> The jpeg is as good as I could get it. The white lids with hot sun on > them were solid gone, but the shadow detail was full retrievable with > the RAW.
Cotty, do you recall your workflow with the jpeg? Kenneth Waller -- Original Message ----- From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RAW vs JPEG - The truth is out > Can someone please serve me some pie? > > Reading through the couple of recent threads on pixels and jpegs vs RAW > spurred me on to do another test (I hate tests because it means work). > > When I got a DSLR a few years ago I did a test where I shot some books > on a shelf in both RAW and large fine jpeg and compared the results on > the monitor, blown right up in Photoshop. This was with a Canon D60. The > detail was more or less the same in both pics, and so I kept with jpeg > as it was all a bit of a learning curve at the time and I'm for the path > of least resistance when I can get away with it. > > I sold the D60 and got a 1Dmark II (1.3 crop from full frame) and have > been happy with it. Of course, I didn't do any tests as I assumed the > results would be the same. But, of course, they're not. > > Hence, I was fiddling (fondling?) my beloved Pentax SMC-A* 85mm f/1.4 > (to confirm I'm on topic here) and there was a very contrasty subject > right in front of me: buckets of paint and bits of wood, backlit, > darkest shadows right through to bright highlights bouncing off the lids. > > I shot one jpeg frame and one RAW. > > Into Photoshop CS with both, the RAW staying in 16 bit. Here's a couple > of screen shots: > > <http://www.cottysnaps.com/snaps/spare5.html> > > Guess which one is the RAW file :-) > > ISO 800, 1/30th sec handheld (c'mon I don't do tripod tests - there has > to be an element of risk ;-) > > The jpeg is as good as I could get it. The white lids with hot sun on > them were solid gone, but the shadow detail was full retrievable with > the RAW. With the jpeg it took a lot of bodging and it stinks. But the > level of detail in the RAW amazed me. That instantly sold me back onto > RAW. > > Of course, there's no way my inkjet can cope with showing that detail, > but that's another story. > > Some facts: jpeg file on card 5MB, RAW is 8 MB. I'm down from 300-odd > jpegs per 2 GB card to 187 at 200 ISO. Time for some more cards :-( > > And time to pull Bruce's book off the shelf and have another go. > > Some pass me a desert fork.... > > -- > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com > _____________________________ > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
