Digital Photography Thread
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the western edge of The Moor
Age: 67
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try something like the Fuji S1500, compact zoom.
Runs on 4 AA batteries, I recently went from an earlier version (S5700) to a DSLR.
Runs on 4 AA batteries, I recently went from an earlier version (S5700) to a DSLR.
Just to chuck in my tuppence worth regarding RAW vs. Jpg.
Earned my crust as a snapper without break since 1980.
Zenith E to Canon 1Ds. Quite a journey.
I resisted raw for all of the usual reasons, until the photography manager from one of my major clients enlightened me a few years back.
Not shooting raw, is akin working with one eye closed and one hand tied behind your back.
Why overspend on flashy equipment and shoot using only a percentage of its potential ?
Added to which, the "megapixel capacity" of existing kit is already in excess of what most pros need.
My clients admit to discarding around 60% of ther information when editing images for publication.
300 dpi is industry print standard. A4 front cover is generally max size.
Work it out.
Earned my crust as a snapper without break since 1980.
Zenith E to Canon 1Ds. Quite a journey.
I resisted raw for all of the usual reasons, until the photography manager from one of my major clients enlightened me a few years back.
Not shooting raw, is akin working with one eye closed and one hand tied behind your back.
Why overspend on flashy equipment and shoot using only a percentage of its potential ?
Added to which, the "megapixel capacity" of existing kit is already in excess of what most pros need.
My clients admit to discarding around 60% of ther information when editing images for publication.
300 dpi is industry print standard. A4 front cover is generally max size.
Work it out.
Psychophysiological entity
I'm trying to, but I'm confused. You seem to be saying to use RAW, and at the same time, that the camera is already giving far more than is needed for the end result.
One is nevertheless intrigued as to the answer.
One is nevertheless intrigued as to the answer.
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You seem to be saying to use RAW, and at the same time, that the camera is already giving far more than is needed for the end result.
Hippopotomonstrosesquipidelian title
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: is everything
Posts: 1,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAW gives you access to the image the camera took. With the right tools, you can then manipulate that image: correcting chromatic abberation, correcting lens distortion (e.g. via DxO), sharpening, and even changing the apparent exposure. All changes are lossless and reversible.
With JPEG, first you're dealing with something the camera created, using the camera's algorithms. For example, the camera's idea of how much sharpening should be applied, the camera's built-in dynamic range shaping, color gamut and so on. Some cameras do a good job, others get it hopelessly wrong: e.g. the Ricoh GX200 takes great pics but makes terrible jpegs. Finally, the image from the camera has already been lossily compressed, and each time you manipulate the image a little more quality will be lost. Only a few tools can even rotate a jpeg without more loss. Even Q=100 gives about 2.5:1 lossy compression. Interestingly, near Q=100 as compression artifacts increase, saving a file multiple times reduces its quality yet increases its size dramatically.
So if you ever think your tools can do a better job of making a jpeg than the camera's built-in algorithms, you're usually right. That's why RAW (or DNG) is important: access to what the sensor saw, rather than what the camera thinks you want to see.
Most cameras, of course, can shoot both at the same time, so you get a jpeg to look at and send people, and a RAW file to archive (on the assumption you're not going to edit every photo you ever shoot).
With JPEG, first you're dealing with something the camera created, using the camera's algorithms. For example, the camera's idea of how much sharpening should be applied, the camera's built-in dynamic range shaping, color gamut and so on. Some cameras do a good job, others get it hopelessly wrong: e.g. the Ricoh GX200 takes great pics but makes terrible jpegs. Finally, the image from the camera has already been lossily compressed, and each time you manipulate the image a little more quality will be lost. Only a few tools can even rotate a jpeg without more loss. Even Q=100 gives about 2.5:1 lossy compression. Interestingly, near Q=100 as compression artifacts increase, saving a file multiple times reduces its quality yet increases its size dramatically.
So if you ever think your tools can do a better job of making a jpeg than the camera's built-in algorithms, you're usually right. That's why RAW (or DNG) is important: access to what the sensor saw, rather than what the camera thinks you want to see.
Most cameras, of course, can shoot both at the same time, so you get a jpeg to look at and send people, and a RAW file to archive (on the assumption you're not going to edit every photo you ever shoot).
