RAW vs JPG

[scro]

So... the Mini2 has RAW capabilities, and many pilots claim this is far superior to just JPG. Can someone with a Mini2 take a few well exposed JPG and RAW comparison shots to convince me that RAW is really the huge improvement so many claim?

I have a DSLR and have used RAW on that, taking the time and effort to manipulate photos carefully to squeeze out the best detail and colour in stills. My conclusion on the topic was that for casual to keen amateur photography it is quicker, easier and less storage-hungry to shoot several JPGs at different exposures than to shoot RAW and edit in post. The difference between a well exposed JPG and slightly off-exposed RAW was negligible when produced by a prosumer level digital camera. I don't deny that RAW files provide more data to work with and provides greater flexibility for editing later, but I'm not yet convinced that it is as superior as many believe it to be. Convince me otherwise

 

[hiflyer201]

Looking forward to responses
I'm no expert..just someone who likes photographs but I'm pretty tired of what I'm seeing in magazines like Westways where they run photo contests where the winners are usually just plain overworked in my opinion...like I said..I'm no expert

 

[netsonic]

Sure thing! One sample coming up!
It's too big to attach it here directly, so you can download it from here: Sample.zip

 

[scro]

Can't access that link. Is that the unprocessed RAW file? I've been able to upload full res JPGs to here OK.

The Mini2 specs imply that it can shoot Raw+JPG together. What I'm looking for is a comparison of the JPG, and the processed RAW distilled into a JPG.

 

[netsonic]

No, it's a zip with both. Just checked and page works just fine. Yes I can attach the jpg (see below) but the DNG is 15+ megs and it's too big

 

[scro]

@netsonic Ahh.. thanks for taking the time to upload . You may not yet have seen, but I just edited my earlier post (#4) to clarify that I'm not looking for an unprocessed RAW file, rather RAW that's been processed to get the best out of the data and then distilled down to a JPG.

RAW files are akin to classic photography negatives, that require some further processing to be viewed, and are hence subject to the settings used for opening the RAW file. If I open the RAW you've supplied then I could use some funky settings and make it look quite different to what you, or someone else may see.

edit: looks like zippyshare is blocked in the UK: Zippyshare now shows “Forbidden Message” to more users

 

[netsonic]

Sorry mate! Can't help you with a processed one. My Lightroom license has expired.
Maybe someone else wants to help out and edit it or provide you with another sample.

 

[Oswald]

If you just want to take some snapshots to share with people or for social media and not futz around with them, there is nothing wrong with Jpgs. These days they are actually normally quite good. Having the flexibility of RAW is great, but there is no reason you HAVE to use them if you just want to take some pics with your drone.

Long story short, no reason to convince anyone, use what works for you and what you want to do! I like playing around in lightroom, so I will choose RAW.

 

[KiloMeater]

If you wait one week I will upload comparisons if there is still interest

 

[dpgallery]

So... the Mini2 has RAW capabilities, and many pilots claim this is far superior to just JPG. Can someone with a Mini2 take a few well exposed JPG and RAW comparison shots to convince me that RAW is really the huge improvement so many claim?

I have a DSLR and have used RAW on that, taking the time and effort to manipulate photos carefully to squeeze out the best detail and colour in stills. My conclusion on the topic was that for casual to keen amateur photography it is quicker, easier and less storage-hungry to shoot several JPGs at different exposures than to shoot RAW and edit in post. The difference between a well exposed JPG and slightly off-exposed RAW was negligible when produced by a prosumer level digital camera. I don't deny that RAW files provide more data to work with and provides greater flexibility for editing later, but I'm not yet convinced that it is as superior as many believe it to be. Convince me otherwise

RAW files allow you to do more precise adjustments in post...think of it as layers, brightness, color etc. All adjustments can be reset even after the file is saved by deleting the XMP file extension. JPEG adjustments are basic and allow for much less precise adjustability.

 

[BluecornNM]

If you prefer to work with jpg, work with jpg.

 

[RogerDH]

If you prefer to work with jpg, work with jpg.

I think you're missing the point. I don't think there's any question that shooting RAW with a DSLR camera gives you much more control over the final image because RAW captures the full dynamic range of the sensor. So sure, it's a matter of preference if you think it's worth the effort or JPGs are good enough. But the question is specific to the Mini 2: Does the tiny 1/2.3" sensor have enough dynamic range that capturing RAW is worth the effort? I'd like to see an example myself, because I have my doubts.

 

[boblui]

You can get sample RAW and JPG photos taken by Mini 2 here : DJI Mavic Mini 2 sample gallery

 

[RogerDH]

You can get sample RAW and JPG photos taken by Mini 2 here : DJI Mavic Mini 2 sample gallery

Okay, I downloaded a RAW and corresponding out-of-the-camera JPG and then did my own adjustments to the JPG. Which do you prefer? (Edit: The RAW was "processed to taste" by the photographer.)

 

[Trackerputnam]

I take raw photos because I have clients that want them. I prefer jpeg because they are much smaller files. My shoot today will take many hours to upload to the clients site where if they were jpeg it would take less than an hour!

 

[KiloMeater]

Your shots in the galery with the autumn trees and the cloudy sky clearly speak the benefits of raw

 

[Dale D]

So... the Mini2 has RAW capabilities, and many pilots claim this is far superior to just JPG. Can someone with a Mini2 take a few well exposed JPG and RAW comparison shots to convince me that RAW is really the huge improvement so many claim?

I have a DSLR and have used RAW on that, taking the time and effort to manipulate photos carefully to squeeze out the best detail and colour in stills. My conclusion on the topic was that for casual to keen amateur photography it is quicker, easier and less storage-hungry to shoot several JPGs at different exposures than to shoot RAW and edit in post. The difference between a well exposed JPG and slightly off-exposed RAW was negligible when produced by a prosumer level digital camera. I don't deny that RAW files provide more data to work with and provides greater flexibility for editing later, but I'm not yet convinced that it is as superior as many believe it to be. Convince me otherwise

There is a huge difference between JPG and RAW. With RAW files there is a lot more data on the file, allowing you to recover details in the bright whites and black blacks, if you have exposed correctly. With JPG the file is very limited as to what you can recover from shadows. For example, with drones, many images appear here with nice sunsets or sunrises, where the exposure was for the bright sky, but the foreground has lost all of the details and is very dark. It is not an opinion or a claim, it is a fact. If you really want to experience the full capabilities of your camera or your drone you really need to shoot in RAW and lean how to process it in software like Photoshop.

The very next post after yours was this image! I took it and processed in Photoshop to bring out details in the city and the water. This would be more difficult to do on a JPG image. See below before and after.

Dale
Miami

 

[Trackerputnam]

Your shots in the galery with the autumn trees and the cloudy sky clearly speak the benefits of raw

I just checked. They were jpegs. One was taken when I just sent the bird up above my house after an upgrade and that what I saw and the other was for a client. Being in the right place at the right time worked for me! Thank you!

 

[RogerDH]

For comparison, here's a processed version of the JPG file:

 

[Dale D]

For comparison, here's a processed version of the JPG file:

View attachment 116706

Well your image actually proves my point! There is a lot more NOISE in the black sky, and the water , especially if you look at the green splash on the sides of the ship. Compare that with my processed image where there is no or little noise in the black sky or the green water. You cannot pull many details out of a jpg file. For my peace of mind, I rarely shoot JPG anymore. I put my images through Photoshop and Bridge and select the images I want to keep and work and and process those RAW files.