Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
D5100
Interesting RAW vs. JPG comparison I shot
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="eurotrash" data-source="post: 54604" data-attributes="member: 9237"><p>Ok, so in an effort to finally solve once and for all the mysteries between RAW and JPG quality (FOR ME, READ... FOR MY OWN SAKE) I shot two pictures of the same thing. Blew it up 100% and added absolutely no post processing. Here's what I shot at F2.0, ISO 3200, 1/15.</p><p></p><p>RAW:</p><p><img src="http://i481.photobucket.com/albums/rr172/playsguitars/RAWPhoto.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>JPG NORMAL:<img src="http://i481.photobucket.com/albums/rr172/playsguitars/JPGPhoto.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>OK, here's another one cropped 100%. This one is taken at ISO200, 1/4, f2.8. Neutral image tone, in manual mode. ADL off, no in-camera or post effects applied. "Cloudy" white balance applied so that "auto" wouldn't do crazy things in between shots. Same exact photo with again, the same exact settings. This time without any image correction done in camera to solidify findings.</p><p></p><p>RAW:<img src="http://i481.photobucket.com/albums/rr172/playsguitars/Test2RAW.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>JPG NORMAL:<img src="http://i481.photobucket.com/albums/rr172/playsguitars/Test2JPG.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>What in Hades name?! To the untrained eye it would appear that they look the same, but the JPG is clearly smoother, more defined and less grainy. It would seem as if the JPG is actually looking quite a bit better than the RAW file. I do have some sharpening and color saturation applied on camera and am now wondering if those custom settings are thrown out when you shoot in RAW, since RAW is supposedly captured right from the sensor? This might explain why the JPG looks so different, even at this extremely high ISO. I will run another test at a more realistic ISO as well as disable my custom settings so that we can REALLY see what the 5100 is doing to our files. </p><p></p><p>(I'm not trying to cause a war here, i know it's been beaten to death. I'm doing this out of curiosity so I can see if I really NEED to be shooting in RAW. This may or may not help a noobie decide what's best for him.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="eurotrash, post: 54604, member: 9237"] Ok, so in an effort to finally solve once and for all the mysteries between RAW and JPG quality (FOR ME, READ... FOR MY OWN SAKE) I shot two pictures of the same thing. Blew it up 100% and added absolutely no post processing. Here's what I shot at F2.0, ISO 3200, 1/15. RAW: [IMG]http://i481.photobucket.com/albums/rr172/playsguitars/RAWPhoto.jpg[/IMG] JPG NORMAL:[IMG]http://i481.photobucket.com/albums/rr172/playsguitars/JPGPhoto.jpg[/IMG] OK, here's another one cropped 100%. This one is taken at ISO200, 1/4, f2.8. Neutral image tone, in manual mode. ADL off, no in-camera or post effects applied. "Cloudy" white balance applied so that "auto" wouldn't do crazy things in between shots. Same exact photo with again, the same exact settings. This time without any image correction done in camera to solidify findings. RAW:[IMG]http://i481.photobucket.com/albums/rr172/playsguitars/Test2RAW.jpg[/IMG] JPG NORMAL:[IMG]http://i481.photobucket.com/albums/rr172/playsguitars/Test2JPG.jpg[/IMG] What in Hades name?! To the untrained eye it would appear that they look the same, but the JPG is clearly smoother, more defined and less grainy. It would seem as if the JPG is actually looking quite a bit better than the RAW file. I do have some sharpening and color saturation applied on camera and am now wondering if those custom settings are thrown out when you shoot in RAW, since RAW is supposedly captured right from the sensor? This might explain why the JPG looks so different, even at this extremely high ISO. I will run another test at a more realistic ISO as well as disable my custom settings so that we can REALLY see what the 5100 is doing to our files. (I'm not trying to cause a war here, i know it's been beaten to death. I'm doing this out of curiosity so I can see if I really NEED to be shooting in RAW. This may or may not help a noobie decide what's best for him.) [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
D5100
Interesting RAW vs. JPG comparison I shot
Top