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of cameras can sheet (and store) both raw and jpeg concurrently.
According to a pro I know, the name of the game today is to edit from raw but in a manner which always retains the original file as a base layer. I don't know what tools he uses though...
The difference between raw and jpeg becomes smaller as one goes more upmarket, and as the lighting conditions get better. A lot of the time, with a decent DSLR, the difference is virtually invisible in the end image. But there is always a big difference if you are doing substantial image adjustments. In aviation, these are not uncommon, to e.g. take out haze which sometimes needs a lot of work.
According to a pro I know, the name of the game today is to edit from raw but in a manner which always retains the original file as a base layer. I don't know what tools he uses though...
The difference between raw and jpeg becomes smaller as one goes more upmarket, and as the lighting conditions get better. A lot of the time, with a decent DSLR, the difference is virtually invisible in the end image. But there is always a big difference if you are doing substantial image adjustments. In aviation, these are not uncommon, to e.g. take out haze which sometimes needs a lot of work.
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I shoot RAW .
It's unmessed with. It becomes the modern version of a transparency. It can seem a boring thing compared to the tweaked up jpegs created in camera but only if I shot time critical stuff like sports for web and newspapers would it be different.
I shoot raw to get me the maximum exposure range the sensor can record for me to use as I want. That range is still far, far less than the human eye can see but it gives me more choices within those limitations. That's with what I shoot though - most people simply couldn't be arsed any more than they'd build their own PC.
I don't want or need more megapixels given present sensor sizes and technology unless I'm significantly stepping up from my normal maximum 18x12 or A3+ print size. I'm also hitting the lens quality being the limiting factor at that print size - prime lenses or pro zooms become a must for critical work.
But then again, how many prints a year do you take to that size? I do it a lot - at just over a UK pound a print these days it would be rude not to
RAW is about preserving as much quality as possible and accepting that post processing is inherent to your workflow. It suits me, it's how I've always worked from film days. My hand made cibachrome prints from 30 years ago still look stunning. The stuff I sent to Bonusprint like everyone else just looks faded and old. It's about what you want from photographs and how much effort you'll put in. Most people are very happy with their jpegs and either don't know or don't care that their camera is capable of much more.
It's always been that way whatever the technology. Same with film, video, hi fi.
Rob
It's unmessed with. It becomes the modern version of a transparency. It can seem a boring thing compared to the tweaked up jpegs created in camera but only if I shot time critical stuff like sports for web and newspapers would it be different.
I shoot raw to get me the maximum exposure range the sensor can record for me to use as I want. That range is still far, far less than the human eye can see but it gives me more choices within those limitations. That's with what I shoot though - most people simply couldn't be arsed any more than they'd build their own PC.
I don't want or need more megapixels given present sensor sizes and technology unless I'm significantly stepping up from my normal maximum 18x12 or A3+ print size. I'm also hitting the lens quality being the limiting factor at that print size - prime lenses or pro zooms become a must for critical work.
But then again, how many prints a year do you take to that size? I do it a lot - at just over a UK pound a print these days it would be rude not to
RAW is about preserving as much quality as possible and accepting that post processing is inherent to your workflow. It suits me, it's how I've always worked from film days. My hand made cibachrome prints from 30 years ago still look stunning. The stuff I sent to Bonusprint like everyone else just looks faded and old. It's about what you want from photographs and how much effort you'll put in. Most people are very happy with their jpegs and either don't know or don't care that their camera is capable of much more.
It's always been that way whatever the technology. Same with film, video, hi fi.
Rob
There you go loose rivets, the guys answered your question in a correct and concise manner.
The real (although marginal difference) shows up, not when you get your 8x10back from bonus print, but when the Summer 2010 first edition from Thomas Cook or the like, with your shot on the front cover, plonks onto your desk, rapidly (less so in the last 18 months) followed by a cheque
The real (although marginal difference) shows up, not when you get your 8x10back from bonus print, but when the Summer 2010 first edition from Thomas Cook or the like, with your shot on the front cover, plonks onto your desk, rapidly (less so in the last 18 months) followed by a cheque
Psychophysiological entity
That must be a nice feeling.
