Still Trying to Convince Myself on RAW

Started Jun 29, 2013 | Photos
Mel Snyder
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,088Gear list
Like?
Re: I like your raw examples much better
In reply to Allan Olesen, Jun 30, 2013

Allan Olesen wrote:

When I look at your first two photos, these are my observations:

  1. In your raw photo, almost all color noise has been removed, pixel by pixel.
  2. In your JPG photo, the color noise has not been removed. Instead it has just been smeared around so the dark grey background has all kinds of color tones which are very visible even in the downscaled photo we see before clicking on it in your post.
  3. In your raw photo, the musicians have real faces. I can see their facial expressions and see which way they are looking. Yes, I have to "look through" a lot of grain, but that doesn't really bother me.
  4. In your JPG photo, the musicians' faces have strange splotches of smear, mixed with rather hard edges which don't exist in a human's face. So those edges are probably false detail. Overall, I don't see faces, only strange masks.

Item 1 and 2 above are actually my main reason for shooting raw. Item 3 and 4 are only visible to pixel peepers, but the bad color noise handling of most cameras is visible without any pixel peeping.

You, Allan, are a rare and wonderful bird. You knew what to look for.

I'd like to address an important point: For this shot, what does it matter? This is not great art, he was just trying to capture an event, and had low expectations for the shot. Unless I missed the point, this was not to be enlarged into a 4-foot wide print for the band room. If it was, the jpeg would be a joke - and your observation 3 and 4 would be obvious to even the casual observer.

By putting fine cameras into the hands of the masses, the manufacturers slyly made it possible for those masses to operate their machines with the least amount of effort - before or after the shot. Because those masses didn't have high expectations, they were never disappointed with whatever they got.

I never cease to be amazed as I travel the world and see the great gear being handled by people with expectations little higher than their iPhone. I discovered that many great scenes I'd observed shot by others didn't look at all in real life like what 99% of people capture without knowing how to set their white balance - or how to balance their exposure for a RAW shot so Lightroom magic could retrieve shadow and highlight detail as the eye saw the scene.

 Mel Snyder's gear list:Mel Snyder's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony Alpha 7 Sony E 16mm F2.8 Pancake Leica Summicron-M 50mm f/2 Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Allan Olesen
Senior MemberPosts: 2,606
Like?
Re: I like your raw examples much better
In reply to Mel Snyder, Jun 30, 2013

Mel Snyder wrote:

I'd like to address an important point: For this shot, what does it matter?

It matters because the OP thinks that he has shown us an example where the in-camera JPG has better noise treatment than his own raw conversion. I think his judgement is wrong: He has already made a better raw conversion than the camera was capable of.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Alan_S
Senior MemberPosts: 1,478Gear list
Like?
examples...
In reply to Gary Eickmeier, Jun 30, 2013

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

nemist wrote:

If you shoot JPG and you're happy that's good and you should continue to do so. But if you want to extract every bit of IQ from that sensor, learn to process raw photos and you'll probably have a hard time shooting JPG. I only shoot raw now, but sometimes I wish I could JPG, but I can't take the hit in IQ.

Not talking happiness. Stay technical please. If you have some examples of superior IQ, that is what I am after.

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

Gary, here are a couple of quick examples of the results I see...

OOC jpg:

ooc jpg

JPG processed from RAW in Adobe CS6 (the background is a bit contrasty but I'm focusing on a finished shot cropped tight on the faces):

100% crops of each, first OOC JPG:

100% crop Processed from RAW in CS6:

And one more...

OOC JPG

Processed from RAW in CS6

Everyone's personal preference differs, but for me I prefer what I'm getting from RAW. The beauty of it is that RAW puts you in the driver's seat.

