Wanted JPG and RAW comparison photograph.

[seriousrikk]

So, we've established that in the majority of cases the final result from a raw file will be no different to the final result from a jpeg then?

Excellent. But if it was only the final result that mattered I would not be shooting raw. I like my workflow - I find it really simple in lightroom to process my raw files.

Plus I'm inherently disorganised and forgetful - I simply could not trust myself not to click save when editing a jpeg and I also don't do very well at backing everything up before I start editing.

By shooting raw I am protecting my images from the worse thing that could happen to them - me.

 

[hollis_f]

So, we've established that in the majority of cases the final result from a raw file will be no different to the final result from a jpeg then?

No, not by any means. It's been established that you can process a raw to look just like the jpeg straight from the camera. It's also been established that you can process the raw to look better than the jpeg, unless all (every single one) of the camera setting was perfect.

Now it may be that, in the majority of cases, the in-camera settings are close enough to optimum so that the jpeg is good enough; and that processing the raw data would result in a marginally better (possibly indistinguishable) image. How often that happens will depend on the skill and experience of the user.

But I know I don't get the settings 100% correct in-camera every time. If I did I'd shoot jpeg. And the first pictures I'd take would be of the porcine squadrons flying over an icy Stix.

 

[Suvv]

I think that Ron Bigelow explains the difference better than I could.
3 part article on raw:
http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/raw/raw.htm

 

[mich66]

....thanks for replies to my question.. Nikon View NX2 miles better

 

[seriousrikk]

I think that Ron Bigelow explains the difference better than I could.
3 part article on raw:
http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/raw/raw.htm

It's a good article, but not what I would call an unbiased view.

 

[hollis_f]

It's a good article, but not what I would call an unbiased view.

Well, of course it's not unbiased. He's done the research and the results have led him to the conclusion that raw is better. So he's biased towards raw. In exactly the same way as a food critic comparing Pot Noodle to a meal at The Ivy would be biased against the Pot Noodle.

 

[legarm]

I guess that 99% of peop0le wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a Jpeg and Raw pic.

 

[Howi]

What are you on about? The op posted this question exactly to find out so he could be bothered. But you told him that if he didn't already know the answer then he doesn't need to know and he should just carry on as he was

No! the op posted this - 'Can anyone please post an identical photograph in both JPG and RAW format, or perhaps suggest a link.

I'm looking to see is there is a great improvement using RAW.

D in W'

Why he couldn't do this himself I don't know, If he hasn't got a camera that gives RAW, then it's rather pointless....

A RAW and a JPEG side by side is pointless ANYWAY as it proves nothing, what can be proved is by comparing an OOC Jpeg with a Jpeg produced from a RAW file - there is a HUGE difference.
While you might also be able to PP the OOC Jpeg to look SIMILAR it certainly wont be the same.
In some of the replies it has been said that it would take millions of changes to a Jpeg before it was noticeable, what absolute garbage, even very minor changes can result in artifacts creeping in and more (substantial) loss of information from the original Jpeg.

I have no objections to anyone producing Jpeg only, thats their choice, whether I agree with them or not.
The RAW Jpeg debate will go on forever with no final outcome, you pays your money and you makes your choice, it's a simple fact that some people can be educated and others can't.....:bang:
As in law, Ignorance is no defence

 

[EOS_JD]

Oh dear....

What I meant was that if I have a well exposed RAW and a well exposed jpg that both would look pretty similar.

 

[EOS_JD]

And just so you all don't think I'm too much of a RAW-zealot - I shoot all my Mess functions (think 'event' photography) at JPEG-high as there's no need to go bigger or better - sometimes we print on-site, but usually send the images to the Mess between 5-7 days afterwards and Bill the Mess directly rather than try and take money on the night. Customers sign for their photos on the night and see the invoice on their mess bills the following month.
Printed Images are usually either 10x8 or 7x5.
Speed is of the essence here and with a function almost every other night this month, there's no way I'd have time to edit all the images if I shot RAW.
The images are still good enough that if a customer comes back later wanting a larger print, we can still accommodate them.
The 'future-proofing' that RAW confers isn't really applicable for these images...

