RAW vs. JPG (3 of 3)

Alright! Time for the last part to the RAW vs. JPG entries.   I figured what better way to show you the difference between the two than posting a visual comparison.
(Click the images to view them bigger)

The first thing you will probably notice is the color vibrancy.  A RAW image is much more saturated and vibrant than a straight-outta-the-camera JPG (even with slight editing to it!)  Color transitions are smoother. 2nd difference is exposure.  Some of the shadows in the RAW photos aren’t as blocked up as they are in the JPG ones.
I’ll let the photos do most of the talking here. As you can see it is crystal clear why I, as a professional photographer, choose RAW over JPG all the time, every time. No exceptions!  Like I have said in the earlier posts, and I realize it can be a harsh statement, but I am just being frank;  this is visual proof as to why I believe any professional photographer who shoots images strictly in JPG for their client, is doing a huge disservice to that client.  They aren’t providing the best image quality possible when they shoot in JPG only. RAW is what allows the photographer to do so.

Shawn just posted an entry about the whole RAW vs JPG debate from a more technical angle – regarding bit-depth.  (Don’t worry you don’t have to be a math-lover to understand it 😉 And for those of you who do love math,  you will appreciate this P.O.V.!)

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Photography technics, RAW vs. JPG and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s