-- hide signature --

- AlanS

 Alan_S's gear list:Alan_S's gear list
Sony SLT-A77 Sony SLT-A99 Sony 70-200mm F2.8 G Sony 16-35mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Sony 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
cgarrard
Forum ProPosts: 14,497Gear list
Like?
Raw reveals its value over time
In reply to Gary Eickmeier, Jun 30, 2013

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

I suppose we all do this comparison stuff between RAW and JPG to try and convince ourselves of the vast superiority of RAW, but I am still a work in progress. Shot a band camp recital in RAW and JPG. Shot from 1600 to 6400 jut to stretch the limits. Opened up the RAW images, a little shocked at the noise at 6400. Opened up the JPG image, AMAZED at the smoothness and perfection of the image. At 1600 there is not much difference, would say no problem whatsoever up to 1600.

So a couple of comparisons, proessed and not:

You can view them in original by clicking through. Maybe you have an example where RAW shows its superiorty. So far I haven't seen it.

I am not fighting it, still trying to learn. Bought another book on it by Jon Canfield. What I need to learn is how to process the RAW to get them to begin to compare with the camera's internal processing.

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

It can be instantly gratifying, but not usually. I find that I re-process many older (but good) images from years back in raw only to see just how much I've improved in my post processing since I made the original image.  Raw is the negative you should never throw away, storage is wayyyy too cheap these days to justify doing that.

Carl

http://www.carlgarrard.blogspot.com/ (Best work compilation)
http://www.photographic-central.blogspot.com (Gear reviews)
Also formerly AlphaMountWorld.com (Now off the web)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
realgeek
Senior MemberPosts: 1,183
Like?
Re: Said more accurately ...
In reply to sybersitizen, Jun 30, 2013

sybersitizen wrote:

sybersitizen wrote:

realgeek wrote:

It's certainly convenient to let the camera do it. That's JPEG's big (and only) advantage...The only argument is that they are more convenient and good enough.

More inaccuracy. There are other advantages that some RAW shooters are not aware of or are forgetting about.

Maybe that's good enough for you. But it shouldn't be.

People shouldn't be telling people what they shouldn't do. But the other stuff you wrote about RAW is accurate, so that part is fine.

For anyone who might be wondering what the other advantages of JPG are...

JPG files are processed and stored internally by your camera faster than RAW files are. This typically provides a dramatic improvement in responsiveness - things like a faster frame rate and improved buffer clearing time.

JPG files take up less storage space than RAW files. This means... a) you can own and carry fewer and/or lower capacity memory cards, which can be a money saver and reduce card swapping; and b) you can work effectively with less RAM, less computer storage space, less backup space, and less disaster recovery space. This can save you not only money, but time as well during file transfers, backups, and restores.

JPG shooting allows you to scale down your in-camera images when the sensor's full resolution isn't needed. This again improves responsiveness throughout the entire shooting and processing chain, and reduces storage requirements even further. (A couple of our A-mount cameras allow scaling down RAW files as well, but the majority do not.)

JPG files load into memory faster and process faster than RAW files, making all your software more responsive for viewing, editing, and managing.

JPG files are compatible with everything. There are no concerns about them not being properly supported by computer software or other devices, either today or in the future. There are in fact a geat many nice cameras that don't even offer RAW format; but few cameras that don't offer JPG format.

JPG files are understood by everybody. When you yourself are not available (dead, for example) others with access to your images but without an understanding of the RAW format will have no difficulty accessing and enjoying them.

One more possible factor is that shooting JPG teaches some things about photography that shooting RAW does not teach. JPGs provide an incentive to consider everything that's going on and everything you're doing before the shot. Lighting, exposure, white balance, etc. are best addressed and dealt with before you press the shutter button. You can't always rely on fixing every mistake in post, so you eventually learn to make fewer mistakes when behind the camera. I personally learned about all that as a young man shooting Kodachrome, which was far less forgiving than modern JPG files, and definitively 'set in stone', unlike JPGs. Working with slides - not negatives - for decades set me on a particular path, with the result that I personally am not very interested in the digital negatives provided by the RAW format.

