just doesnt give the same results.

     

    You'd be singing a very different tune if you had either read THE book or, alternatively, had already figured out all the controls in ACR. 

     

    Please understand that I personally couldn't care less about what you do with or to your images.  I'm simply offering a few remarks for the benefit of future readers who may not be as hard headed as you and may want to keep an open mind.  That's all.

     

    I don't know of a single pro who agrees with your stance or your opinion, nor can I even imagine one who ever would.

     

    Your argument is based entirely on the fact that you personally seem incapable of achieving good results with raw images.  Your personal incompetence or inability should not deter others from exploring raw images nor from learning Adobe Camera Raw.

     

    ____________

    Wo Tai Lao Le

    我太老了

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 7, 2012 5:53 AM   in reply to Eireannsg1

    Eireannsg1 wrote:

     

    Donald, actually it doesnt make sense but you might have noticed this: the JPG the camera made was not made of the cameras RAW file..

    Notice the difference in the tail?

    So, the camera has not processed the initial [url=http://www.lalinguaarabapertutti.com/]RAW[/url] file to make the JPG out of it, it made two separate images, I dont know why. Maybe a Finepix 550EXR weirdness? Or do all cameras the same when taking JPG+RAW?

     

     

    Tai Lao, what do you mean meager photographic talent? You dont even know the conditions I used to shoot that photograph.

    You seem to continue drawing conclusions on basis of too little knowledge.

     

     

    PDF, I was looking at the details and subtle gradations in the kingfishers "fur" which look much better in the JPG file.

    very nice

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 7, 2012 7:58 PM   in reply to Eireannsg1

    Allow me to disabuse you of the misconception that you get to tell me or anybody else not to post in this or any other thread.  Just because you start a thread doesn't mean you own it.

     

    You are the one who has contributed nothing positive to the Adobe forums ever, but instead you have come up only with the fallacy that shooting raw does not produce far superior results just because you do not know how to optimize a raw capture in Camera Raw.

     

    Another one of your misconceptions results from your failure to grasp the fact that this is not about you at all.  I make these comments not for your benefit—as it is fairly clear that you are beyond help, whoever you are—but for the benefit of future readers of this thread.  As I wrote above:   Your personal incompetence or inability should not deter others from exploring raw images nor from learning Adobe Camera Raw.

     

    Therefore, and stressing the first paragraph of this post, I shall continue to respond whenever and in the manner I see fit.

     

    Finally, I stand by all my comments and point out that no one has remotely agreed with you in this thread.

     

    ____________

    Wo Tai Lao Le

    我太老了

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 7, 2012 8:40 PM   in reply to Tai Lao

    Well said.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 7, 2012 8:49 PM   in reply to Eireannsg1

    Eireannsg1 wrote:

     

    Donald, actually it doesnt make sense but you might have noticed this: the JPG the camera made was not made of the cameras RAW file..

    Notice the difference in the tail?

    So, the camera has not processed the initial RAW file to make the JPG out of it, it made two separate images, I dont know why. Maybe a Finepix 550EXR weirdness? Or do all cameras the same when taking JPG+RAW?…

     

     

    That is also factually false.  ALL digital cameras can only capture raw data, they then in-camera make an internal conversion to JPEG, even when the camera output supports only JPEGs and offers no raw image output, as is the case with most consumer point-and-shoots.

     

    When a camera, such as a pro-level DSLR, offers both RAW and JPEG output, of course the camera makes a single exposure, utilizing the raw capture data both to record the raw image file and to process said raw capture data to generate and record a JPEG in camera.

     

    The difference you see (in your example "the difference in the tail") is precisely because the camera's built-in software has already processed the raw data internally, in-camera in order to generate the in-camera JPEG, in much the same manner a savvy, experienced Adobe Camera Raw user would process the raw image file on his/her computer with much greater control.  That is the part you have not even begun to comprehend.

     

    I repeat: camera manufacturers design their raw conversion, in-camera  and otherwise, to compress the shadows in order to hide digital chroma noise, and to provide an over-contrasty, over-saturated and over-sharpened look that appeals to the majority of consumers.  Any savvy, experienced Adobe Camera Raw user can easily emulate said camera manufacturer's software and produce an identical result to the in-camera JPEG.

     

    Raw means raw, uncooked, unsalted and unseasoned.  The in-camera JPEG has already been cooked, salted and seasoned with pepper according to the camera manufacturer's criteria of what constitutes a good rendering of the image.  A good, experienced cook can produce a much better, finer, more sophisticated cooked, salted and seasoned with a myriad herbs image from the raw capture with Adobe Camera Raw, in accordance with the skill, intention of the artist that produced the shot..

     

    Your comments in this regard—unambiguously highlighted by you in "the difference in the tail" —are ample proof that you don't have a clue as to how to cook, salt and season a raw capture. 

     

    This makes me wonder whether you are even using the full Adobe Camera Raw plug-in converter hosted by the full version of Photoshop as part of a Creative Suite, or whether you may be using the severely limited, emasculated Raw Camera version offered by the pathetic Photoshop Elements.  Even though Elements uses the very same plug-in, the Camera Raw version presented by Elements is sharply limited in the number of functions and tabs.  That might explain your dismissive comments about the controls in Adobe Camera Raw.

     

    One can only hope that future readers of this thread will grasp the substance of this discussion in more enlightened ways that you have.

     

    Your abusive, girlish tone underscores the weakness and poverty of your uneducated arguments.

     

     

    ____________

    Wo Tai Lao Le

    我太老了

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points