Jpeg vs raw

[David Lambroughton]

When I upload images for various social media sites, I just export them as 1 meg files. Larger files are just a waste of time the and the images will not look any better at all.

 

[sar104]

I don't have the MA2 but I am really interested in knowing the dynamic range of the camera . There is a good collection of samples here : DJI Mavic Air 2 sample gallery

I have downloaded some of the images and opened up the shadows in photoshop to see if more details can be seen in the raw file but the results are negative. Here is an example.

Original jpg photo :

View attachment 103876

Shadow opened up by pushing the exposure slider in ACR. Left is RAW and right is JPG. Both are 100% crops

View attachment 103874

Just wondering what the experience of MA2 owners is in this regard.

You may need to look more closely at the detail and noise - significant differences are visible:

48 Megapixels of Confusion

The 48 MP DNG files produced by the Mavic Air 2 are processed in some way to present a "regular" 2x2 Bayer pattern, instead of the quad-Bayer pattern: Make : DJI Camera Model Name : FC3170 Image Width : 8000 Image Height...

mavicpilots.com

 

[Km5er]

Previous posts about Raw are accurate and allows a photo to be edited much more. However, you will still go to heaven if you only shoot in jpg. You can also edit jpg files if you desire. The attached are extreme examples. The photos have edited color and skies plus some added (remember I said extreme not "good") lightning. It all depends on your situation. At one time the issue was that raw files were so large but that is not really an issue due to the inexpensive memory cards. If you want to go home load up your computer with your files and spend a lot of time editing them significantly or fix files that can out really bad then shoot in raw. But if you just want to enjoy your photos and they look pretty good to you...and maybe edit a few then don't be afraid of jpg. (Note one is a bridge I shot in Hanoi Vietnam and one is Macho Picchu in Peru)

 

[sar104]

When I upload images for various social media sites, I just export them as 1 meg files. Larger files are just a waste of time the and the images will not look any better at all.View attachment 103877

Nice photo. And yes - if your use case is social media and the photos were taken in good light then the JPEG is likely to be perfectly adequate.

 

[THE CYBORG]

I don't have the MA2 but I am really interested in knowing the dynamic range of the camera . There is a good collection of samples here : DJI Mavic Air 2 sample gallery

I have downloaded some of the images and opened up the shadows in photoshop to see if more details can be seen in the raw file but the results are negative. Here is an example.

Original jpg photo

Shadow opened up by pushing the exposure slider in ACR. Left is RAW and right is JPG. Both are 100% crops

Just wondering what the experience of MA2 owners is in this regard.

You say you downloaded from DJI Mavic Air 2 sample gallery
Unless I am missing something they are all JPJ.
You can’t edit RAW files in Photoshop unless you are using Photoshop Lightroom.
I use Darktable to edit my RAW files.

 

[boblui]

You say you downloaded from DJI Mavic Air 2 sample gallery
Unless I am missing something they are all JPJ.
You can’t edit RAW files in Photoshop unless you are using Photoshop Lightroom.
I use Darktable to edit my RAW files.

you need to press the " Mavic Air 2 sample gallery" button near the bottom of the page. I edit the DNG file in ACR which I treat as part of photoshop. Pls try to examine the raw file and let us know your view.

 

[boblui]

Previous posts about Raw are accurate and allows a photo to be edited much more. However, you will still go to heaven if you only shoot in jpg. You can also edit jpg files if you desire. The attached are extreme examples. The photos have edited color and skies plus some added (remember I said extreme not "good") lightning. It all depends on your situation. At one time the issue was that raw files were so large but that is not really an issue due to the inexpensive memory cards. If you want to go home load up your computer with your files and spend a lot of time editing them significantly or fix files that can out really bad then shoot in raw. But if you just want to enjoy your photos and they look pretty good to you...and maybe edit a few then don't be afraid of jpg. (Note one is a bridge I shot in Hanoi Vietnam and one is Macho Picchu in Peru)

Nice pictures. May I know how you captured the lightning ? from the shadows of objects and people on the ground, the lighting was very good. the shutter speed must be on the high side, may be something like 1/800. The chance of having lightning occurring in that small time interval is practically zero.

 

[THE CYBORG]

I see it now, downloading a RAW, will play around with it later, havn't got the time now.

 

[Simone L]

Photographers all shoot RAW and post process in software like Adobe Lightroom or Photoshop to achieve a better photo results. JPEG photo image modification are baked in with software preventing many additional photo enhancements.