I'm sure that many of you will be tempted to say these factors are not important to you, so you personally disregard them - 'Memory is cheap' is one favorite so-called counterargument - but don't bother doing so, because I won't argue points of view. Factors are factors, and they may very well be important to somebody. Many of the RAW workflow's known advantages are not important to me personally, but I don't deny they exist.

You make some fair points!  However, I think they boil down to one (or two) additional positive(s): smaller files (with faster access).  That they are compatible with everything and understood by everybody is implicit in my convenience point -- the photos are "done" OOC.

The "memory is cheap" argument is, I think, a very strong response to your point(s).  Especially since memory gets cheaper all the time, and computers get faster.  But, nevertheless, the smaller files argument is real.

I totally disagree with the last point -- that JPEG teaches something that RAW does not: to consider everything before you shoot.  EVERYONE agrees you should get as much right in camera as possible.  RAW is simply more forgiving if you make a mistake.  With RAW files, I can exercise discipline any time I want by choosing not to exercise post-process heavily ... but in the end, I won't, because it's a lame and arbitrary limitation.  JPEG's reduced post-process-ability is a shortcoming, not an advantage.  Any other interpretation is spin and rationalization.  IMHO.

But, for the most part, fair points.  Thanks for the contribution!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
realgeek
Senior MemberPosts: 1,183
Like?
Re: Said slightly differently ...
In reply to OldClicker, Jun 30, 2013

OldClicker wrote:

realgeek wrote:

To wrap up: there is no argument that JPEGs are better than RAW. The only argument is that they are more convenient and good enough. Maybe that's good enough for you. But it shouldn't be.

Very well said except for the very last sentence - that is not your call.

I didn't mean to suggest it was my "call" -- just my advice.  He asked to be convinced!

IMHO, RAW is the inevitable progression for ALMOST everyone.  At first, of course you will shoot JPEG.  By the time you're seriously wondering whether you should shoot RAW, you probably should.  And once you realize it can be just as easy to process RAWs as JPEGs, you probably will.

There will be a few exceptions: one example is people who need images immediately, like professional sports photographers.  Another example would be be people who really dislike post-processing. I'm sure there are others out there, as well.

If you deliberately choose to stick with JPEG, then good for you!  Of course you have the right to do whatever you want!  But for those who are asking for advice, I think the answer is clear: choose RAW as soon as feasibly possible.  Again, IMHO.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
sybersitizen
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,825
Like?
Re: Said more accurately ...
In reply to realgeek, Jun 30, 2013

realgeek wrote:

I totally disagree with the last point -- that JPEG teaches something that RAW does not: to consider everything before you shoot.  EVERYONE agrees you should get as much right in camera as possible.

No, everyone doesn't.

I quote BertIverson from page one of this thread: 'I shoot exclusively RAW but not because of noise or IQ superiority... I just got tired of chimping, DRO, HDR, exposure bracketing, spot, center, matrix metering, white balance etc. These can all be accomplished during PP when "time is NOT of the essence". All that is left, at shooting time, are compose and focus.'

I assure you he's not the only one out there who feels that way... and he probably wouldn't work in that manner if he shot JPGs.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
sybersitizen
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,825
Like?
Re: Said more accurately ...
In reply to realgeek, Jun 30, 2013

realgeek wrote:
You make some fair points!  However, I think they boil down to one (or two) additional positive(s): smaller files (with faster access).

By that same logic, I could boil down most of your earlier stated points to one short phrase like 'RAW allows more manipulation'. But I didn't propose such a shortcut because readers probably appreciate the more detailed list. I believe my list deserves the same courtesy, as it describes different benefits affecting different stages of the entire process.

That they are compatible with everything and understood by everybody is implicit in my convenience point -- the photos are "done" OOC.

Does that mean it shouldn't be acknowledged as an advantage? You didn't list possible loss of future file support as a disadvantage on the RAW side (and however likely or unlikely that is, such a likelihood is much stonger for RAW files than JPG files), so it seems fair to allow me to.

