Raw vs JPG

  • Posted Aug. 25, 2011 by Ricardo in Insects. Viewed 3666 times
  • This is a migrated legacy post. Image resolution is low. Info

Anthomyia pluvialis


I still not very into this, and honestly I can't see a lot of difference between them (except on the file one is like 3 MB and the RAW is 10MB lol)
I guess I should still be trying and see if i get any results!
Though Is my first RAW Attempt

JPG

RAW

Join the conversation!
    Login or Signup using following options to comment Login or Signup below to comment
    Login Sign up

    18 There are 18 comments, add yours!

    • #
      0
      2011.08.31 Edited

      If anything, I'd say that the eye is a little redder in the jpeg version, otherwise I'm struggling to see a difference.

      I don't think that it matters to much for Photoblog where the images are so small anyway. For me main the benefit is in having greater control over white balance and a few other things when post processing. Sometimes it makes a lot of difference, sometimes none.

    • #
      0
      2011.08.26 Edited

      Really? I prefer the JPG in this example. I have also been thinking I want to get a camera that allows me to shoot RAW so I can try it, but now I see that, not only would I have to pay for the new camera, but also for Photoshop or another program to work with the RAW files. AND they take up a lot of space? I don't know if I want to anymore.

    • #
      0
      2011.08.25 Edited

      A lot depends on the kind of shot you're taking. Sometimes it doesn't seem to matter....other times it really does if you're wanting a quality image!

    • #
      0
      Tom
      2011.08.25 Edited

      I don't really see the differnce but jpg is more convient

    • #
      0
      2011.08.25 Edited

      I can see some differences but are they worth the file size. Yes. The RAW file has more colour and is a bit brighter. Could you manipulate the jpg file to get similar results? You could give it a try.
      I try to take photos as I wish them to be, in the camera and seldom do more than straighten, crop or adjust lighting so jpg works for me. There is a lot to be said for RAW images allowing the photographer to manipulate them to a far higher level.
      When I get to the point of having more time that I wish to use in manipulating the photos I take, I will certainly have more interest in RAW again.

    • #
      0
      2011.08.25 Edited

      I can not tell the difference either. LOL I will just stick with point and shoot and hope. ;0 Wonderful captures.

    • #
      0
      2011.08.25 Edited

      It depends heavily on how much editing you plan to do with each shot. If you under expose in RAW, you can recover a lot of the information in post. Versus having shot in JPG, it would be more difficult [usually] to achieve the same result.

      Another way of looking at it is having a 'flattened' PhotoShop file versus a Photoshop file with a bunch of layers... I hope I didn't just confuse the situation more! Ha!

      [RAW FOR LIFE!]

    • #
      0
      2011.08.25 Edited

      RAW is something like an unfinished picture. All information is in the image, you just have to do the finishing editings in for example: lightroom or photoshop.
      RAW files give you so much more freedom with your pictures and how they will look like at the end.

    • #
      0
      2011.08.25 Edited

      Raw gives me a sense of freedom :) In case of burnt skies I can easily fix it, for example. And a lot of other things too. I recently started too, and at the beginning i didn't see any real difference, but now I wonder why I have waited so long to start taking in raw instead of jpeg :)

    • #
      0
      2011.08.25 Edited

      Trying raw myself with photoshop cs4 and don't see a great deal of difference between raw and JPG only that JPG is simpler and easier to deal with