Visual diffence between JPEG and edited RAW

As requested By Nero, here is an example of what can be done with a RAW file.



The before image is what your image would have looked like if shot in JPEG. Yes it can be retouched - to an extent, but it can never be as good or as detailed as what can be achieved with RAW.

The after image is the result of being touched up in Lightroom. A program designed specifically for RAW files. So much can be done in here (that cannot be done to JPEGs) - as seen in the menus below:



The differnce is very subtle but im sure you agree, it improves the overall finish to the image. Creating something with more depth, detail and realistic colour tones.

Thanks for the explanation and the illustration K, here's a PS'd pic of the jpeg I posted earlier, I noticed that the file size had increased from 1.6 meg to 2.7 meg (on my HD) after the editing, all I did was sharpen, adjusted the tones and added a bit more contrast.

As far as im aware Nero, its now bigger file as it contains more information after you have edited it....

Good explanation KK I use a similar program on the Mac called Aperture.



Just a different layout

Great explanation K!

Nero - sharpening will increase the file size as there's more 'info' to be saved, likewise blurring a pic will decrease filesize.

OK, I used another bit of the software from Canon, I think I'm getting there.

I only ever shoot in RAW now, the difference is amazing, you can edit it as much as you need to (within reason) and still keep the picture quality.

I use DoX optics pro Elite which is more user friendly than lightroom.

Wolfie

There can be a tendency to over edit a picture to my way of thinking. A little cropping- spot removal -sharpening hue and saturation is ok but more and more am I seeing editing taking over from the original.

How many actually take their edited pictures back to where the photo was taken for a comparison? Very few I suspect.

Ok I am for pictures looking like what I have taken whereas others believe every picture has to be edited to the extreme, and it is a matter of personal choice.

Bazza

Some people can get a shot they want with just the camera, some can get it with some editing.

Photography is very much an artform, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder - so I guess so long as the owner is happy all is good, anyone else liking it as well is a bonus

the original photos have dissapeared, anyone else got any examples of a jpeg and raw of the same picture to see the difference?