D810 - jpegs fine - SOOC - post your comparisons if you think that it is a debate worth having

[SLRUser]

You seem to have missed the point of the thread ........ but you are obviously an expert in processing RAW images so this thread is not really for you

I think you will find this is exactly for me...In future, don't ask for a "debate" then...or exactly what is the purpose of this thread? Oh and BTW, I don't claim to be an expert at processing RAW images.
Either way, I can take your subtle hint, and you lot can discuss this to your heart's content, it isn't for me as I like facts, not fiction.

I have shot almost exclusively in JPEGs for years now and, frankly, for me the debate is redundant.
IMHO Raw files are good when you expect to do a lot of editing because then the 12 or 14 bits of a RAW image can reduce or eliminate the possibility of "banding" which can occur if you shoot JPEGs with their 8 bits.
Usually also people seem to forget, or not realise, that although JPEGs are described as "lossy" meaning that some of the RAW data is thrown away, JPEGs employ redundancy meaning that a lot of the data which is thrown away is, well, redundant meaning not needed.
An example of this is areas which are uniform so need maybe only a few bits of data rather than the full data recorded on RAW files.
The other argument for RAW is that it can "save the highlights" when overexposed.
The obvious answer to that is "Don't over expose"!
Virtually all modern DSLR cameras, AFAIK, can show histograms and "blinkies" on the back so it's really easy to cut the exposure back to prevent highlights burning out.
And some of the more advanced cameras like the Nikon D750 which is virtually iso-invariant means that RAW is becoming less and less important.
In fact so good is that aspect of the D750 that if I was not already heavily invested in Canon and its lenses I would seriously consider changing.
But at the end of the day in this debate the ultimate test is simple; when looking at a finished picture can you tell if it was shot in RAW or JPEG; if you can't then no further debate is necessary.
.

I never thought of that, I have learnt a lot from this post, thank you.


No wonder I don't post on here much any more.

 

[sk66]

Post number 7, blatantly compares SOOC RAW vs. JPEG.

My point still stands, either learn how to process RAW files or stick to shooting in JPEG. You stated that raw results "can be better", they can only be but better unless you haven't processed the raw image properly.

Well, I admit to having missed that... so I was wrong. But that is not the point of the discussion...

You make many assumptions, most being wrong. With nearly 4 decades in photography and 2 with digital I am well aware of raw files and how to edit them. In fact, my workflow is almost entirely raw simply because I record jpegs to a second card and I'm too lazy to go througha 2 card process. But I am also fully aware that I spend (waste) time editing raw files only to get them to the same level the SOOC jpeg would be at (or maybe not even to that level)... even with as much automation/default processing as I can leverage. And I'm well aware that my drives are full of very large raw files that serve no real benefit. That's not to say I would *recommend* a jpeg only workflow, I wouldn't, at least not yet. (And we aren't really discussing that either, but I am questioning/considering it w/ the D5.)

My personal reasons for working in raw w/ a non destructive workflow are primarily the *potential* benefits I might find on the (rather rare) occasion I might need them... much the same reason I work in the ProPhoto color space instead of sRGB. But the fact is, for a professional who doesn't have time, and where time is money, jpegs have much greater value. And for the hobbyist who values their time, or who doesn't enjoy having to process every image, jpegs have much greater value. And I do believe that the large majority of hobbyists do *not* gain any significant benefit from working with raw files normally (perhaps occasionally). In fact, many/most do the "heavy work" in PS... and it's no longer even a raw file once it's open there. None of this has anything to do with a lack of ability to edit a raw file appropriately. It has to do with having worked with raw files long enough to question the "internet wisdom" as to their true benefit on a personal/professional level.

 

[BillN_33]

The only thing I can say about this and any RAW vs. JPEG debate is that JPEGs are derived from RAW. So if a JPEG image is somehow "better" than the same RAW image it just means that your camera knows how to process the images better than you or your RAW image processing software. No ifs, no buts! There is no disputing it, it is a scientific fact.

RAW images need to be processed, Lightroom/Adobe Camera Raw/DPP/etc. does a fair job of putting an image onto your display but it doesn't stop there.

This isn't to say that JPEG hasn't got its place, it is 110% more convenient than RAW and has other benefits, however image quality is not one of them!


I know a guy who swears by FLAC audio compression, "MP3 is the work of the devil" he shouts, yet he shoots in JPEG. Doesn't make sense to me...when it comes down to image quality, MP3 = JPEG, FLAC = RAW.

I think you will find this is exactly for me...In future, don't ask for a "debate" then...or exactly what is the purpose of this thread? Oh and BTW, I don't claim to be an expert at processing RAW images.
Either way, I can take your subtle hint, and you lot can discuss this to your heart's content, it isn't for me as I like facts, not fiction


No wonder I don't post on here much any more.

I thought from the tone of your posting you thought that we were wasting our time ... and re-reading it that still seems to be the case

the purpose of the thread is clear is you read and understand all the postings - and it was building as the discussion went

I was looking at what adjustments can be made to a jpeg in camera, (there are quite a lot which maybe some people are not aware of) - then comparing the non-adjusted OOC jpeg output with a RAW file - then adjusting the jpeg in LR - and then bringing the RAW to the same apparent level as the adjusted jpeg and then improving the RAW in pp to get the best possible image ........ from the base starting point of a OOC jpeg and an OOC RAW

Going through the stages in LR and CS

with image examples

collecting comments and suggestions along the way

other considerations would be posting on here versus other

is it worth saving all the RAWs ........(before you tell me I know storage is cheap .. but that is not the point when you have 40,000 images on your computer)

what is fiction about that?

 

[BillN_33]

Nearly got the OOC NEF to equal the OOC jpeg ....... surprisingly the NEF now looks "better" OOC ........ so I have got a good base to start with

I'm not too convinced with Nikon greens/yellows?

ISO 2500 - thru the window - so take that into consideration when looking at the IQ

jPEG

NEF

 

[sk66]

Nearly got the OOC NEF to equal the OOC jpeg ....... surprisingly the NEF now looks "better" OOC ........ so I have got a good base to start with

Not sure what you mean...default LR processing for imported NEFs?
Nikon is historically nearly as bad with yellows as Canon is with reds...

 

[BillN_33]

Not sure what you mean...default LR processing for imported NEFs?
Nikon is historically nearly as bad with yellows as Canon is with reds...

Thanks Steven

NEF is just imported into LR and then exported as a jpeg