I just did my first-ever edit of a function image as the wife of the Mess member had been very concerned about a nasty cold-sore. I assured her it would be gone by the time the images were ready and on that understanding she bought £160-worth of images.

Other than something like that I don't do any editing and set the cameras up accordingly.
But I do control everything else: all the lighting, backgrounds etc.

Event images are different - I've done both with JPG & raw and don't find that much difference save saving space of the hard drive.

 

[EOS_JD]

No! the op posted this - 'Can anyone please post an identical photograph in both JPG and RAW format, or perhaps suggest a link.

I'm looking to see is there is a great improvement using RAW.

D in W'

Why he couldn't do this himself I don't know, If he hasn't got a camera that gives RAW, then it's rather pointless....

A RAW and a JPEG side by side is pointless ANYWAY as it proves nothing, what can be proved is by comparing an OOC Jpeg with a Jpeg produced from a RAW file - there is a HUGE difference.
While you might also be able to PP the OOC Jpeg to look SIMILAR it certainly wont be the same.
In some of the replies it has been said that it would take millions of changes to a Jpeg before it was noticeable, what absolute garbage, even very minor changes can result in artifacts creeping in and more (substantial) loss of information from the original Jpeg.

I have no objections to anyone producing Jpeg only, thats their choice, whether I agree with them or not.
The RAW Jpeg debate will go on forever with no final outcome, you pays your money and you makes your choice, it's a simple fact that some people can be educated and others can't.....:bang:
As in law, Ignorance is no defence

Good post

I didn't realise that but as you say what's the point of posting an identical pic? I think by posting that the OP didn't perhaps understand the benefits of raw.

I hope I at least showed the difference and what can be accomplished - I'm sure someone with more skill could do even more with RAW images

 

[joescrivens]

No! the op posted this - 'Can anyone please post an identical photograph in both JPG and RAW format, or perhaps suggest a link.

I'm looking to see is there is a great improvement using RAW.

D in W'

Why he couldn't do this himself I don't know, If he hasn't got a camera that gives RAW, then it's rather pointless....

A RAW and a JPEG side by side is pointless ANYWAY as it proves nothing, what can be proved is by comparing an OOC Jpeg with a Jpeg produced from a RAW file - there is a HUGE difference.
While you might also be able to PP the OOC Jpeg to look SIMILAR it certainly wont be the same.
In some of the replies it has been said that it would take millions of changes to a Jpeg before it was noticeable, what absolute garbage, even very minor changes can result in artifacts creeping in and more (substantial) loss of information from the original Jpeg.

I have no objections to anyone producing Jpeg only, thats their choice, whether I agree with them or not.
The RAW Jpeg debate will go on forever with no final outcome, you pays your money and you makes your choice, it's a simple fact that some people can be educated and others can't.....:bang:
As in law, Ignorance is no defence

ah you see we both read that post and determined different things. i read between the lines and interpreted that by asking what he did he was bascially saying "whats the difference, and is it worth shooting raw" whereas you just literally took what he wrote and since he didn't ask that direct question assumed that he wasn't asking it.

 

[Howi]

ah you see we both read that post and determined different things. i read between the lines and interpreted that by asking what he did he was bascially saying "whats the difference, and is it worth shooting raw" whereas you just literally took what he wrote and since he didn't ask that direct question assumed that he wasn't asking it.

Doh! :bonk:

 

[TheTimeChamber]

Maybe someone should post two identical pictures, but with the post processing that people would have normally applied to the image. Then people would see the minimal difference

Do you really need 12 or 20 mp? why not shoot on a cheap compact?, if you want the best quality why buy a good quality camera and then throw away half the information it's capturing, you might as well have saved your money in the first place.
We buy the best cameras and lens we can afford (for the most part) we strive to "get it right in camera", then some are happy with second best file format? why?.
A raw file is 12 or 14 bit, jpeg only 8 bit, and no you can't change that by saving it as a 16 bit tiff in photoshop, it'll say 16 bit but it's just an 8 bit image in a 16 (15 really) bit wrapper, .

