Now, my friends, I have a serious doubt !...

[Antonio Correia]

I shot these pictures today.
I was using the 350 D and the 24-70.
I shot RAW and JPG at the same time.
Which photo looks the best ?
The one on the right or the one on the left ?
In fact the one on the right is the JPG and the other the RAW file without "modifications". And the JPG is better than the RAW !

I do understand that shooting RAW is better because of the digital negative, etc. etc. etc..

What am I doing wronge ?
What am I supposed to do ?
Can I have even better pictures coming from RAW to JPG ?
In http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/gallery/2142579#147967103 are other pictures in the same place with the same "problem"

The link for the 1.st photo is: http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/gallery/2142579#147968166-L-LB
The link for the 2.ed photo is: http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/gallery/2142579#147967103-L-LB

 

[Tim Gray]

The jpg likely has some in camera processing applied. RAW is not meant to be proudly displayed "no adjustments made!!!" RAW shots need at least some capture and output sharpening, as well as saturation and curves tweaks - RAW is designed for the photographer, not the camera, to do the post processing.

But if you want to see the difference, try pulling some detail out of the shadows bottom right of the shot and see how the jpg does... You may not need it for this shot, but it's a fallacy that RAW will always give noticeably superior results. It really adds value in shots that require some aggressive adjustments in post processing.

 

[Jack Joseph Jr]

I shot these pictures today.
In fact the one on the right is the JPG and the other the RAW file without "modifications". And the JPG is better than the RAW !

Antonio, there is no such thing as RAW "without modifications". If you used Zoombrowser/RIT set to As Shot the resulting image will look virtually identical to a camera JPG. If you used DPP it will be kinda-sorta close, maybe better looking, maybe not. DPP is very good at retaining detail. If you used a non-Canon product like Adobe Camera Raw the CR2 file will be decoded by someone else's theory of demosaicing.

I use Camera Raw (4) a lot more than I use DPP because of its advanced tool set. Occasionally I see camera JPGs that have better color than what Adobe initially offers. If I need lots of details, like fur or feathers, DPP is hard to beat.

Frankly I think that your RAWs looks better than your JPGs do. For the examples you posted here the RAW shows a lot more detail in the trees than the JPG does. The JPG looks highly sharpened but the RAW looks unsharpened. That makes me think that the conversion was done by other than Canon software. Also the images don't have the same dimensions so comparison of details is not so accurate. The JPGs on your site have more contrast so they pop out a little more and give the initial impression as "better".

 

[Deleted member 55]

You may not need it for this shot, but it's a fallacy that RAW will always give noticeably superior results. It really adds value in shots that require some aggressive adjustments in post processing.

RAW really excels when printing really large and you have used DPP to convert to a TIFF!

 

[Antonio Correia]

Tim, Jack and Will,

Thank you for the comments.

They were useful and confirmed what I was suspecting for some time now:

Shooting JPG all the way is easier in most situations.
For special situations, like situations where light temperature is difficult to control and we can not use the gray card, high dynamic range is needed, hight detail in shadows is needed, large prints are required, RAW may/is be the issue.

Now, I am going to experiment with some different camera settings to watch the results I like best.
But, there too, those setting differ from one subject to another.

Shooting a landscape and a face should require different settings.

Curious, that only now I noticed such a difference. And it is not the 1.st time I shoot RAW and JPG simultaniously.
Usually I shoot with 20D and yesterday I was using the 350 D.

Thank you again.

 

[Barry Johnston]

Raw & J.Peg...

I agree that the wall is better, but the sky is definitely not... It looks as though it has some sort of bands in it...

 

[Vivek Khanzode]

Yep, I agree. BUT, I think this is an issue of the RAW->JPEG converter or downsampling required for posting the image. I am pretty sure this is not an issue with the "RAW shooting mode" itself.

-- V

I agree that the wall is better, but the sky is definitely not... It looks as though it has some sort of bands in it...