------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a little experiment I picked up from my friend Nubster back in December. The point is to show that RAW images look better than JPEG, even when converted to JPEG format.

Initially I only planned to take two images, but I thought that as I was using a strong sidelight I'd have a little play with my polarising filter as well. So essentially I've replicated the experiment three times; once with full poloariser, once with half and once on minimum.

The only post processing was a bit of cropping and sharpening. I didn't even worry about getting the rotation right. All images were treated in exactly the same way.

So, what do you think? Do they look different to you, if so which looks best?

yes! is visible the the diffrence in the tones, and colors! and also in the sharpness and clearness. But still, almost everyone Uses the JPG, since it is used in almost every stuff connected to digital photography!! onlyricky · 2009-09-13: 15:54

A little bit perhaps, but you should see it in the original or big siaze to see the different , i guess. ????? · 2009-09-13: 16:11

Good experiment !! (and some work for me to come to conclusions ;-) ) #1 is better than #2 (better definition & detail; look at the "22") same applies for #5 over #6 but #3 & #4 are practically equal So #1 is the best !! jrregaldie · 2009-09-13: 16:45

There is not much of a difference but I think the reason is because as you said there is not much post-processing. My point is, when one shoots RAW, a huge amount of options are available before the image is even available for crop or other minor adjustments. My weapon of choice is ACR [Adobe Camera Raw], which gives you such an arsenal of options, you can spend many minutes on just one shot. Nevertheless, a great experiment. smbunation · 2009-09-13: 17:12

#1 definately but what is the image? It looks like some crazy science lab experiment :-))) ????? · 2009-09-13: 18:04

#1 is definitely the best in clarity and color compared to all other shots. I started shooting in RAW awhile back, but then went back to JPEG because of the amount of memory RAW takes up. Well, that lasted for a couple weeks. I felt I just wasn't getting the quality I was looking for....thanks for posting this, Jon....very interesting. lookagain · 2009-09-13: 18:53

2, 5 and 6 have the most blur/distortion from the glass; I'm suprised that the reds all seem to have decent saturation and color. Some of them look more flat, but that might be the polariser; The slight green of the top bulb is a little different in the various pics which I think might be more about the filter then the format. thebronzebow · 2009-09-13: 21:14

First one for me Jon. I've been hearing a lot about the RAW format lately, and do see the difference, so slowly am trying to make the step to, but until i get to understand it and get the hang of the PP properly i still use JPEG (but am shooting in both formats together now, even though it takes loads of memory space) Nice experiment! eternity65 · 2009-09-13: 22:21

What I notice is that the first picture is clearly the best. Second thing I notice is that you have the same thermometer as we. ;o) Ryana · 2009-09-14: 02:09

I can't see much of a difference - but it's hard to compare them vertically. jet28 · 2009-09-14: 03:03

#1 gets my vote!! LAZYWASP · 2009-09-14: 03:40

your head is full of extra idea.please write which team you are fun and in which leage it plays. gonia · 2009-09-14: 04:11

cool!~ urmysunshine · 2009-09-14: 09:27

cool:) boszorka65 · 2009-09-14: 12:38

I don't really know a lot about RAW but, yes, it does seem much better. I will learn...... ????? · 2009-09-15: 02:11

Enjoyed your test! Thanks for the post and link. :) I like the addition of the polarizer to the test. Nubster · 2009-09-20: 19:58

Tagged: experiment jpeg raw polariser thermometer