I only have 6, and I can still happily print at A3. And that is from a jpeg.

I use the Nikon D40, and have experimented with RAW in the past, and if I am totally honest. I can't see the difference between the two after processing to be honest. I suspect I could if I was to sit there a pixel peep at every little aspect of the image, but I don't. I get the ones I like printed and hung on the wall and I am happy with the quality.

At the end of the day, if I take a photograph I am happy with, then it doesn't really matter if I took it in the jpeg or RAW format. That's what photography is about for me, enjoying using my camera, rather than spending time worrying about infinitesimal technical issues that you only notice on closer inspection. Some people will be advocates of RAW, some people will be happy to use jpeg. It is like the whole MP3 bitrate argument I see on music forums, the only time you notice the difference is when you play them through a big rig. Same thing really

Rant over (?)

 

[hollis_f]

Maybe someone should post two identical pictures, but with the post processing that people would have normally applied to the image. Then people would see the minimal difference

I did exactly that - two identical pictures so that people could see the enormous difference.

 

[Howi]

It is like the whole MP3 bitrate argument I see on music forums, the only time you notice the difference is when you play them through a big rig. Same thing really

Rant over (?)

What absolute rubbish, I'm not an audiofile by any means but I can tell the difference between the cheep crappy headphones supplied with most MP3 players and a reasonable pair at £30 let alone those costing hundreds.
I also have a pair of B & H P5's that takes MP3 music to another level, you do have to have the best (least) compression meaning bigger MP3 files, but it is definateley worth it.

The same principle applies to RAW and Jpegs, if you can't tell the difference then don't worry about it.......

 

[joescrivens]

I did exactly that - two identical pictures so that people could see the enormous difference.

but only under unlikely conditions. I don't think I have EVER taken a photo that incorrectly to have needed to use the raw to pull it back. Essentially what you showed was that RAW is really useful if you are incompetent.

Not saying that you are incompetent but the test you did would have to have been done by someone who had no idea what they were doing if it was done by accident.

 

[legarm]

I don't think most would be able to tell the difference.

 

[Howi]

but only under unlikely conditions. I don't think I have EVER taken a photo that incorrectly to have needed to use the raw to pull it back. Essentially what you showed was that RAW is really useful if you are incompetent.

Not saying that you are incompetent but the test you did would have to have been done by someone who had no idea what they were doing if it was done by accident.

What absolute rubbish....

legarm 'I don't think most would be able to tell the difference.'

Touche,

You can lead a horse to water but.....

There are none so blind as those who don't want to see.....

 

[awp]

I think the one thing this thread proves is that some people just can't be educated. Their loss.

 

[EOS_JD]

but only under unlikely conditions. I don't think I have EVER taken a photo that incorrectly to have needed to use the raw to pull it back. Essentially what you showed was that RAW is really useful if you are incompetent.

Not saying that you are incompetent but the test you did would have to have been done by someone who had no idea what they were doing if it was done by accident.

My shot showed a similar level of inconmpetence I think..... my flash didn't fire which left the shot abot 2 or 3 stops under exposed but I was surprised at the level of the detail that was still recovered.

At the end of the day a RAW file (whether correctly or incorrectly exposed) does hold more information and makes it easier to to correct any error that may have ocurred - be that colour balance or exposure etc.

If you don't need that, jpg is fine. There is nothing wrong with a jpg file.

But for me it takes as long to edit a jpg as a raw file and I like the safety of having that extra information. Yes space is more of an issue but as drives are so cheap these days that is less of an issue too.


JD

 

[joescrivens]

What absolute rubbish....

legarm 'I don't think most would be able to tell the difference.'

Touche,

You can lead a horse to water but.....

There are none so blind as those who don't want to see.....

Little hint if you want to get along with others here - stop saying peoples opinions are "absolute rubbish" thats twice on this page you have done it.

But I think I'm going to get off this bridge, there's a very nasty smell underneath it

 

[joescrivens]

I think the one thing this thread proves is that some people just can't be educated. Their loss.

So because someone has a different opinion to you they aren't educated? Come on Vic, where is your christmas cheer?