Let's leave both of our lists, which we have constructed with care, fully intact out of courtesy rather than try to whittle away at them. That way others can see the details involved.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
sean lancaster
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,525Gear list
Like?
Re: Still Trying to Convince Myself on RAW
In reply to splashy, Jun 30, 2013

splashy wrote:

Question remains, will the endresult be better then the out of camera Jpeg??

Most of the times I really doubt that.

I don't know if this is true or not, but I can tell you that if it is true then most of the time the people doing the post processing are bad at doing it.

JPG in camera is relying on Sony engineers to provide compression to the RAW file that will be applied to all of your images. Sony engineers making the JPG settings cannot possible account for all of the nuances that photographers encounter. They merely try to find a happy medium and apply it across the board. That's really a poor artistic approach even if it's "good enough" for many users for most images. Even a halfway decent post processing by hand of a RAW file should match and exceed generic JPG settings. But, now we're to the point where we're back to your claim . . . and that's the realization that perhaps most people doing the post processing are just ignorant about doing post processing.

 sean lancaster's gear list:sean lancaster's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony Alpha 7 Voigtlander 35mm F1.2 Nokton Sony FE 55mm F1.8 OnePlus One +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
phaedin
Senior MemberPosts: 1,217Gear list
Like?
Re: Still Trying to Convince Myself on RAW
In reply to Gary Eickmeier, Jun 30, 2013

Reasons for Shooting in RAW

File size
- If you look at the OOC JPEGs vs the RAW files, you will see the RAW files are much larger (on my A57 I get 16MB RAW files and about 4 MB JPEGs. This means that the RAW file contain much more information from the camera that you can use to process the shot. It means you have the info that the camera has for the shot, but you can also ignore that info and apply any settings that you desire. It means you can apply as much or as little sharping, noise reduction, or colour correction as you wish to achieve the results that you desire.

The OOC JPEG however, is a file which has been processed by the camera and compressed. You dont have all the data from the camera. This means that processing a OOC JPEG becomes more difficult, you have less data to work with as much of the extra data has been either compressed or removed from the file. For minor adjustments this isnt too much of a problem, however, for major adjustments you run in to the issue of posterization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posterization)

Some info on JPEG file format (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG)

 phaedin's gear list:phaedin's gear list
Nikon D7100 Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
realgeek
Senior MemberPosts: 1,183
Like?
Re: Said more accurately ...
In reply to sybersitizen, Jul 1, 2013

sybersitizen wrote:

realgeek wrote:

EVERYONE agrees you should get as much right in camera as possible.

No, everyone doesn't.

I quote BertIverson from page one of this thread: 'I shoot exclusively RAW but not because of noise or IQ superiority... I just got tired of chimping, DRO, HDR, exposure bracketing, spot, center, matrix metering, white balance etc. These can all be accomplished during PP when "time is NOT of the essence". All that is left, at shooting time, are compose and focus.'

I assure you he's not the only one out there who feels that way... and he probably wouldn't work in that manner if he shot JPGs.

Okay! Perhaps I should have said "almost everybody" or "anybody who is being honest ..."

There are plenty of problems that you CANNOT fix later; focus is a perfect example. No one should suggest that you need not worry about focus while shooting.

There are some issues that can be fixed freely later -- at least in RAW. White balance is the perfect example. I never bother with white balance any more because the fix is free later (unless the lighting is really difficult and I feel it's necessary to set a customary white balance). I simply set white balance to "auto" and fix later. Unless you're setting a customary white balance, what's the point of setting it in advance? I can do that losslessly in a split second later. And, after all, the labels Tungsten or Daylight are only approximations, anyway.

To the extent that someone means you needn't get focus right in camera, they're clearly wrong. To the extent someone says you need to get white balance right in camera, they're clearly wrong. But probably, they're talking about a gray area in between.

In BertIverson's case, it sounds like he's talking about exposure. To the extent that he's saying that, when things are happening fast, RAW allows him to get more shots without worrying about making sure exposure is absolutely perfect because he has some leeway in post processing, he is correct. And that freedom is something JPEG doesn't give you, so it is clearly an advantage for RAW. On the other hand, to the extent that he's suggesting that exposure doesn't matter at all, that would be wrong! But I don't think he is. Of course it matters! Even RAW files don't give you unlimited ability to post-process.

