# RAW v JPEG : A Shootout Challenge.



## 480sparky

OK, so my schedule today got shot out of the water, so I'm bouncing off the walls looking for something constructive to do.

So I came up with this "Shootout" challenge:  _RAW v JPEG....White Balance_.


To demonstrate the difference between shooting RAW and JPEG, I set up a little experiment I'd like you to participate in.  I set up my D7k to RAW + Jpeg/Fine/Large and took the following shot.  White balance was set to Incandescent, and I included a gray card for testing purposes.  No editing has been done to this image other than resize it so it uploaded to PhotoBucket quicker:









I then changed the white balance in the camera to Direct Sunlight.  This obviously will produce a terrible yellow image, which looks like this:








I then loaded the NEF image with the incorrect white balance into NX2, and corrected the white balance.  This is the result:







I'll put the Control image and the NEF Corrected White Balance images side-by-side so you can compare them:










The challenge I offer (for anyone who wants to try it) is to take the full-size JPEG image with the _incorrect_ white balance and try to correct it, producing an image with the same color quality and depth as the Jpeg shot with the _correct_ white balance.  

The full-size _incorrect_ white-balance JPEG can be seen & downloaded here.  To give you the equivalent full-size _control_ image (the first one in this post), click here.  In other words, try to make the first linked image look like the second linked one.  Let's see if anyone can accomplish this, and if so, hopefully they'll share their PP method.


----------



## 480sparky

Wow?  Not takers?

Has anyone even tried?


----------



## EchoingWhisper

This is the best I could do. Contrast increase is unavoidable. Used smart sharpen (color balance makes the picture murky), color balance (increase magenta slightly in highlights and midtones, increase blues in midtones and shadows, increase red and yellow slightly in highlights), vibrance (desaturated) and curves (to remove murkiness in the blown out part). Is this good enough (I didn't bother downloading the full size image)?


----------



## EchoingWhisper

Here is the animated GIF for the changes:





Here is the animated GIF for the difference between the NEF and mine:


----------



## addicted2glass

Raw Vs jpeg.  You are using only jpegs to get the white balance the same as the first image?  I would think that using a raw file to change the white balance and saving it as a jpeg is cheating.


----------



## 480sparky

addicted2glass said:


> Raw Vs jpeg.  You are using only jpegs to get the white balance the same as the first image?  I would think that using a raw file to change the white balance and saving it as a jpeg is cheating.



The challenge is to take the incorrect white balance JPEG and get an image that's close to the correct white balance JPEG.  The idea is to show why shooting raw can be a much better option.  If you took an entire photo shoot (say, a kid's birthday party or football game) at the wrong white balance and you shot only JPEG, you can end up with some serious headaches.  Shooting raw allows you to correct the problem, in post, with a simple click.


----------



## EchoingWhisper

Yes it is a headache and will be one. It is possible to repair the white balance but repairing 1000 photos is crazy.


----------



## EchoingWhisper

I would really want to see how others fix this.


----------



## xzoup

_I'm new at raw and still learning, when I get the shot to look the way I think looks the best that's when I switch it over to jpeg._


----------



## 480sparky

xzoup said:


> _I'm new at raw and still learning, when I get the shot to look the way I think looks the best that's when I switch it over to jpeg._



It already* is *a jpeg.


----------



## bianni

i cheated by selecting areas and adjusting colors,


----------



## Crollo

No go. The floor is blue, not white.


----------



## CanonEOS

A better way to understand Jpeg vs Raw and to slove it,

JPEG vs RAW &#8211; Let&#8217;s Settle it With a Single Example:


----------



## jkzo

EchoingWhisper said:


> Here is the animated GIF for the changes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the animated GIF for the difference between the NEF and mine:



quite interesting


----------



## snowbear

I tried and, as I suspected, it failed - still a bit pink.  I'll post results in the AM - I have to downsize the files.


----------



## Judobreaker

Hehe, I know, topic is a bit old but I couldn't resist. 








I'm still missing a little bit of detail in the shadows but it's not a bad result in my opinion. ^^


----------



## snowbear

The WB Control image:
View attachment 28959

My adjustements
View attachment 28960

I used Lightroom 3.  First I used the eyedropper tool in Custom WB adjust and selected a spot in the top-right corner of the grey card.  Then I dropped the brightness a little.

My adjusted photo is still brighter than the control, and has a bit of a pink cast to it.  I'm sure, if I spent *a lot* more time on it, I could get it very close, but IMO, it's not worth the time.  I'll continue to shoot raw.


----------



## amolitor

Why would I do this?

It's not going to work in the general case. There are obviously cases where it will work fine (e.g. take a picture of a pure white wall) and there are cases where it won't work at all (the wider the color gamut, the more problems you're going to have).

I guess maybe it would be a good exercise for people who don't understand anything about color, maybe?

