RAW v JPEG : A Shootout Challenge.

[Judobreaker]

Hehe, I know, topic is a bit old but I couldn't resist.

I'm still missing a little bit of detail in the shadows but it's not a bad result in my opinion. ^^

 

[snowbear]

The WB Control image:
View attachment 28959

My adjustements
View attachment 28960

I used Lightroom 3. First I used the eyedropper tool in Custom WB adjust and selected a spot in the top-right corner of the grey card. Then I dropped the brightness a little.

My adjusted photo is still brighter than the control, and has a bit of a pink cast to it. I'm sure, if I spent a lot more time on it, I could get it very close, but IMO, it's not worth the time. I'll continue to shoot raw.

 

[amolitor]

Why would I do this?

It's not going to work in the general case. There are obviously cases where it will work fine (e.g. take a picture of a pure white wall) and there are cases where it won't work at all (the wider the color gamut, the more problems you're going to have).

I guess maybe it would be a good exercise for people who don't understand anything about color, maybe?

That said, I adjust color balance in jpegs all the time, and it's not at all bad. JPEG gives you quite a bit of wiggle room, but not as much as the underlying raw file, by definition.

ETA: G*d D*mn zombie threads.

 

[panblue]

You could try also raw+JPEG in combination with Auto Bracket mode.

I'm new at raw and still learning, when I get the shot to look the way I think looks the best that's when I switch it over to jpeg.

 

[jaomul]

If your real good you could just try get it right in camera. Doesn't that seem like an odd notion?

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

Why would I do this?

Why not? Sounds like a well-thought-out experiment worthy of most people's time to at least consider. Raw vs jpeg is a very common question and this is a great example for most people.

Again I find your response a detriment to the spirit of the thread. If you're above doing this or too knowledgable to do it, then why waste time leaving a response?

 

[amolitor]

Well, Rotanimod, you edited out the part where I suggested that "I guess maybe it would be a good exercise for people who don't understand anything about color, maybe?" so perhaps you missed that, and are unaware of the fact that I basically agree with you?

I shan't bother to reply to any more of your little chiding posts. I know you don't like me and wish that I would stop expressing my opinions on this public forum, so if your goal is to communicate that, consider your job done.

I am, however, not going to stop expressing my opinions on this or any other public forum I choose. Perhaps you will find some comfort in knowing that I won't tell you to stop expressing your opinions and ideas, however?

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

Oh you're right. I missed the part where you endorsed the thread in a wishy washy, underhanded way.

"I guess maybe it would be a good exercise for people who don't understand anything about color, maybe?"

But I guess the part where you spent the majority of your time pounding your chest about everything you know about color and gamut and how special you are with all this knowledge was the thing that stood out .

Don't be mistaken. You're totally free to express your opinion and I would want nothing less. But if your opinion is detrimental or de-railing which it often can be, I might have something to say

 

[HughGuessWho]

And who is "chest pounding" now?

 

[QobraKhan]

the corrected one, althought he color is pretty close, around the lamps base I realized blur or fogginess in comparison to the first image.

 

[480sparky]

If your real good you could just try get it right in camera. Doesn't that seem like an odd notion?

I'll be the first to admit I'm not perfect.

 

[dhris]

I know many people who don't understand that there are any benefits to shooting in RAW, in particular with respect to altering the color balance. I guess because 'close enough' jpgs can be brought in line in a way that is, er, 'close enough', they don't investigate the matter.

 

[480sparky]

If your real good you could just try get it right in camera. Doesn't that seem like an odd notion?

Here: Try this:

While taking snaps during a get-together, my SB600 didn't fire,and I ended up with a very underexposed image. Had I been shooting in JPEG, it would have been tossed into the trashbin.

As it was, I was shooting raw like I always do. Guess what? Her parents liked it so much they bought a framed 11x14 of my edit.

Get it right may be a noble goal, but sometimes life doesn't always play out the way you'd like to command it to. You may live in a perfect world of "Get it right", but the rest of us don't. When life hands me a lemon, I don't make lemonade... I make Roasted Duck with a lemon, rosemary, white wine and olive oil glaze.

 

[ronlane]

Wow Sparky. I wouldn't have seen that in the above image but that is really cool. I can see why they would want a 11x14 of it.

 

[480sparky]

Wow Sparky. I wouldn't have seen that in the above image but that is really cool. I can see why they would want a 11x14 of it.

This is also one reason I never delete any images in-camera unless they are totally black, white, flash didn't synch, or so OOF they cannot be salvaged. The little itty-bitty monitors on DSLRs really do suck at showing you the true potential an image has. It wasn't until I got back to my 23" monitor at home that I saw a possible winner.