And every time you open a jpg file it compresses...you lose data.

 

[AtortPhotography]

Why does jpeg look so much better than .dng?
I took some stills of the sunrise this morning and the dng can't be cropped at all while the jpeg can be zoomed at least 2x.
With the raw being 5x bigger in size, I'm baffled.
BTW, how do yall upload your stills...the site states the jpeg is too large to upload (16MB)
Thanks,
Randy

Yup they look "better" because they have already been processed in camera. But I know I can process out a file better than a camera so capture in RAW always. But jpg may be fine for your needs and know some amazing master photographers that shot jpg only because they captured their shots perfectly so there's that too if that confident.

 

[NelAir]

Nice pictures. May I know how you captured the lightning ? from the shadows of objects and people on the ground, the lighting was very good. the shutter speed must be on the high side, may be something like 1/800. The chance of having lightning occurring in that small time interval is practically zero.

Also wondering the same about the lightning effect... However lately I’ve been looking into all the tools available for photo editing and adding lightning is one of them. Unless this was natural, which props to the artist if so.

I shoot my photos in JPEG and they come out beautifully if shot in good light after some minor editing adjustments. Might try editing RAW photos later once I have better equipment and experience. For now JPEG gets the job done for sharing great photos on social media.

 

[Meta4]

You can’t edit RAW files in Photoshop unless you are using Photoshop Lightroom.

You can edit raw image files in Photoshop or you can edit them in Lightroom.
Either will work just fine.

 

[Meta4]

And every time you open a jpg file it compresses...you lose data.

That's every time you re-save the file.
Not when you open it.

 

[sar104]

you need to press the " Mavic Air 2 sample gallery" button near the bottom of the page. I edit the DNG file in ACR which I treat as part of photoshop. Pls try to examine the raw file and let us know your view.

View attachment 103883

You need to look closer - especially in the shadows. This is a close up in the 48 MP JPEG:



Here is the same view from the unedited raw:



And you can then improve the raw image much further:



So the JPEG is fine if the light is good, which it is for most of that image, and you don't need to pull out shadow detail or enlarge much by cropping. But in terms of noise and detail, the raw is in a different league.

 

[THE CYBORG]

you need to press the " Mavic Air 2 sample gallery" button near the bottom of the page.

OK downloaded the JPG & RAW versions from the Air 2 sample gallery.
Had a little play with the RAW ( My skill is not good) I think you can see a difference in the shadows

 

[peterc4]

If you ever decide to get more serious with your pics you will never use jpeg again ever, some great tips and advice above as usual

 

[Meta4]

If you ever decide to get more serious with your pics you will never use jpeg again ever

How much better would my pix be if I shot raw?
All these images were shot in jpg.

Shipping Photography Examples - Above & Beyond Photography

This gallery hosted by SmugMug; your photos look better here.

abovephotos.smugmug.com

 

[THE CYBORG]

How much better would my pix be if I shot raw?

Shipping Photography Examples - Above & Beyond Photography

This gallery hosted by SmugMug; your photos look better here.

abovephotos.smugmug.com

Without the RAW files to play with we can’t say

 

[boblui]

How much better would my pix be if I shot raw?
All these images were shot in jpg.

Shipping Photography Examples - Above & Beyond Photography

This gallery hosted by SmugMug; your photos look better here.

abovephotos.smugmug.com

Nice pictures. My experience is that RAW is really useful when the brightness difference across the picture is high. That's not the situation in your pictures so shooting JPG will actually be better because the build-in raw converter of the camera is often more optimized for the characteristics of the sensor and lens.

 

[Ars3nal3432]

How much better would my pix be if I shot raw?
All these images were shot in jpg.

Shipping Photography Examples - Above & Beyond Photography

This gallery hosted by SmugMug; your photos look better here.

abovephotos.smugmug.com

Heres the benefits of raw: The lightning condition are at extremes (blow out), you need to manually adjust your white balance in post, you want more control of colors,detail, noise reduction, and sharpness. When you shoot in jpg you are limiting what you can do with an image in post.

Now in all my years as a professional photographer, I think I have only had one client ask for raws and I was reluctant to hand those over anyways. So, in the end, they become jpgs regardless. I looked at your photos and you have good control over the condition in which you are shooting. I really don't see myself saying well if this was in raw he could have... So if you are happy with your process there's no need to change it. Just keep in mind the benefits of raw in post are far superior than jpg if the image calls for it. In your case the algorithm for the jpg conversion gets the job done.