Shown the way by SOOC jpg

[Dave in Wales]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I shoot RAW and jpg as a back-up.

The initial mushroom image, not the one shown, I processed as usual in LR6 to my satisfaction. Just for something to do I thought lets have a look at what the SOOC jpg looks like. 

 I was taken aback, the jpg was far better than my PP'd RAW effort, which I had been satisfied with remember, especially in showing the mushroom striations.

It took me ages messing around in LR to produce an image comparable to SOOC jpg.

What have I learnt........don't dismiss the jpg and go straight to the RAW. 

Leica CL+18-56mm

SOOC jpg, resized and sharpened.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

RAW, second attempt at PP.

Edited October 22, 2019 by Dave in Wales

[wda]

4 hours ago, Dave in Wales said:

I shoot RAW and jpg as a back-up.

The initial mushroom image, not the one shown, I processed as usual in LR6 to my satisfaction. Just for something to do I thought lets have a look at what the SOOC jpg looks like. 

 I was taken aback, the jpg was far better than my PP'd RAW effort, which I had been satisfied with remember, especially in showing the mushroom striations.

It took me ages messing around in LR to produce an image comparable to SOOC jpg.

What have I learnt........don't dismiss the jpg and go straight to the RAW. 

Leica CL+18-56mm

SOOC jpg, resized and sharpened.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

RAW, second attempt at PP.

An interesting comparison Dave. However, I do feel that your effort in processing the Raw file has been rewarded by better tonal range and sharpness.

[Dave in Wales]

15 hours ago, wda said:

An interesting comparison Dave. However, I do feel that your effort in processing the Raw file has been rewarded by better tonal range and sharpness.

Thank you, the point I was trying to make was that without the jpg I would not have realised the potential detail that was available.

[jaapv]

On 10/22/2019 at 6:53 PM, wda said:

An interesting comparison Dave. However, I do feel that your effort in processing the Raw file has been rewarded by better tonal range and sharpness.

I agree. Especially if you print.
However, for display on a monitor, I think a final application of 0,2 Gaussian Blur would take away a bit of the harshness, which verges on oversharpness.

[CharlesL]

Yes, the camera JPG is often a guide for post processing. These days, many processing programs offer an auto adjustment based on the tone curve that the program deduces from the camera JPG (when a version of the latter is embedded in the raw file, as is typical). The Auto-Adjust curve in Raw Therapee is particularly helpful because RT displays the curve and you can modify it. You get the basic effect of the camera JPG tone curve while you tame excessive contrast in the highlight region or whatever.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!