That said, I adjust color balance in jpegs all the time, and it's not at all bad. JPEG gives you quite a bit of wiggle room, but not as much as the underlying raw file, _*by definition*_.

ETA: G*d D*mn zombie threads.


----------



## panblue

You could try also raw+JPEG in combination with Auto Bracket mode. 





xzoup said:


> _I'm new at raw and still learning, when I get the shot to look the way I think looks the best that's when I switch it over to jpeg._


----------



## jaomul

If your real good you could just try get it right in camera. Doesn't that seem like an odd notion?


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan

amolitor said:
			
		

> Why would I do this?



Why not? Sounds like a well-thought-out experiment worthy of most people's time to at least consider. Raw vs jpeg is a very common question and this is a great example for most people. 

Again I find your response a detriment to the spirit of the thread. If you're above doing this or too knowledgable to do it, then why waste time leaving a response?


----------



## amolitor

Well, Rotanimod, you edited out the part where I suggested that "I guess maybe it would be a good exercise for people who don't understand anything about color, maybe?" so perhaps you missed that, and are unaware of the fact that I basically agree with you?

I shan't bother to reply to any more of your little chiding posts. I know you don't like me and wish that I would stop expressing my opinions on this public forum, so if your goal is to communicate that, consider your job done.

I am, however, not going to stop expressing my opinions on this or any other public forum I choose. Perhaps you will find some comfort in knowing that I won't tell you to stop expressing your opinions and ideas, however?


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan

Oh you're right. I missed the part where you endorsed the thread in a wishy washy, underhanded way.



			
				amolitor said:
			
		

> "I guess maybe it would be a good exercise for people who don't understand anything about color, maybe?"



But I guess the part where you spent the majority of your time pounding your chest about everything you know about color and gamut and how special you are with all this knowledge was the thing that stood out . 

Don't be mistaken. You're totally free to express your opinion and I would want nothing less. But if your opinion is detrimental or de-railing which it often can be, I might have something to say


----------



## HughGuessWho

And who is "chest pounding" now?


----------



## QobraKhan

the corrected one, althought he color is pretty close, around the lamps base I realized blur or fogginess in comparison to the first image.


----------



## 480sparky

jaomul said:


> If your real good you could just try get it right in camera. Doesn't that seem like an odd notion?



I'll be the first to admit I'm not perfect.


----------



## dhris

I know many people who don't understand that there are any benefits to shooting in RAW, in particular with respect to altering the color balance. I guess because 'close enough' jpgs can be brought in line in a way that is, er, 'close enough', they don't investigate the matter.


----------



## 480sparky

jaomul said:


> If your real good you could just try get it right in camera. Doesn't that seem like an odd notion?



Here:  Try this:






While taking snaps during a get-together, my SB600 didn't fire,and I ended up with a very underexposed image.  Had I been shooting in JPEG, it would have been tossed into the trashbin.

As it was, I was shooting raw like I always do.  Guess what?  Her parents liked it so much they bought a framed 11x14 of my edit.







_Get it right_ may be a noble goal, but sometimes life doesn't always play out the way you'd like to command it to.  You may live in a perfect world of "Get it right", but the rest of us don't.  When life hands me a lemon, I don't make lemonade... I make Roasted Duck with a lemon, rosemary, white wine and olive oil glaze.


----------



## ronlane

Wow Sparky. I wouldn't have seen that in the above image but that is really cool. I can see why they would want a 11x14 of it.


----------



## 480sparky

ronlane said:


> Wow Sparky. I wouldn't have seen that in the above image but that is really cool. I can see why they would want a 11x14 of it.



This is also one reason I never delete any images in-camera unless they are totally black, white, flash didn't synch, or so OOF they cannot be salvaged.  The little itty-bitty monitors on DSLRs really do suck at showing you the true potential an image has.  It wasn't until I got back to my 23" monitor at home that I saw a possible winner.


----------



## ronlane

I typically don't delete in camera either, I wait until I get back on the PC, but honestly I don't think I would have seen that in this picture. (I may be wrong and it is pretty much just cropping).  I for sure learned something today. Thanks.


----------



## 480sparky

It's not just a simple crop.  I had to bring the exposure back up a bit to get some detail in her face & hair.  I also darkened her purple dress to keep it from being a distraction in the final image.  It may be possible to do this with an SOOC JPEG, but I'd rather have as much data as I can get out of the camera so I have a far better chance of success.  The door frame and even some of the glass had to be cloned out. 

Another reason I shoot raw: I can keep both the original image AND the edited version saved under ONE filename.  And I can create even more versions and still have only ONE file to deal with.  And each edit/version is totally reversible and changeable.  If I want to alter the saturation in one version, I can do that without any penalty.  JPEGs just cannot do that.


----------



## SJphoto

If you want correct colors, go with RAW, then work on it in photoshop.


----------