 

[hollis_f]

but only under unlikely conditions.

Ah! I see! You want two shots made under perfect conditions to prove that there's no difference.

I'm so happy for you that you can get everything correct, in-camera, every time. I only wish that I were perfect. Unfortunately, I do sometimes make mistakes. Here's an example of my imperfection -

While I was in Kenya this autumn a Leopard suddenly walked out of the bush. I grabbed my camera but, in doing so, I accidentaly switched the mode dial from Av to M. Not being perfect, and being somewhat excited, I didn't notice. Here's what the jpeg looked like -

What a bummer! Not a lot I can do with that really. Luckily, I shot it raw - so I can do a little better than that. Can't do much about the slight movement blur; but I can nicely fix the over-exposure.

 

[joescrivens]

My shot showed a similar level of inconmpetence I think..... my flash didn't fire which left the shot abot 2 or 3 stops under exposed but I was surprised at the level of the detail that was still recovered.

At the end of the day a RAW file (whether correctly or incorrectly exposed) does hold more information and makes it easier to to correct any error that may have ocurred - be that colour balance or exposure etc.

If you don't need that, jpg is fine. There is nothing wrong with a jpg file.

But for me it takes as long to edit a jpg as a raw file and I like the safety of having that extra information. Yes space is more of an issue but as drives are so cheap these days that is less of an issue too.


JD

Out of interest though, did you see how much detail was also in the jpeg? Posting the example at the size you have hasn't totally sold your argument, because if I take your underexposed jpg and adjust it I can get a result very close to what you did with the raw file. Obviously it's not identical because I don't know what adjustments you made but here's what I mean:

 

[seriousrikk]

What a bummer! Not a lot I can do with that really. Luckily, I shot it raw - so I can do a little better than that. Can't do much about the slight movement blur; but I can nicely fix the over-exposure.

ok, a slightly less tongue in cheek post from me now

But I could do that with a JPEG too :shrug:

I'm not arguing in favour of either format - they both have their uses. I personally shoot raw for many of the reasons mentioned in this thread. Just saying that a jpeg can take quite a lot of exposure recovery too - especially if it is over exposure.

 

[joescrivens]

Ah! I see! You want two shots made under perfect conditions to prove that there's no difference.

I'm so happy for you that you can get everything correct, in-camera, every time. I only wish that I were perfect. Unfortunately, I do sometimes make mistakes. Here's an example of my imperfection -

While I was in Kenya this autumn a Leopard suddenly walked out of the bush. I grabbed my camera but, in doing so, I accidentaly switched the mode dial from Av to M. Not being perfect, and being somewhat excited, I didn't notice. Here's what the jpeg looked like -

What a bummer! Not a lot I can do with that really. Luckily, I shot it raw - so I can do a little better than that. Can't do much about the slight movement blur; but I can nicely fix the over-exposure.

Firstly, what's with all this animosity here this morning? People seem to be getting really arrogant just because others disagree with their point. What happened to friendly debate?

Secondly, here's what a 90 second process on the original jpeg could get you as well - doesn't look much different to me:

 

[hollis_f]

Out of interest though, did you see how much detail was also in the jpeg? Posting the example at the size you have hasn't totally sold your argument, because if I take your underexposed jpg and adjust it I can get a result very close to what you did with the raw file.

Knock youself out - Here's the full size version. Just crop it to 1024 pixels wide when it's finished. I'll have to have another go on the raw as well - I only did a quick 20s edit for that one.

Obviously it's not identical because I don't know what adjustments you made

Not identical, because almost half the data in the raw file got thrown away during the conversion to jpeg.

 

[Howi]

Little hint if you want to get along with others here - stop saying peoples opinions are "absolute rubbish" thats twice on this page you have done it.

But I think I'm going to get off this bridge, there's a very nasty smell underneath it

I may be new to THIS forum, but if someone posts something I dissagree with, I will say so. How you take it, is up to you.
If I think someone is talking rubbish I will say so, and back it up with (what I think are) valid arguments.
As with ALL forums, it doesn't take long to sort the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.
In the short time I have been here, I have established those who's comments, opinions, Photo's (especially the photo's) etc I value and admire greatly, as for the rest........
Forums like this are where we can ALL learn no matter how good we are (or think we are!), this is where active debate helps all to learn.
I will listen, investigate and the evaluate what I have heard, and there have been times when I have said 'I didn't know that'.....

