squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I wonder if anyone happens to have a couple of R-D1 photos, taken one after the other, one RAW converted to TIFF, the other JPG, so I can compare the files. I'm seriously considering picking one up and this is one thing I'm curious about.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Tuolumne
Veteran
I will look, but I can tell you from 2 years' experience that I find no difference between the jpgs and the raw converted to anything you like.
/T
P.S. You also won't be able to tell the difference (if there was any) between two small file uploads, which is all you will get here.
/T
P.S. You also won't be able to tell the difference (if there was any) between two small file uploads, which is all you will get here.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
So the jpeg and RAW output are practically identical? That's good.
I didn't mean uploads to this site, of course; I meant full size files.
Tuolumne
Veteran
To me they are. Others may differ. I suppose I should state that I can rarely see any difference between the raw output and 1st generation jpg output of any decent digital camera, so perhaps this should disqualify my opinion altogether.
I think it starts to make a difference if you reprocess the images a number of times when they jpg compression really starts to show./T
kshapero
South Florida Man
They are the same as far as I can see, other than when you save the jpeg as B+W. RAW is always color until you open Epson RAW then you see it as B+W, too.
LCT
ex-newbie
Raw wins hands down in my experience. Try to adjust vignetting with jpegs for example, you'll see a lot of artefacts in the corners whatever software you use. You will avoid that with a good raw converter to a point where vignetting won't be a problem any more. Same for noise, i don't need Noise Ninja or same when i shoot raw, even at 1600 iso.
sevres_babylone
Veteran
I shoot raw + jpeg, and most of the stuff I post on the web is from the jpegs. In part, this is because before I upgraded my computer, and my PS, RAW was a lot more work for me.
Raw gives more latitude. For example, I set my screen on the camera to blink where there is overexposure. However, the setting is really for jpegs. Very often, the raw file still has detail in the supposedly blown out areas.
Raw gives more latitude. For example, I set my screen on the camera to blink where there is overexposure. However, the setting is really for jpegs. Very often, the raw file still has detail in the supposedly blown out areas.
jbf
||||||
Are you serious?
RAW all the way. You have really no control over your images as straight .jpgs.
RAW all the way. You have really no control over your images as straight .jpgs.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I shoot raw on my other digitals; I had just read that the R-D1's jpegs were pretty good, compared to other cameras.
tomasis
Well-known
no need for contest. Raw is da king :angel:
:angel:Tuolumne
Veteran
Tuolumne
Veteran
JNewell
Leica M Recidivist
If the jpg was right on, and the contrast range wasn't too high, and...and..and...then the jpgs are fine. If not, the raw is so much more "developable" that I never shoot anything but raw anymore. BTW, this is my experience with a Nikon D100 (same sensor, btw) and D200. The upside of raw is so great, and most development is simple enough, that raw is a better choice IMO...YMMV...
mobilexile
Well-known
RAW files, by nature, have more color depth and overall information. For that reason all professional work is shot RAW, whether with an R-D1 or another camera.
Many people will at first not recognize the difference. Over time you'll see it and won't be happy shooting JPEG files.
Many people will at first not recognize the difference. Over time you'll see it and won't be happy shooting JPEG files.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I'm already there with you--RAW is giving me good control over exposure, and I have found it pretty easy to make the most of bad lighting situations in Lightroom. And the R-D1's files aren't terribly huge.
kuzano
Veteran
I never understand why it's so difficult....
I never understand why it's so difficult....
To get to the heart of this issue.
Whether the rendering of a JPEG by a camera appears to the naked eye to be similar (or exact as some eyes see, apparently), the fact is that a JPEG is incomplete data. There is no valid argument against that fact.
In fact, JPEG was designed purposely to discard enough data to lower the file size, AND NOT be visible to the naked eye in doing so.
Your naked eye is the worst tool by which to judge those results on the first compression.
RAW is the complete data.
So, yes, in less demanding situations JPEG is just fine.
But for discriminating post processing, RAW out of the camera is necessary.
It won't make any difference what format you change a JPEG to. At the forefront of that useless exercise, one has already discarded data from the original scene.
Why is it so difficult to comprehend that very simple fact.
I never understand why it's so difficult....
To get to the heart of this issue.
Whether the rendering of a JPEG by a camera appears to the naked eye to be similar (or exact as some eyes see, apparently), the fact is that a JPEG is incomplete data. There is no valid argument against that fact.
In fact, JPEG was designed purposely to discard enough data to lower the file size, AND NOT be visible to the naked eye in doing so.
Your naked eye is the worst tool by which to judge those results on the first compression.
RAW is the complete data.
So, yes, in less demanding situations JPEG is just fine.
But for discriminating post processing, RAW out of the camera is necessary.
It won't make any difference what format you change a JPEG to. At the forefront of that useless exercise, one has already discarded data from the original scene.
Why is it so difficult to comprehend that very simple fact.
mobilexile
Well-known
kuzano makes good points.
To help further understanding it might be worth while to read this and then this.
To help further understanding it might be worth while to read this and then this.
Last edited:
mobilexile
Well-known
Because most use Wikapedia as their information source.........
Needless to say Wikipedia only scratches the surface here but, for those trying to grasp the concept, it works nicely.
mobilexile
Well-known
It should also be noted that JPEG compression is not an absolute, there are varying degrees.
RAW files are especially valuable for retouching and color separation for print production.
RAW files are especially valuable for retouching and color separation for print production.
Nh3
Well-known
I case your main concern is quality and you enjoy post-processing then raw is the only option. Raw also lets you forget about white balance and gives you 2 stops flexibility on -/+. Also if you're shooting at high ISO and need to remove the noise later on.
But RAW is also not for everyone. to shoot raw you must be patient and well-versed with post-processing. I also think that you should know before hand how you're going to process the raw images that you shoot otherwise you end up with a lot of big files which would be useless without creative processing.
But RAW is also not for everyone. to shoot raw you must be patient and well-versed with post-processing. I also think that you should know before hand how you're going to process the raw images that you shoot otherwise you end up with a lot of big files which would be useless without creative processing.