I'll try a few RAW shots tomorrow. That's if the British type weather goes away. I have the Photoshop Elements 2.0 that came with the camera, and will be interested to see just what I can produce.
I understand the concepts of 'noise' from the array. The bigger the cells, the less noise...as a rule, but I'm still a tad worried about being back in the 6.1 Mp world. But as mentioned, I put a pic on the 1920 X 1080 screen, and it looked fantastic. First time I'd seen the old D50 put to a real test.
My son has just been given a Sony Alpha 350.
He wanted the tilt-able screen), but I was (silently) appalled at their idea of a 18-70 kit lens. It weighed about a quarter of my lens, and was nothing like the 67mm - same zoom ratio - glass that I got for $250 on Craigslist. A lot of the time, my smaller lens does everything I need, and am tempted to sell my 18-200 VR that I'd waited for, for so long.
However, my son has 14 days to return it, and I want to influence him...but so often, parents just shouldn't keep putting their proverbial oars in.
I'll try a few RAW shots tomorrow. That's if the British type weather goes away. I have the Photoshop Elements 2.0 that came with the camera, and will be interested to see just what I can produce.
I understand the concepts of 'noise' from the array. The bigger the cells, the less noise...as a rule, but I'm still a tad worried about being back in the 6.1 Mp world. But as mentioned, I put a pic on the 1920 X 1080 screen, and it looked fantastic. First time I'd seen the old D50 put to a real test.
My son has just been given a Sony Alpha 350.
He wanted the tilt-able screen), but I was (silently) appalled at their idea of a 18-70 kit lens. It weighed about a quarter of my lens, and was nothing like the 67mm - same zoom ratio - glass that I got for $250 on Craigslist. A lot of the time, my smaller lens does everything I need, and am tempted to sell my 18-200 VR that I'd waited for, for so long.However, my son has 14 days to return it, and I want to influence him...but so often, parents just shouldn't keep putting their proverbial oars in.
I took a series of shots of the Golden temple in Kyoto without realising that I had left the camera on manual exposure after using my flash. By the time I found out what I had done I could not go back and reshoot.
They were horribly overexposed but they were in raw.
The ability I had to recover something like a decent image would have been impossible from a compressed jpeg file. The data available from the raw file saved my hide. The adjusted image was remarkably good for a salvaged photo.
I take everything in raw and do all my work in Adobe Lightroom and CS3 if needed. (Aperture is a good alternative on the Mac platform).
The capability of either program on your computer has a lot more potential than the computer in the camera.
Raw is essentially the equivalent of an original negative that you can develop as many times as you like.
Rivets:
I seriously doubt that Elements 2 will do much with raw files from a recent camera.
Raw files are generally specific to the camera manufacturer and Elements 2 is Stone Age in the scheme of things and will likely not recognise any recent raw file.
If you want to have a look at processing raw, download the 30 day trial of Elements and experiment with raw using that.
Raw is mostly proprietary from camera manufacturers which is why they provide their own software to process their raw files.
Adobe's Elements will process most manufacturers raw files but if your camera is recent then you will need a recent version of their program.
Have a look at their 30 day trials, or even better look for tutorials on their software first and go through those before starting the clock going on the trial period.
They were horribly overexposed but they were in raw.
The ability I had to recover something like a decent image would have been impossible from a compressed jpeg file. The data available from the raw file saved my hide. The adjusted image was remarkably good for a salvaged photo.
I take everything in raw and do all my work in Adobe Lightroom and CS3 if needed. (Aperture is a good alternative on the Mac platform).
The capability of either program on your computer has a lot more potential than the computer in the camera.
Raw is essentially the equivalent of an original negative that you can develop as many times as you like.
Rivets:
I have the Photoshop Elements 2.0 that came with the camera, and will be interested to see just what I can produce.
Raw files are generally specific to the camera manufacturer and Elements 2 is Stone Age in the scheme of things and will likely not recognise any recent raw file.
If you want to have a look at processing raw, download the 30 day trial of Elements and experiment with raw using that.
Raw is mostly proprietary from camera manufacturers which is why they provide their own software to process their raw files.
Adobe's Elements will process most manufacturers raw files but if your camera is recent then you will need a recent version of their program.
