Interesting RAW vs. JPG comparison I shot

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:









JPG NORMAL:




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:




JPG NORMAL:


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.)

The best test is to shoot a raw... work on it, to get the best poss JPG as you can. Then do the same with JPG. Sharpen the JPG in
camera by just two notches up and sharpen up in PS as you would the RAW.
The JPG at the mo is looking smoother because as a JPG the camera is applying a touch of noise reduction.
You should be able to get a touch more detail from the raw if processed well, but its not a big differance.
Have fun

Certainly not a big enough difference to care. I do wonder how the jpg image will handle being processed in the same manner as the raw file. If I can't really tell the difference, then i'll just shoot jpg because raw files are a pain sometimes.

eurotrash said:

Certainly not a big enough difference to care. I do wonder how the jpg image will handle being processed in the same manner as the raw file. If I can't really tell the difference, then i'll just shoot jpg because raw files are a pain sometimes.

Click to expand...

If you use Capture NX2, you can pretty much do that.
I prefer to set just a little sharpning in camera and sharpen with unsharp mask in NX2 for best results.
There is not much chance of seeing any differance other than at 100% pixel peeping. Even then its only a small margin.
If you were faced with realy awkward lighting conditions, such as on the beach on a bright contrasty day it would perhaps
be wise to shoot raw. You can get more detail out of both highlight and shadow areas in RAW. Having said that, more often
than not I like high contrast pics anyway lol and you can always add D lighting if nesercary in capture NX. It works realy well.
One other bit of advice I would give for JPG shooters, is make a copy of your originals and keep them safe and edit the copy file.

I'll start religiously using RAW when I get good enough to use RAW LOL ...and I might want to print something big here in a few months so I'll look into it then...

I always make multiple copies of original JPGs...

And I see what you mean...interesting...

The raw vs jpeg thing is not mainly about sharpness. It's about having the ability to retrieve details in the darkest and the lightest of the picture. And the difference shows more when you work on the pictures in post production. You can get cleaner details in the very dark and very light than you would if you tried to work with a jpeg.

Sharpness is overrated IMO...I'll pick a warm Sonnar glow over a sharp sterilized snap anyday of the week...

Marcel, I understand. But just take a look at the jpg. That to me, is outstanding quality. For everyday snaps I no longer see a reason to use raw. In low light I will still use it or perhaps on a critical portraits shoot in the woods on a sunny day.

The thing to remember you can alter JPGs quite a lot too. Adding D lighting in capture NX if need be can add huge dynamic range.
Another thing to take into consideration, is that, as the ISO gets higher the Dynamic range decreases.
All cameras are different here though. For me the D300 for example is superb upto 800 ISO. If I need to shoot at 1600 or above I will
always shoot RAW no matter what. The sensor in the D7000 though or D700 D3s will produce great JPGs even at 1600 and 3200 ISO.
Im shooting an Irish travller christning today at 4 0, clock and then on to the reception. I will shoot JPGs for this event.
I know I will shoot in the region of around 400 pics, I know I will supply a DVD ( they wont fit on a CD ) and I know they want 6x8 prints.
I have enough confidence in my exposures to know they wont need much in the way of alteration.

Great point westmill! I'm going to start editing with jpg and see how different it is in my workflow. It depends on what you're shooting I guess. I am still waiting to see what sensor they put in the refreshed d7000. Also wondering what images on that Sony 24mpxl sensor looks like

The sensor in the D7000 is stunning. Its the same sensor in the pentax K5. Im more than happy with 16milion pixels.
The Sony will be good a low ISO but give me the all round ability of D7000 any day.
The files too are more than big enough. Im hoping to get the same sensor in the D300 replacement.
Im very determined not to go higher than 16 milion pixels. If the push comes to shove and Nikon are daft enough
to go higher on APSC I will bite the bullet and buy the D4. I prefer APSC but I will go full frame before I go above
16 milion pixels.

Well I did my christning by the way. Just got home from the reception. They are Irish travllers by the way.
Shot the whole thing in JPG. Looking good an back of camera, but I wont know how good until I edit tomoz.
Im happy with them though.

I shoot Raw + a Fine JPG...Some of my surfing shots turn out silhouettes from shooting almost directly into the sun and are much easier to bring out the detail in the shadows of the raw files..

What ever settings you do on the camera (sharpening, saturation. and etc ), it wont affect RAW.
You do all the necessary tweaking on your computer including noise reduction and sharpening.
For ordinary shoots, I use jpeg fine.
But for paid shoots, I use RAW+ Jpeg fine