I have no doubt we are never going to agree, but, hey ho! lifes far to short to worry.
Whislt you may not like my opinions, I will continue to express them while ever I am free to do so.

regarding the last part of your quote, I think that say's it all.......

 

[andya700]

Firstly, what's with all this animosity here this morning? People seem to be getting really arrogant just because others disagree with their point. What happened to friendly debate?

Secondly, here's what a 90 second process on the original jpeg could get you as well - doesn't look much different to me:

Having looked at the two images, I have to say that they are World's apart. If you look at the detail in Frank's image, particularly in relation to the fur around the ear, and the subtle colours, the 90 second rework looks quite dull.
I started off using JPEG last year, and only converted to RAW a couple of months ago (Use TIFF images), and the difference has been quite remarkable. There seems to be less noise in the RAW conversions, and even though I only have Image Data Converter (as opposed to Lightroom or Elements, or the like), I seem to be getting more from the images.

 

[joescrivens]

Having looked at the two images, I have to say that they are World's apart. If you look at the detail in Frank's image, particularly in relation to the fur around the ear, and the subtle colours, the 90 second rework looks quite dull.
I started off using JPEG last year, and only converted to RAW a couple of months ago (Use TIFF images), and the difference has been quite remarkable. There seems to be less noise in the RAW conversions, and even though I only have Image Data Converter (as opposed to Lightroom or Elements, or the like), I seem to be getting more from the images.

Don't forget, i started with his 600 pixel version.

Also my processing will have been different to his. What I'd like to see and I think I might do this myself when I have time is a jpeg from the raw then whatever was done to the jpeg to make it the way he did, do the exact same to a jpeg straight out of the camera

 

[joescrivens]

Knock youself out - Here's the full size version. Just crop it to 1024 pixels wide when it's finished. I'll have to have another go on the raw as well - I only did a quick 20s edit for that one.



Not identical, because almost half the data in the raw file got thrown away during the conversion to jpeg.

What I'd prefer is that you try it, since you know your processing steps - if you do the exact same work on a raw to a jpeg whats the result?

I'll do one myself when I have time

 

[joescrivens]

I may be new to THIS forum, but if someone posts something I dissagree with, I will say so. How you take it, is up to you.
If I think someone is talking rubbish I will say so, and back it up with (what I think are) valid arguments.
As with ALL forums, it doesn't take long to sort the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.
In the short time I have been here, I have established those who's comments, opinions, Photo's (especially the photo's) etc I value and admire greatly, as for the rest........
Forums like this are where we can ALL learn no matter how good we are (or think we are!), this is where active debate helps all to learn.
I will listen, investigate and the evaluate what I have heard, and there have been times when I have said 'I didn't know that'.....

I have no doubt we are never going to agree, but, hey ho! lifes far to short to worry.
Whislt you may not like my opinions, I will continue to express them while ever I am free to do so.

regarding the last part of your quote, I think that say's it all.......

wind your neck in and you'll get along fine, nothing wrong with expressing your opinions, just do so with a little more respect in future.

 

[Yv]

wind your neck in and you'll get along fine, nothing wrong with expressing your opinions, just do so with a little more respect in future.

I suggest you both wind your necks in and be civil to each other, I don't care who started it, but it WILL be me [or another mod] who finishes it if needs be. This is an interesting thread with some interesting points, please don't ensure that it gets closed prematurely.

 

[joescrivens]

I suggest you both wind your necks in and be civil to each other, I don't care who started it, but it WILL be me [or another mod] who finishes it if needs be. This is an interesting thread with some interesting points, please don't ensure that it gets closed prematurely.

sorry Guv, big hugs and mince pies offered!

 

[andya700]

Don't forget, i started with his 600 pixel version.