Have a look at their 30 day trials, or even better look for tutorials on their software first and go through those before starting the clock going on the trial period.
Psychophysiological entity
Got me interested. I'll look at the one that came with the camera and a few others.
By total coincidence, this appeared in the PC world e-mail today.
Haven't read them yet, but it's got two links to previous blogs which might help beginners like me.
Using Your Camera's RAW Mode - PCWorld
By total coincidence, this appeared in the PC world e-mail today.
Haven't read them yet, but it's got two links to previous blogs which might help beginners like me.
Using Your Camera's RAW Mode - PCWorld
Psychophysiological entity
Thank you Dave Johnson PC World,,,NOT.
I finally downloaded the Windows Live Photo Gallery. Directions from that link above.
I had a couple of .NEF files, (RAW) 5mb each, to try out.
I un-ticked most of the dross that I didn't need and started the download. CAREFULLY only selecting that program.
I got just about everything that MS has ever produced to do with sending photos to grannies, but absolutely nothing but the most cumbersome, unwieldy, counter-intuitive pile of cr@p, that has ever got past my vetting of this machine.
It defines Bloat-ware, in its sheer hugeness in achieving nothing. Great OS, shame about the ad-ons.
All this, and I still can't get to see the RAW files.
If you have Vista or Windows 7 and download Windows Live Photo Gallery, it's even better. When you open Windows Live Photo Gallery and it notices you have RAW photos in the Pictures folder, it automatically recommends that you install the appropriate file decoder, which allows Windows to treat the photo like any other file.
I finally downloaded the Windows Live Photo Gallery. Directions from that link above.
I had a couple of .NEF files, (RAW) 5mb each, to try out.
I un-ticked most of the dross that I didn't need and started the download. CAREFULLY only selecting that program.
I got just about everything that MS has ever produced to do with sending photos to grannies, but absolutely nothing but the most cumbersome, unwieldy, counter-intuitive pile of cr@p, that has ever got past my vetting of this machine.
It defines Bloat-ware, in its sheer hugeness in achieving nothing. Great OS, shame about the ad-ons.
All this, and I still can't get to see the RAW files.
Psychophysiological entity
Finally loaded the Nikon add on. One hundred megs of crappola, and a diddy program that simply lets me Prieview the RAW files when in NEF form.
I have a shrewd idea that MS use that to sneak some of their stuff in. I now have to set about sneaking it out again.
I've taken on board that I have to acquire an appropriate program to do much with these files, but when simply Previewing, the zoom before pixelating, is nothing special, so I can't really understand what all the software is for.
I have a shrewd idea that MS use that to sneak some of their stuff in. I now have to set about sneaking it out again.
I've taken on board that I have to acquire an appropriate program to do much with these files, but when simply Previewing, the zoom before pixelating, is nothing special, so I can't really understand what all the software is for.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finally loaded the Nikon add on. One hundred megs of crappola
I bought my GF a Canon S90 and the only software Canon supply for RAW to 'other' conversion is a few hundred MB's worth of stuff one doesn't need.
Similar with my Pentax K200D.
There are converters which support many formats but most of them are not free, and some are quite pricey. However, I found a thing called Faststone Image Viewer which seems to work well; it's a bit like ACDSEE in that one can use it to view one's photo albums.
Not sure if Photoshop Elements can read any RAW formats. I have Photoshop 7 which certainly can't. However, the biggest problem with ex-camera jpeg is the amount of compression; if one converts RAW to Jpeg (highest possible quality) then the result is very good - although the filesize is probably 50% of the Raw size, whereas the more compressed ex-camera Jpeg is probably 25% of the Raw size. If cameras allowed control over the degree of Jpeg compression, there would be a lot less need for Raw.
Hippopotomonstrosesquipidelian title
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: is everything
Posts: 1,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Photoshop 7 is a 7 or 8-year-old product. You can't expect it to work with RAW files for cameras which post-date it, unless you use a third-party plug-in.