But I would add that shooting RAW can change what a "perfect exposure" means. Since you know you're going to post-process anyway, a smart strategy might be to "expose to the right" -- over-exposing by as much as possible while avoiding highlight clipping, and then dialing the exposure back in post-processing. The resulting image will have less noise because of a better signal-to-noise ratio. But it still makes sense to get the exposure as right as possible -- whatever that means -- in camera.

You make some fair points! However, I think they boil down to one (or two) additional positive(s): smaller files (with faster access).

By that same logic, I could boil down most of your earlier stated points to one short phrase like 'RAW allows more manipulation'. But I didn't propose such a shortcut because readers probably appreciate the more detailed list. I believe my list deserves the same courtesy, as it describes different benefits affecting different stages of the entire process.

That they are compatible with everything and understood by everybody is implicit in my convenience point -- the photos are "done" OOC.

Does that mean it shouldn't be acknowledged as an advantage? You didn't list possible loss of future file support as a disadvantage on the RAW side (and however likely or unlikely that is, such a likelihood is much stonger for RAW files than JPG files), so it seems fair to allow me to.

Let's leave both of our lists, which we have constructed with care, fully intact out of courtesy rather than try to whittle away at them. That way others can see the details involved.

I hear what you're saying. I realize that it is always possible to characterize various arguments as being part of the same argument or a different argument. But I want to point out that I don't think our lists are objectively comparable in terms of generality, because I don't want anyone to think, "Oh, they each make six or seven points; it must be an even argument." I don't think the argument is even at all! I realize that I won't convince you, and that's fine -- you're entitled to your opinion. I'm just responding so that everyone else can see that I understand what you are saying but disagree entirely. (On this meta-issue; not on the specific points that you raise.)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Andrewteee
Senior MemberPosts: 2,436Gear list
Like?
If you have to ask...
In reply to Gary Eickmeier, Jul 1, 2013

Just use the JPGs if they work for you. Let the camera be your guide.

I'll take RAW any day.

 Andrewteee's gear list:Andrewteee's gear list
Ricoh GR Leica D-Lux (Typ 109) Ricoh GXR A12 50mm F2.5 Macro Pentax K-3 Nikon Df +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
sybersitizen
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,825
Like?
Re: Said more accurately ...
In reply to realgeek, Jul 1, 2013

realgeek wrote:
I don't think the argument is even at all!

I don't think it needs to be even. But I do think it needs to be balanced and reasonably complete and expressed in factual terms - which is what I earlier stated as my purpose in participating in this thread. I'm not out to convince anyone of anything. I did state my personal preference in passing, but that's an opinion and is of no more or less value than yours or anyone else's. People can assign their own relative weights to any factor(s) they consider important and make choices according to that. Nobody's choice is wrong or right in a universal sense.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
realgeek
Senior MemberPosts: 1,183
Like?
Re: Said more accurately ...
In reply to sybersitizen, Jul 1, 2013

sybersitizen wrote:

realgeek wrote:
I don't think the argument is even at all!

I don't think it needs to be even. But I do think it needs to be balanced and reasonably complete and expressed in factual terms - which is what I earlier stated as my purpose in participating in this thread. I'm not out to convince anyone of anything. I did state my personal preference in passing, but that's an opinion and is of no more or less value than yours or anyone else's. People can assign their own relative weights to any factor(s) they consider important and make choices according to that. Nobody's choice is wrong or right in a universal sense.

Fair enough!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
sybersitizen
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,825
Like?
Re: Said more accurately ...
In reply to realgeek, Jul 1, 2013

realgeek wrote:

sybersitizen wrote:

realgeek wrote:

EVERYONE agrees you should get as much right in camera as possible.

No, everyone doesn't.

