DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Individual Photograph Discussion >> RAW vs JPG - small but significant difference
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 13 of 13, (reverse)
AuthorThread
04/26/2006 11:44:23 AM · #1
I got a 30D a couple of weeks back and am still learning and testing things on it. I can shoot RAW with a JPG and compare them...the same image shot t the same time.
This was a test more for ISO noise than RAW vs JPG conversion, but I did find some very interesting things.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/16648/thumb/326666.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/16648/thumb/326666.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
The left half started as a RAW file, the right half as JPG.
The only PP work on these was color correction and exposure adjustment.

I did the JPG first - opened in PS 7 and color corrected it. Still seemed a bit red to me, but otherwise was OK. Tried 3 different methods. the JPG you see here was corrected via my preferred method (the one i was taught by several different working PS pros). I did a bit of midtone curve correction to brighten it up some.

The RAW image was auto color corrected in Canon's DPP using the eyedropper (click on white). Trying that in PS on the JPG screwed it up royally. The RAW file was definitely a tad darker expsoure wise than the JPG. So I moved it +1 stop in DPP.

Noise wise I don't see much difference, but to fix the color and exposure in RAW was faster and more accurate and gave a better end result. I guess I am becoming a RAW convert...now to get a bigger HD!
04/26/2006 11:51:38 AM · #2
I prefer the jpg (right) side actually. I can't tell about noise from the size and quality of the sample but there is definately more life and colour in the jpg side.

Or am i missing the point?

Message edited by author 2006-04-26 11:51:49.
04/26/2006 11:59:29 AM · #3
The one on the right is too red - you can see it in the skintones. It is also a tad darker.

It was faster and easier to get the image on the left, and it is technically a better image.

Of course you may prefer the redder one on the right. I didn't think anything was wrong with it until I saw the RAW version. And yes, it is more noticeable in the full size image - these are downsized for the web and then converted to the web colorspace and compressed. And then we have to allow for your monitor vs mine.

Message edited by author 2006-04-26 12:00:19.
04/26/2006 12:02:06 PM · #4
See the reason you shoot RAW is for the Adboe Camera RAW support. Whatever you do to the image in the Camera RAW dialog box you can undo in one step. Honestly. Start shooting RAW now. Shoot everything in RAW, because once you realize the possiblilities, you will go back to all your JPGs and will think, "These are great pictures, but they are all ruined because they are JPGs" Take the time to learn Camera RAW, it is worth it. I do all my editing now in raw, except for spot editing and sharpening. Also when I open the image in PS I do a quick levels to give it that extra boost.

Your JPG does look better, but I know that if I was given 2 minutes in Camera RAW, I could make the RAW look 10 times better than the JPG. Have fun with your new camera.

Message edited by author 2006-04-26 12:03:10.
04/26/2006 12:03:31 PM · #5
I believe you have nailed what is good about RAW. It is the ultimate in exposure lattitude and color correction. These things alone make it worth using.

With this image, though, I see the JPG as too red and the converted RAW as too blue. Somewhere in between would be just right. :)
04/26/2006 12:16:17 PM · #6
I don't have camera RAW. I am not sold on it from friends that use it anyway. DPP is is excellent.

It may be a tad too blue..mixed lighting in the church so there may not be an easy fix. I just did a one click fix - 1/10 of 1 second. and that 1/10 fixed ALL the images I took in the church. Can't get any faster or easier than that.

PS is great for playing with individual images, but it is not the tool for dealing with dozens or hundreds of images. I hear bridge is pretty good, but then I heard it strips the EXIF data out ( or was that it scrambled it?) Perhaps this was fixed.

Oh yeah, you shoot Nikon - they make you pay extra to shoot RAW, i mean, for the their software to convert it.

Message edited by author 2006-04-26 12:18:08.
04/26/2006 12:49:45 PM · #7
I've just recently started shooting in RAW as I'm doing more commercial food photography shoots.

There are many advantages to shooting in RAW which I'm still learning about, but you have much much greater control over your images when you edit them in RAW.

Once you realize the potential that you have with RAW you will never go back to jpg and you will find yourself having to buy more memory cards to accomodate the file size of RAW and you will always shoot in RAW.

Good luck & enjoy!
04/26/2006 12:52:54 PM · #8
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:


Oh yeah, you shoot Nikon - they make you pay extra to shoot RAW, i mean, for the their software to convert it.


No they don't. The software that comes with the camera does that. It costs more only if you want to upgrade the software. Which IMHO is worth the extra 99 bucks.

Just my $.02

The Wazzzzzzzzz

Message edited by author 2006-04-26 12:53:14.
04/26/2006 03:14:06 PM · #9
Camera RAW is a part of PS. And if you dont have PS... well. You should.
04/26/2006 11:37:21 PM · #10
Originally posted by fallingretina:

Camera RAW is a part of PS. And if you dont have PS... well. You should.


Yes, but I have PS CS and I can't use Camera RAW because it doesn't support my camera (after owning it only 4-5 months and upgrading to an XT from my 300D) thanks to Adobe's policy not to provide the latest RAW converter for the prior version of PS.
04/27/2006 11:18:07 AM · #11
Originally posted by mcmurma:

With this image, though, I see the JPG as too red and the converted RAW as too blue. Somewhere in between would be just right. :)

Funny, I see the JPG as too yellow, and the RAW as too blue. The reds look about the same in both versions. Of course, my monitor may be calibrated differently than yours, or I may be color blind...
04/27/2006 11:25:18 AM · #12
Originally posted by fallingretina:

Camera RAW is a part of PS. And if you dont have PS... well. You should.


I have PS 7. There was a RAW plug in for it, that Adobe dropped when CS came out.
So I cannot do RAW in CS.
Even if i had CS, the 30D is not supported anway...

And yes, CS is on the list for later this year, but it's competing with a new monitor...and probably a new computer.
04/27/2006 11:28:24 AM · #13
Originally posted by hankk:

Originally posted by mcmurma:

With this image, though, I see the JPG as too red and the converted RAW as too blue. Somewhere in between would be just right. :)

Funny, I see the JPG as too yellow, and the RAW as too blue. The reds look about the same in both versions. Of course, my monitor may be calibrated differently than yours, or I may be color blind...


It's all a matter or preferance i think.
What is correct?
Do you see what i see? You can't prove that can you?

I wear glasses, they have coatings, they may very well affect what I see. And it the light at the time of exposure affects the color recorded, does the light in the room when you view it affect the color you see?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 02/20/2020 10:06:03 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 02/20/2020 10:06:03 AM EST.