Most cameras support various jpeg qualities. Your K200D, for example, has 3 I seem to remember. The Canon S90 has just two. The problem with jpeg in general (apart from no way of preventing lossy compression) is that in most cameras it's an 8-bit color depth, while the RAW file can be up to 14 bits. One example of what this means in practice: the jpeg can show blown highlights (i.e. bright areas unrecoverable by post-processing) that may not exist in the RAW file. Most cameras only offer one or two color spaces: sRGB and Adobe RGB. So you're losing gamut that is available at the sensor, especially with sRGB. A comparison might be, if you only shoot jpeg, it's like getting prints without the negatives: it's a lot harder to fix stuff.
jpeg is effectively a viewing format. You really want the original data to be in a better format.
Most cameras support various jpeg qualities. Your K200D, for example, has 3 I seem to remember. The Canon S90 has just two. The problem with jpeg in general (apart from no way of preventing lossy compression) is that in most cameras it's an 8-bit color depth, while the RAW file can be up to 14 bits. One example of what this means in practice: the jpeg can show blown highlights (i.e. bright areas unrecoverable by post-processing) that may not exist in the RAW file. Most cameras only offer one or two color spaces: sRGB and Adobe RGB. So you're losing gamut that is available at the sensor, especially with sRGB. A comparison might be, if you only shoot jpeg, it's like getting prints without the negatives: it's a lot harder to fix stuff.
jpeg is effectively a viewing format. You really want the original data to be in a better format.
Rivets,
These links are to the 30 day free trials to Adobe's Photoshop Lightroom and Photoshop Elements.
They are among the best available for working with raw files and also do a LOT more.
Like any very comprehensive program it can take a bit of study to appreciate just how much they can do.
Personally, I found that looking at some of the tutorials available was far better than feeling my way about, I would have missed a lot with that approach. I would really suggest this route while exploring the programs.
Google will find tutorials but I would recommend those by JuliAnne Kost for Lightroom. She is an Adobe staffer and I can say from attending one of her presentations that she is excellent.
PSE has two options to edit photos. There is a semi automated option where you adjust each photo by means of a series of sliders which are in the best order for each adjustment, you are sort of lead through the process, EG the Sharpening slider is the last in the order which is generally when it is best applied.
There is also a more basic set of adjustments that assumes you are a more accomplished user of the Photoshop tools. Probably more capable but with a steeper learning curve.
Lightroom also has excellent organizational capabilities for your image library.
Getting the best out of raw files will take a bit of understanding of the process otherwise perhaps the various picture styles that your camera offers for jpegs may yield better results.
https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/tdrc/i...op%5Flightroom
Download Adobe Photoshop Elements 8.0.0 Free Trial - Powerful yet easy-to-use photo editing software for print, e-mail, and the Web - Softpedia
I've taken on board that I have to acquire an appropriate program to do much with these files
They are among the best available for working with raw files and also do a LOT more.
Like any very comprehensive program it can take a bit of study to appreciate just how much they can do.
Personally, I found that looking at some of the tutorials available was far better than feeling my way about, I would have missed a lot with that approach. I would really suggest this route while exploring the programs.
Google will find tutorials but I would recommend those by JuliAnne Kost for Lightroom. She is an Adobe staffer and I can say from attending one of her presentations that she is excellent.
PSE has two options to edit photos. There is a semi automated option where you adjust each photo by means of a series of sliders which are in the best order for each adjustment, you are sort of lead through the process, EG the Sharpening slider is the last in the order which is generally when it is best applied.
There is also a more basic set of adjustments that assumes you are a more accomplished user of the Photoshop tools. Probably more capable but with a steeper learning curve.
Lightroom also has excellent organizational capabilities for your image library.
Getting the best out of raw files will take a bit of understanding of the process otherwise perhaps the various picture styles that your camera offers for jpegs may yield better results.
https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/tdrc/i...op%5Flightroom
Download Adobe Photoshop Elements 8.0.0 Free Trial - Powerful yet easy-to-use photo editing software for print, e-mail, and the Web - Softpedia
Psychophysiological entity
By the most extraordinary chance, I was clearing out a folder called "Old drive backup." It was on a HD that failed.
There I noticed Nikon, and sure enough, there was the original soft that came with my aging D50. Having resolved to do a Restore, anyway, I loaded it with the other offerings.
