I'm new to shooting RAW, but quite experienced with post processing and photography in general. Recently started experimenting with RAW in order to bypass JPEG artifacts in my work. I can see that the RAW format, once processed in Photoshop is superior to JPEG in every aspect bar one - Sharpness but more specifically detail. I have tried every sharpening technique that I can get my hands on to try and match the detail that comes out of my camera in a default sharpened jpeg, but I can't even get close to the jpeg. To be sure, the raw file is minus the JPEG artifacts, I can pull more info from the highlights and shadows, etc but the image clarity is as if I shot with half as many megapixels. Is this an accepted tradeoff of shooting RAW, because if it is, I haven’t read about it anywhere. I always knew that a RAW file was less sharp due to the absence of camera processing, but I thought that could all be regained later in software. So I'm not entirely sure if A) I'm using the wrong software / workflow the camera makers can implement processing in hardware which 'knows' how the camera works and can produce output that exceeds anything obtainable with generic external software.
BTW I’m using the adobe camera raw plugin in CS2. I’ve tried using the ‘sharpness’ slider in ACR (seems a bit strange to have only one slider controlling sharpness) as well as traditional unsharp masking with various radii and strengths, Nik, dslr fractal sharpen. Is there anything I’m missing? Would canon's RC be likely to be any better?
I’ve included a 4 way comparison. Note A) The clarity of the word ‘Yalumba’, the clear delineation of the sub-pixel hairline hexagon around the soy sauce logo, C) the increase in noise in the sharpened raw images (no NR reduction used). The camera in this example is a Canon G5 (my 5D body is in for repairs). So I haven’t had a chance to do this on a top notch camera.
Any feedback greatly appreciated
http://www.worldofpaintings.com/_temp/raw_vs_jpeg+01a.jpg