raw vs jpeg

I know this is all wrong but if I shoot raw sharpened or standard in my computer screen no mater waht magnification i see no difference using a k100d and pentax 18-55 lens
similarly I see little or realy no difference in the quality of a zoomed image or at 100% between unsharpened raw and jpeg images of any size or compression, am i blind or just missing something?
I can post images if any wants to suggest a couple of settings to use to set up some comparisons? can we post raw files?
Alistair

I'll correct your title for you in a moment, but to answer your question I shoot JPEG all the time and there is virtually no difference in the results from shooting RAW.

I'll rephrase that slightly - there is no difference between the competition entries that JPEG users make at our club and those that use RAW capture.

There is more difference between the skill levels of the individual photographers, and therein lies the real area where practice makes for quality.

No you're quite right.
Resolution stay the same with both so overall sharpness stays the same and the only thing the compression introduce are artifacts since it tries to simplify the photo.

With RAW however you can pullout more details, colours and more with processing compared to JPG and that's why you shoot in RAW to work on it later to get a better result.
If you like spending time polishing your photos on your PC then RAW is for you if you don't want to do that then shoot JPEG it's more then good enough like you said you hardly see a difference.

Here are some good reads for you.
RAW
JPEG & TIFF it's mostly about compression of the JPEG

RAW does give more flexibility with adjusting levels to preserve highlights. I find even processed at default settings, there is less noise and a smoother look to RAW images.

I was comparing a RAW conversion to the 'out of the camera jpg' the other day, and the difference was notable particularly re noise and harsh sharpening in the jpg. This is looking at the images in detail though... Perhaps there would have been "virtually no difference", as John says, if I had compared two prints. And perhaps the 'in camera jpg' settings can be adjusted for a more natural result.

We tried the exercie when 6MP cameras were the norm, and things are much better now.

We made images via JPEG and RAW capture of a detailed subject and then prepared A3 prints doing whatever we would normally do in both cases.

Then we presented them to around 40 people for close examination.

Most people could not tell the difference on close examination and no-one could tell the difference from a normal viewing distance.

These days we use the Premium JPEG setting of the K20D, which involves very little compression and files of aroung 9 or 10 MB. If you have never tried this then you might be pleasantly surprised.

I'm surprised not one reviewer has mentioned the Premium JPEG setting, which is another jump in potential quality.

Because the OP is talking about a K100D.

When do you think the new JPG (JPG2000) will be supported by cameras?

JPEG 2000 is hardly new, and has never caught on, so I don't think it will appear in cameras.

The advantage of JPEG is of course that the files open immediately in Photoshop and all other applications and they offer the most future proof format that we are likely to ever enjoy. I would expect to be able to continue to work with JPEG for any forseeable future.

Well I use RAW, and I do so not because I think the final output will be better with a properly exposed picture, but simply because I can more often rescue an imperfectly exposed picture.

JR is, I think, a former slide shooter, well used to getting exposure spot-on. Not all of us are of the same standard.

G

That's a valid reason Gearge. I just have the feeling that many people are pushed into shooting RAW without really knowing why, thus making their learning curve with digital unnecessarily steep.

A friend of mine did this. He thought he was missing something, so tried out RAW and lost the plot with his photography. He's now gone back to JPEG and all is well again.

I've nothing against shooting in RAW per se if we know why we're doing it.

You can of course open JPEG's in camers RAW in Photoshop CSS which means that although it is already worked on in the camera you can still perform the same tweaks as on a RAW or DNG before opening in Photoshop. I shoot in both JPEG and RAW but when using RAW I use the DNG which Pentax have so kindly provided. CHEERS Vic.

Funnily enough, I find post-processing much easier with RAW. I can go through a large batch of images in Silkypix and have them looking pretty good in very little time.

And Silkypix has a much smaller learning curve, and is much more accessible, than Photoshop or other fancy image manipulation programs.

G

George, As a newbe I shoot in RAW DNG because it helps me rescue an under or over exposed shot, which is often, but I find the process somewhat confusing in CS3. You mention Silkypix. Knowing you intent for perfection, this must be a good programme. Can you enlighten me on the merits of this programme against CS3, please.

Well not fully true because JPG is a small package and you need to throw information away to make the photo fit inside.

Colour information with RAW is 12bit where as with JPG it's not large as 8bit so you lose some colour information.
The funny thing there is a 12bit support in the JPG but it's hardly supported by the software so almost never used.
It also throws out pixel information that's to dark or to light, with RAW this information is still there so you can recover that.
and there are probable more things.

CS3 and silkypix aren't really comparable because CS3 is a broader creative software then a RAW converter.
Silkypix is comparable with the program that comes up when you open raw with CS3, it's the program called Adobe Raw Converter (ARC).

Both have their good and bad sides, you can download a demo of Silkypix and try for yourself and see if you like it.

JPG2000 is also an ISO standard so it will be supported for a while also but you're quite right that it isn't new the JPEG XR is quite newer and better. JPG200 can be opened directly by most programs but writing is a problem also no web-browser support it.

JPG is a great format but 14 years is a lot for something digital and maybe it's time to move to something better with more potential and room to grow.

Hmmm... so lessons on exposure seem to be required?

Lesson 1: Stop using the built in meter, buy an incident meter and the job is pretty well done.

RAW and JPEG aren't competing, they are aspects of the same thing.

It's a bit like a baking a cake. With RAW, you have all the ingedients and you decide what combination, amount and cooking to use. The cake will be to your personal taste.

With JPEG, the ingredients are the same but the combination, amount and cooking are largely decided for you by Pentax programmers. They are experienced and will choose good compromises.

I shoot in RAW because it means I can always go back to my basic ingedients and change them the how I wish for different purposes.

For example, for on line display jpeg is more than good enough. But the same picture being prepared for an exhibition and printed at 16x12, TIFF with its total lack of compression is more suitable. With RAW I can choose. With jpeg I have at source discarded a great deal of the information I have bought a DSLR to supply.

You can argue that you can't see the difference for on line competitions but that would apply to better quality lenses and any sensor of more than screen size pixel dimensions too.