It was just more of the same. Did little but let me preview NEF pictures. Anyway, my curiosity is spiked...or whatever the word is, and I'm resolved to get some RAW pictures that are worth the effort. Trouble is, down here in deepest Texas, there is little to photograph - if you don't like cactus or possums. Back home, especially in the Lake District, there was the temptation to photograph everything, because it was so beautiful compared to here. Yes, One is homesick.
There I noticed Nikon, and sure enough, there was the original soft that came with my aging D50. Having resolved to do a Restore, anyway, I loaded it with the other offerings.
It was just more of the same. Did little but let me preview NEF pictures. Anyway, my curiosity is spiked...or whatever the word is, and I'm resolved to get some RAW pictures that are worth the effort. Trouble is, down here in deepest Texas, there is little to photograph - if you don't like cactus or possums. Back home, especially in the Lake District, there was the temptation to photograph everything, because it was so beautiful compared to here. Yes, One is homesick.
Psychophysiological entity
Really a simple question of Am I doing something wrong, or making a totally wrong assumption about RAW data?
By a stroke of luck, I find that I've got Elements 7 bundled with a tablet. It required something from Adobe to be loaded before I could install it, but then it was away.
The program itself looks very professional on the 1920 res screen, but the NEF files are still very mediocre from my old D50.
Am I expecting too much, and just what should one get from the FIRST images of a RAW (NEF) file? ie before it's been worked on.
Looking at 'Actual Pixels' the auto-zoom is almost exactly the same between a 500k jpeg file and a 5mb RAW file.
I'd assumed that I'd be able to zoom in much further before pixellation.
My son's new Sony, with a kit 18-70 lens was to my chagrin, rather better than my setup with its much vaunted 18-200 72mm lens. He has two and a half times the pixel-count, so I guess where RAW is concerned, it will always provide that ratio more data. But I just can't understand what my RAW's 4.5mb of extra data is supposed to be doing if I can't zoom in further.
By a stroke of luck, I find that I've got Elements 7 bundled with a tablet. It required something from Adobe to be loaded before I could install it, but then it was away.
The program itself looks very professional on the 1920 res screen, but the NEF files are still very mediocre from my old D50.
Am I expecting too much, and just what should one get from the FIRST images of a RAW (NEF) file? ie before it's been worked on.
Looking at 'Actual Pixels' the auto-zoom is almost exactly the same between a 500k jpeg file and a 5mb RAW file.
I'd assumed that I'd be able to zoom in much further before pixellation.My son's new Sony, with a kit 18-70 lens was to my chagrin, rather better than my setup with its much vaunted 18-200 72mm lens. He has two and a half times the pixel-count, so I guess where RAW is concerned, it will always provide that ratio more data. But I just can't understand what my RAW's 4.5mb of extra data is supposed to be doing if I can't zoom in further.
Hippopotomonstrosesquipidelian title
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: is everything
Posts: 1,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The NEF data and the jpeg data are the same image dimensions. So, they "pixellate" at the same point when you zoom in. Depending on your camera settings, the jpeg may be sharper and the colors punchier than the NEF, too. So in your case, the first-look NEF quality should appear to be roughly the same or maybe a little worse than the jpeg.
In Elements working on the NEF data, you can basically apply the same corrections the camera applied to the jpeg, but using more powerful tools and tailoring the changes to each individual image. So you should end up with a result that is somewhere between the same and way better than the jpeg the camera created. TYpically, you might correct the following either manually or semi-automatically: chromatic aberration (color fringeing), vignetting, softness (i.e. sharpening the image), adjusting color, anamorphosis, keystoning, remove ISO noise (that's a tradeoff with sharpness), dust removal, highlight recovery, etc etc.
RAW doesn't automagically give you a better result, it gives you the opportunity to get a better result.
In Elements working on the NEF data, you can basically apply the same corrections the camera applied to the jpeg, but using more powerful tools and tailoring the changes to each individual image. So you should end up with a result that is somewhere between the same and way better than the jpeg the camera created. TYpically, you might correct the following either manually or semi-automatically: chromatic aberration (color fringeing), vignetting, softness (i.e. sharpening the image), adjusting color, anamorphosis, keystoning, remove ISO noise (that's a tradeoff with sharpness), dust removal, highlight recovery, etc etc.
RAW doesn't automagically give you a better result, it gives you the opportunity to get a better result.