From our dPS Member
Arjay12345 a good challenge for you all to try.
Based on the original thread
HERE (Please read it first)
---------------------------------------------------------------message below--------------------------------------------------
Ok, so I’m still not convinced, but here’s a challenge to settle it once and for all (I wonder..). I know there’s been lots of threads about whether Raw is best or not, plus thoughts about how you need to have some years of ‘experience’ before you can do justice to a raw file, but this is a practical experiment.
Attached are two links to the same picture taken with my EOS 50D and my 24-105L lens. One is the jpg and the other is the totally unprocessed Raw DNG file. The challenge is for all you professionals (everyone that wants to try) to take the dng and make it look better than the jpg ever could. This boils down to two aims:
1Make the dng look as sharp, crisp and as lifelike as possible. I’m not talking about adding effects such as blurs or anything fancy like that; just simple sharpness and clarity.
2(and this is the corker..) do this to an extent that is / would not possible/too difficult to get to the end goal if you started with the jpg (after all, negates the benefit of Raws if you can still get to the end result more simply via the jpg route)
Is it possible to steer away from the ‘but if’ and other theoretic conversations and just have a simple drag race between the two to the end??
Thanks
Arjay
Here are the images... (Right click, Save as etc)
THE JPG
and..
THE DNG
You will need to edit the image (the DNG) and upload it back to this thread via flickr or however you normally would - make sure it's no wider than 800px please. (So, maybe save it out of your editing package at 800px wide so as not to lose much in your uploading conversions)