raw v jpeg experiment.

[IanB]

got to be a fairly big enlargement to see any difference; that is if there is another pic close by for a comparison
Oly EM1 + 20mm pana lens


P2180138 by Ian Browne, on Flickr


P2180138 1 by Ian Browne, on Flickr


P2180138 1-2 by Ian Browne, on Flickr


P2180121 by Ian Browne, on Flickr


P2180121 1 by Ian Browne, on Flickr


P2180121 1-2 by Ian Browne, on Flickr

and no, I will not be using jpeg only from now on, and raw + jpeg is too confusing so I will continue to use raw only. However I was rather surprised how well the jpg file edited up. Well post some of those pics later

[photo_owl]

Re: raw v jpeg experiment.

Don't understand what you are trying to say.

Jpeg uses the camera settings to convert the raw data
Raw, in this context, uses subsequently applied settings to convert the raw data with the option to use other converters as well as settings.

If you know the jpeg settings you wish to use, and have little or no stressing of the recorded data (or selective processsing), then arguably you shouldn't see any difference. Otoh you can always create a difference through settings, or the use of different raw converters.

The better the original exposure / capture the less likely that you will observe any q differences.

The more adjustments you wish to make the better off you will be working from the raw file.

Raw + Jpeg, where the Jpeg settings are for finished material, works very well when travelling and posting rushes to social media via instagram, twitter etc it's better than using basic Jpeg editors like OISHARE, LR for android etc but given how few ever adjust their camera Jpeg settings, let alone during shooting, most have a post processing habit, and should probably just shoot raw and run basic batch processing via Bridge (or whatever) for Jpeg output and go back to the raw files for hours, and hours, of fun later...

[IanB]

Re: raw v jpeg experiment.

just saying there is not the big difference as some say; as long as the light is about average. the difference between the raw-jpg file was mostly in the big blue sky. Ages since I have used jpg and I attend to do some more fiddling just for something different.

Question to the jpg uses; what setting do you use mostly? I just used natural because it seemed the natural one to use. I didn't even realize there were so many picture mode settings available .

Easier to add some "vivid" pp than to remove it IMO

[Harold Gough]

Re: raw v jpeg experiment.

I'm not sure what I am supposed the be seeing but there is a huge amount of noise in the second image.

Harold

[pdk42]

Re: raw v jpeg experiment.

Photo_owl has it exactly right. If the difference in processing (sharpening, NR, contrast etc) is the same in-camera as in post-processing on a computer from the raw, then there should be little difference (what differences there are will be subtle differences in processing between the camera and LightRoom etc).

However, try lifting shadows, or removing sharpening or changing NR or a myriad of other things and you'll find your in-camera jpegs don't do nearly so well.

If all you ever do is use the shots pretty much as the camera took them, then I guess jpegs will be just fine, but if you do a fair amount of post processing then raw really is significantly better.

[Harold Gough]

Re: raw v jpeg experiment.

If all you ever do is use the shots pretty much as the camera took them, then I guess jpegs will be just fine, but if you do a fair amount of post processing then raw really is significantly better.

Some of the more recent reviews of cameras have suggested that the (presumably finest quality) JPEGs are good enough to not require RAW to be used.

Harold

[Graham_of_Rainham]

Re: raw v jpeg experiment.

An important thing to keep in mind is jpg files are only 8-Bit. This can have a considerable effect if any post processing is done, such as levels, as blocking and banding in areas, such as plain sky's and shadows, can become noticeable.

[Ian]

Re: raw v jpeg experiment.

In camera JPEGs will always be a compromise compared to an image skilfully created from a RAW file. I see so many comparisons of RAW and JPEG results where the RAW contender is simply what Lightroom or Olympus Viewer, etc. produces by default. That completely overlooks the point of using RAW files. Default images like these from RAW are in the same category as camera JPEGs and often not as good because the camera manufacturer has usually worked harder on its algorithms to produce in-camera JPEGs.

Interestingly, Olympus Viewer appears to use the same algorithms as the respective Olympus camera models so default images from RAW files using Viewer look very similar to what the camera produces.

Nevertheless, a comparison of camera RAW with an in-camera JPEG only makes any sense if some work has been put into the RAW conversion so it is, by definition, rather subjective because one photographer's skill and perception will inevitably differ from another's . Indeed - I'm sure that if I started from scratch processing a RAW file on two different occasions without reference to the first attempt, I'm sure you would see differences between the two final end prodiucts!

In the end, a camera JPEG is convenient and in some cameras, notably Olympus and Fujifilm, pretty good, but if you want to extract not just the maximum quality from your image but also to endow that image with your interpretation, then RAW is by far the best starting point.

With regard to this thread, the problem is that because IanB hasn't (as far as I can see) explained how the results from the RAW examples have been produced, the exercise is rather meaningless - no offence intended1

Ian

[Graham_of_Rainham]

Re: raw v jpeg experiment.

I'd be interested to see a comparison done where a RAW file is converted to jpg using lots of different post processing software (all set to default, as if straight out the packet/download) That way some idea of how the various editors adjust the look of our files may be able to be seen.

The big problem would be that the image I use as an original may not be to the liking of others and as such the subjective assessment would likely be influenced.

If Ian has a "candidate" RAW file we could all download, I'm sure several of us could "play" and post the jpg back here for discussion. An agreed re-size, jpg quality, etc., would be needed, but that's not difficult.

I offer the PAGB standard of 1400x1050, sRGB as the output requirement.

[Ian]

Re: raw v jpeg experiment.

Sounds like a great idea - let me have a rummage in my image library...

Ian

[pdk42]

Re: raw v jpeg experiment.

I'd be interested to see a comparison done where a RAW file is converted to jpg using lots of different post processing software (all set to default, as if straight out the packet/download) That way some idea of how the various editors adjust the look of our files may be able to be seen.

The big problem would be that the image I use as an original may not be to the liking of others and as such the subjective assessment would likely be influenced.

If Ian has a "candidate" RAW file we could all download, I'm sure several of us could "play" and post the jpg back here for discussion. An agreed re-size, jpg quality, etc., would be needed, but that's not difficult.

I offer the PAGB standard of 1400x1050, sRGB as the output requirement.

I'd be up for that!

[Ian]

Re: raw v jpeg experiment.

Try this one - I chose this as it's quite high ISO and so needs some noise management and it's reasonably sharp and I am sure the tonality can be improved from the default view I see in Lightroom:

http://e-group.uk.net/files/forum/PB240320.ORF

Ian

[Ian]

Re: raw v jpeg experiment.

This was my original attempt in November 2013, including cropping:



Ian

[Ian]

Re: raw v jpeg experiment.

And the Lightroom default:



And the Olympus Viewer default:




Ian

[Graham_of_Rainham]

Re: raw v jpeg experiment.

From Ian's original RAW file - Processed to jpg using Faststone Maxview 2.9
100% quality, 1400 x 1048 as the aspect conversion ratio is maintained
Being a simple viewer, there is no processing at all...