I quote BertIverson from page one of this thread: 'I shoot exclusively RAW but not because of noise or IQ superiority... I just got tired of chimping, DRO, HDR, exposure bracketing, spot, center, matrix metering, white balance etc. These can all be accomplished during PP when "time is NOT of the essence". All that is left, at shooting time, are compose and focus.'

I assure you he's not the only one out there who feels that way... and he probably wouldn't work in that manner if he shot JPGs.

Okay! Perhaps I should have said "almost everybody" or "anybody who is being honest ..."

So you're saying that BertIverson is being dishonest? I think, frankly, you're being dishonest. Your goal at this point seems to be to win an argument rather than present full factual and balanced information.

There are plenty of problems that you CANNOT fix later; focus is a perfect example. No one should suggest that you need not worry about focus while shooting.

No one did. So why mention that except as a diversionary tactic?

I thought it might be useful for me to point out quite a few things that you glossed over in your original dismissal of JPG shooting as nothing but a convenience feature. But your reluctance to accept that and instead gainsay the points I make is, shall we say, disappointing. I'm not going to debate with you further, so in that sense I allow you to 'win' by default.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Setter Dog
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,971
Like?
Re: I like your raw examples much better
In reply to Mel Snyder, Jul 1, 2013

Mel Snyder wrote:

By putting fine cameras into the hands of the masses, the manufacturers slyly made it possible for those masses to operate their machines with the least amount of effort - before or after the shot. Because those masses didn't have high expectations, they were never disappointed with whatever they got.

I never cease to be amazed as I travel the world and see the great gear being handled by people with expectations little higher than their iPhone. I discovered that many great scenes I'd observed shot by others didn't look at all in real life like what 99% of people capture without knowing how to set their white balance - or how to balance their exposure for a RAW shot so Lightroom magic could retrieve shadow and highlight detail as the eye saw the scene.

Sorry that you have to even view the efforts of those of us in the unwashed masses. We're only taking pictures and grabbing memories, for heavens sake. If you want to recreate the Mona Lisa, have at it. Me? I'll have fun, take lots of pictures, and spend little or no time hunched over a computer post processing. Photography is a hobby for most of us, not some sort of holy crusade.

Jack

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
realgeek
Senior MemberPosts: 1,183
Like?
And with that, we're done.
In reply to sybersitizen, Jul 1, 2013

sybersitizen wrote:

realgeek wrote:

sybersitizen wrote:

realgeek wrote:

EVERYONE agrees you should get as much right in camera as possible.

No, everyone doesn't.

I quote BertIverson from page one of this thread: 'I shoot exclusively RAW but not because of noise or IQ superiority... I just got tired of chimping, DRO, HDR, exposure bracketing, spot, center, matrix metering, white balance etc. These can all be accomplished during PP when "time is NOT of the essence". All that is left, at shooting time, are compose and focus.'

I assure you he's not the only one out there who feels that way... and he probably wouldn't work in that manner if he shot JPGs.

Okay! Perhaps I should have said "almost everybody" or "anybody who is being honest ..."

So you're saying that BertIverson is being dishonest? I think, frankly, you're being dishonest. Your goal at this point seems to be to win an argument rather than present full factual and balanced information.

No, I'm not saying BertIverson is being dishonest -- and I tried to make this clear later in my post. I think he's being quoted out-of-context. He was making a simple statement about the benefits of RAW -- including that, when time is a factor, RAW gives you more flexibility not to worry about being perfect in camera. I do not think he was testifying on the issue of whether, all things being equal, getting things right in camera is a good idea.

So, if we're going to get into calling names, I guess you could say that I was suggesting that YOU were being dishonest -- for suggesting that he's saying more than he is.

And, while we're at it, for suggesting that I was saying more than I did. What I said was "as much right in camera as possible" -- not "everything right in camera".

There are plenty of problems that you CANNOT fix later; focus is a perfect example. No one should suggest that you need not worry about focus while shooting.

No one did. So why mention that except as a diversionary tactic?