Also my processing will have been different to his. What I'd like to see and I think I might do this myself when I have time is a jpeg from the raw then whatever was done to the jpeg to make it the way he did, do the exact same to a jpeg straight out of the camera

Most of my RAW files converted to TIFF, are around the 20mb to 25mb size (obviously before any cropping). The same extra fine JPEG straight out of the camera are 9mb maximum. I have yet to convert a RAW file to JPEG.
My JPEG images straight from the camera are noticeably lower quality than the converted RAW files. The noise and pixelation is really bad when you start to crop them, or make changes to the contrast/brightness.

 

[hollis_f]

What I'd prefer is that you try it, since you know your processing steps - if you do the exact same work on a raw to a jpeg whats the result?

You can't do the exact same. There are some processes LR can do to a raw image that it can't do to a jpeg - because almost half the data is missing. I did try importing the jpeg and doing a 'sync settings' with the raw image. So the jpeg had exactly the same work done on it, within the limitations of LR. The result is, as I suspected, total rubbish.

 

[joescrivens]

Okay, I'm semi-convinced now after doing my own test.

I underexposed this shot and got the wb wrong. and I couldn't get anywhere near the same shot with the jpeg version.

but I dunno, I still think even this test just shows that if you screwed up you have more room in raw. Haven't got time now but I'll retake correctly exposed and see if I can see a difference in the output.

Perhaps just knowing that if you screw it up you have more room to manoeuvre is enough of a reason for me to continue to shoot raw.

 

[Howi]

First, apologies to the moderators,

I think we should let the facts speak for themselves

The information below is taken from a well known website.
(somewhat reduced as a lot of it is very technical and not really relevant)

RAW, TIFF, GIF, PNG are all lossless graphic formats
JPEG is a lossy compression method which somewhat reduces the image fidelity.

Note :- there is a lossless coding mode for JPEG but is not widely supported

JPEG is not well suited to files that undergo multiple edits, as some image quality will usually be lost each time the image is decompressed and recompressed, particularly if the image is cropped or shifted, or if the encoding parameters are changed.
(this is due to the way the compression algorithm works)

To avoid this an image that is being or is likely to be, modified in the future, should be saved in a lossless format, a copy (JPEG) can then be used for distribution.

Now some figures :-

JPEG = 8 bit (256 steps)

RAW = 12 bit(4096 steps) 16 times more steps than 8 bit

RAW = 14 bit (16,384 steps) 64 times more than 8 bit (some top end cameras use 14 bit encoding at the raw stage.)

You now have to ask yourself the following question, do I really want to throw all that information away before I start?

If OOC JPEGS were good enough, why would DSLR manufacturers give us the option of RAW?

The argument really is more about not should I shoot RAW or JPEG, but should I shoot RAW + JPEG(highest quality OOC JPEG).
If the JPEG is good enough to use as is, then nothing is lost other than a little hard drive space.
BUT you have retained the ability to do more should you wish, WITHOUT losing any quality.

CF cards are cheap and getting cheaper, hard drives are cheap and of huge capacity and likewise getting cheaper and larger, neither of these items should influence your choice of what format you shoot.

I can’t put it simpler than that, it’s now up to you.
I am not saying everyone should shoot RAW, just presenting the facts so that people can make their own choices. There is NOTHING wrong with JPEG if that’s what you want to shoot.
What IS wrong is when someone says there is NO (perceptible) difference between the two formats, when the facts clearly show the opposite.

 

[joescrivens]

First, apologies

Apology accepted

What IS wrong is when someone says there is NO (perceptible) difference between the two formats, when the facts clearly show the opposite.

I don't think anyone is saying this. The facts you present are well known.

The question being asked is - does it really matter that you are throwing that data away and is the perceptible difference visible to the naked eye at the standard formats people are using.

Example, I used to save all my photographs at quality 12, I asked if there was much difference to saving at quality 10. The file size is sometimes half so I'm throwing away data - can I see the difference? Can I boot.

If I take a well exposed shot as a jpg and as a raw would you be able to spot the difference at a 10x8 inch print? If the answer is no then what's the reason to have shot it in raw?

This is the question I am struggling with for whether to continue with raw or not.