| User | Post |
|
8:10 pm
September 27, 2008
|
Geren Mortensen
| | Columbia, Maryland, USA | |
| Admin
| posts 66 | |
|
|
Just for fun, and at the risk of igniting a firestorm…
|
Geren W. Mortensen, Jr. – WebMaster – CMPG
|
|
|
9:29 pm
September 28, 2008
|
Geren Mortensen
| | Columbia, Maryland, USA | |
| Admin
| posts 66 | |
|
|
 
As part of the ongoing RAW v. JPEG debate, I thought I'd show this pair of images. I know that the reduced-resolution JPEGs don't show all the detail, but, even up close, telling the difference between the two (except for a slight color mis-match) is difficult at best.
For those interested, the first image is from the RAW file. The second image is from the JPEG. The images were made with a Canon EOS Rebel XTi and a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens, shooting RAW+Large Fine JPEG. ISO was 400, and the exposure was f/2.8 at 1/50 second. I was hand-holding at 200mm.
|
Geren W. Mortensen, Jr. – WebMaster – CMPG
|
|
|
11:18 am
September 29, 2008
|
Warren
| | |
| Moderator
| posts 19 | |
|
|
Geren,
We can only judge by what we see on the screen at our end . . that said, there is a fairly large difference to be seen with the RAW on top.
You try to make a case for the JPG being reduced to get into the CMPG web page. Isn't the same reduction applied to the RAW file?
Given that that is the case, what then accounts for the desparety to be seen here at my house?
Warren v.
|
|
|
11:26 am
September 29, 2008
|
Geren Mortensen
| | Columbia, Maryland, USA | |
| Admin
| posts 66 | |
|
|
Warren,
There are a couple of things that you may be seeing. First, the JPEG is compressed coming out of the camera and then re-compressed coming out of Lightroom. Second, the JPEG is recording 8-bits of data and the RAW (in this case) 12. So, there a greater range of tones to work with. I also had greater ability to control color with the RAW file.
Interestingly, there is much less difference between the two images from a detail perspective on my machine at home. Also, the color differences are more subtle. Looking at the images on my computer at work reveals a lot of difference — the JPEG-sourced image looks really “flat” in comparison to RAW-sourced image.
I would say, though, that for a large percentage of photographers, the difference may not be worth the extra effort RAW files require.
|
Geren W. Mortensen, Jr. – WebMaster – CMPG
|
|
|
2:30 pm
September 29, 2008
|
Earl Blake
| | |
| Moderator
| posts 9 | |
|
|
The D300 allows me to shoot in RAW and one of several Jpeg selections at the same time. This comes in handy when I'm shooting events, everyone wants to see the picturs fast so I can post the Jpegs fast with out any modifications and that's usaly fine for what most want. If someone requests an enlargment then I'll go to the RAW image and make any adjustments I feel nessisary.
When shooting just for myself I always just shoot RAW. The controll offered in that format is just something I can't give up.
|
|
Forum
The latest from Digital Photography School