I thought it might be useful for me to point out quite a few things that you glossed over in your original dismissal of JPG shooting as nothing but a convenience feature. But your reluctance to accept that and instead gainsay the points I make is, shall we say, disappointing. I'm not going to debate with you further, so in that sense I allow you to 'win' by default.

It's not a diversionary tactic. Let me explain it to you -- try not to get lost!

I was pointing out that, at the extremes, there would be no difference of opinion on whether something needs to be done right in camera (when shooting RAW). Focus, yes; white balance, no. But there are some gray issues, like exposure, where there may be differences of opinion on how much perfection is necessary. Two illustrations regarding exposure were given: I took BertIverson to be saying that you can be a bit off in exposure when you need to because you can fix it later. I suggested that you might want to overexpose in camera and process the exposure downward to get a better image. But I think BertIverson -- and most others -- would agree with me that, all other things being equal, it's still good to get as close as possible to perfection (whatever that means) in camera. But, in the real world, all other things are not always equal. Given real-world constraints, RAW becomes superior to JPEG because it gives you a bigger cushion.

Oh, and I did acknowledge your additional points of file size (and faster access).  I just thought you were making a bit too much of them.

If I'm sounding a bit snarky, it's because I don't like being accused of being dishonest and deceitful. Go figure! Until this post, I thought we were having a reasonable conversation. But this conversation is over as far as I am concerned. And, apparently, as far as you are concerned as well.  Good!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dlkeller
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,371
Like?
Re: Some questions
In reply to Draek, Jul 1, 2013

Note, however, that you can go back to the original RAW file and it will retain all it's original data.  This is not true when you process a JPEG. If you plan to work with a JPEG do a "Save As" to make a new copy which you do your work on, this will leave the original intact.

-- hide signature --

Dave

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Bruce Oudekerk
Senior MemberPosts: 2,699Gear list
Like?
Re: Raw reveals its value over time
In reply to cgarrard, Jul 1, 2013

cgarrard wrote:

... I find that I re-process many older (but good) images from years back in raw only to see just how much I've improved in my post processing since I made the original image.  ...

And it isn't just our skills that get better...our tools to process RAW have improved dramaticly.  The improvements in ACR have made a new camera out of my a850.

Bruce

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gary Eickmeier
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,457
Like?
Re: No Convincing Required
In reply to gardenersassistant, Jul 1, 2013

gardenersassistant wrote:

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Renato1 wrote:

Is this any help to you in your search for something testable? It involves a very different type of camera of course, and much lower captured image quality than you are used to, but the example does address the specific issue you raise here, and another one to do with retaining detail at higher ISOs. (You have access to the originals, RAW and JPEG, from that link, so you can test it out for yourself.)

If you are not used to dealing with low quality outputs from P&S type cameras, this post may not mean much to you, but it does show how RAW (together with some careful post processing) lets me produce image quality that satisfies my needs using higher ISOs than most people think practical with low quality small-sensor images.

EDIT: I probably should have mentioned, in case you are unfamiliar with the technicalities of using a small sensor camera, that the f/8 you will see in these examples is the smallest aperture available on the camera concerned, and was used to provide the maximum depth of focus. As with smallest apertures such as f/22 or f/32 on larger sensor cameras, f/8 on a small sensor camera causes considerable loss of definition/detail because of diffraction. So, as well as suffering from loss of detail from the (for this type of camera) high ISOs, these images suffer from loss of detail from diffraction.

Some excellent examples - thanks! And, as I said, I have tried the recovering blown highlights for myself, and it works! Here is a RAW + JPG frame from my band shoot, in which they were both blown out in the highlights, but I could actually recover the detail in the RAW one but not the JPG. It is obvious which is which below, so I won't label them:

As you can see, the top one was the RAW corrected for exposure, and the bottom one was all I could do with the JPG file. I will keep working on it. Oh- and yes, I was also able to recover some black detail by boosting the "Black" level in the ACR.

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads