Critique Hoopoe, processed RAW v Jpeg

BillN_33

BillN_33

Messages
12,839
Name
Bill
Edit My Images
No
I would be grateful to receive Critique on this image guys ...... one is a RAW which I have processed to the best of my ability - maybe up to 30 mins work and the other is a jpeg, almost SOOC with just a few mins work
It should be reasonably obvious which is which

ISO 900 @ f4
Test_1.jpg


Test_3.jpg
 
Last edited:
second one is better and looks like it has more work done on it so i suspect started life as raw.. but to be honest with such a clean bright pics with low ISO i would suspect you could get the same results working on raw and jpg for what we see on a forum.. why only a few minute work on the jg and half an hr on the raw? and serious question.. what could you do that takes half an hr ? :)
 
KIPAX said:
second one is better and looks like it has more work done on it so i suspect started life as raw.. but to be honest with such a clean bright pics with low ISO i would suspect you could get the same results working on raw and jpg for what we see on a forum.. why only a few minute work on the jg and half an hr on the raw? and serious question.. what could you do that takes half an hr ? :)
Click to expand...

Mainly (selective) NR to the nth degree and also getting to know what can be done in PS, I still have problems selecting the bird accurately....... but most of the time was just spent looking at every part of the image and deciding if it could be "improved"

I started a thread on here about jpeg v RAW ...... and this is the last comparison I am going to make

The conclusion I came to was that in many cases, and for posting on here a jpeg OOC with just a few adjustments is fine especially once you set the in camera jpeg up to the way you want it

Thanks Guys
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
I started a thread on here about jpeg v RAW ...... and this is the last comparison I am going to make
Click to expand...

did you? if this is a contunuation of that then bad idea as you would presume everyone reads all your posts :)

BillN_33 said:
The conclusion I came to was that in many cases, and for posting on here a jpeg OOC with just a few adjustments is fine especially once you set the in camera jpeg up to the way you want it
Click to expand...

I would tend to agree .

The pic looked good enough to be able to work on in JPG .A pic taken at dusk in higher ISO and a pic taken in perfect lightign conditions would give different answers for the jpg/raw question surely? So which one is jpg raw ? .. or is that for later?
 
KIPAX said:
did you? if this is a contunuation of that then bad idea as you would presume everyone reads all your posts :)



I would tend to agree .

The pic looked good enough to be able to work on in JPG .A pic taken at dusk in higher ISO and a pic taken in perfect lightign conditions would give different answers for the jpg/raw question surely? So which one is jpg raw ? .. or is that for later?
Click to expand...

I would think that it is obvious that the first is the jpeg - just look at the bg NR
 
Last edited:
I must admit I don't know. They obviously look different but it would depend on what jpeg settings you used in camera and what you wanted your image to look like once processed.

Sometimes I'm amazed at how different the jpeg looks like on the camera monitor compared to the RAW file when you look at that on the PC for the first time. It just shows how much processing the camera does outside one's own control.
 
BillN_33 said:
I would think that it is obvious that the first is the jpeg - just look at the bg NR
Click to expand...

Well I did say thats what I thought..... But this could be one of those odd days where I was wrong :) :) :)
 
jerry12953 said:
I must admit I don't know. They obviously look different but it would depend on what jpeg settings you used in camera and what you wanted your image to look like once processed.

Sometimes I'm amazed at how different the jpeg looks like on the camera monitor compared to the RAW file when you look at that on the PC for the first time. It just shows how much processing the camera does outside one's own control.
Click to expand...

I set all the in camera "jpeg" settings to zero Jerry - although I did notice, that versus the RAW there was still NR applied to the jpeg - (the NR was set to none in camera)
 
Last edited:
KIPAX said:
Well I did say thats what I thought..... But this could be one of those odd days where I was wrong :) :) :)
Click to expand...

I thought that you indicated that you thought that the second image was the RAW .... how were you wrong
 
BillN_33 said:
there was still NR applied to the jpeg - (the NR was set to none in camera)
Click to expand...

isnt that just normal as all JPG files are compressed and thus look like nr... a jpg file and a raw file next to each other.. the raw will always show more noise surely?
 
BillN_33 said:
I thought that you indicated that you thought that the second image was the RAW .... how were you wrong
Click to expand...

i wasnt.. re read :)
 
jerry12953 said:
I must admit I don't know. They obviously look different but it would depend on what jpeg settings you used in camera and what you wanted your image to look like once processed.

Sometimes I'm amazed at how different the jpeg looks like on the camera monitor compared to the RAW file when you look at that on the PC for the first time. It just shows how much processing the camera does outside one's own control.
Click to expand...

I agree - most of the time when I look at images on my computer I am not sure what I saw ....... also when looking at some images on here the birds can look "larger than life" (or different to how I see them)....... I presume because of processing ...... I am not saying that they are in any way bad, just different

I get quite near and have good equipment but I am still trying to figure out this difference between Nikon jpeg and RAW and which is the nearest to reality once the RAW is processed .......... I suppose it is deciding how far to go with processing whilst still retaining the actual colours etc.,

I prefer the processed RAW above, image #2 ...... but I would say that image #1 was nearer to what I saw in the light conditions applicable at the time.
 
Last edited:
With birds it's a difficult balance to find between what a bird actually looks like and what in your imagination you'd like it to be like. And of course birds vary according to the individual, the lighting and the time of year.

But I think there's less tendency to over-process bird images than landscapes.

I just don't think a computer chip on board a camera can possibly know what a subject looked like in real life.
 
BillN_33 said:
I'm not sure I fully understand this but I will take your word
Click to expand...

Well how could it?

(You know what I mean)

But then it comes down to how well does the photographer remember what the scene/subject looked like, how honest s/he is and whether any of that matters. It's all very subjective. And I expect several cans of worms have already been opened up discussing this subject......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top