Should I go RAW only?

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
AlphaTikal
Contributing MemberPosts: 543Gear list
Like?
Re: What?
In reply to Chris59, 3 months ago

I do shoot in RAW+JPEG for years and with my camera, I can't see a difference in terms of resolution. Can you somehow show an example? It is easy to say something without proofing. Again, I think this was true in early days. You have your resources here in Dpreview. So show me what difference it makes in resolution / details with the use of RAW or JPEG.

I'll show you two examples, one with iso 100 and one with iso 3200. One is from raw developer with no processing, even a standard curve, noise reduction and sharpness is NOT applied. The other one is processed in camera. The shots are taken very carefully. These are 100% crops from my 24mp crop camera Sony Alpha 65 with Sony 50mm f/1.8 lens. You cannot see any difference in resolution. You don't need to take my word for it. Try it yourself.

Ouuhh ... sorry, but I can't somehow upload my images. I get error.

-- hide signature --

· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.

 AlphaTikal's gear list:AlphaTikal's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony SLT-A65 Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
carl english
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,450Gear list
Like?
Re: Exposure is often different, so yes
In reply to Tony Beach, 3 months ago

Tony Beach wrote:

Leonard Migliore wrote:

Lanidrac wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

I routinely apply negative EC in the Raw converter to my photos before sending them to Photoshop for further work. By taking advantage of the extra headroom in the Raw files I get more DR and a bit less noise; when shooting JPEG you have to sacrifice the headroom or the photo ends up being too bright because exposure and every other camera setting is baked into the JPEG file. Consequently, I never shoot Raw+JPEG because the JPEG files are of no use to me.

FYI, you can edit jpegs in certain versions of CSRAW almost with the same amount of headroom of raws by opening the jpegs via Adobe Bridge. You will be surprised at how much can be done (regained) from those jpegs in CSRaw. Much more than editing a jpeg in Pshop alone. It depends on the Raw file version and the version of CSraw with Bridge whether it works or not. Try it.

And why would I want to have almost as much headroom?

I look forward to seeing how blown highlights are recovered.

Why do you keep blowing your highlights Tony, looks like your priority is equipment rather than getting it right in Camera, try harder with your exposures.

 carl english's gear list:carl english's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Do selective NR
In reply to AlphaTikal, 3 months ago

AlphaTikal wrote:

I do shoot in RAW+JPEG for years and with my camera, I can't see a difference in terms of resolution. Can you somehow show an example? It is easy to say something without proofing. Again, I think this was true in early days. You have your resources here in Dpreview. So show me what difference it makes in resolution / details with the use of RAW or JPEG.

I'll show you two examples, one with iso 100 and one with iso 3200. One is from raw developer with no processing, even a standard curve, noise reduction and sharpness is NOT applied. The other one is processed in camera. The shots are taken very carefully. These are 100% crops from my 24mp crop camera Sony Alpha 65 with Sony 50mm f/1.8 lens. You cannot see any difference in resolution. You don't need to take my word for it. Try it yourself.

Ouuhh ... sorry, but I can't somehow upload my images. I get error.

-- hide signature --

· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.

Show us 100% crops after:

selective NR: 50% CN 25% LN

selective NR: 50% CN, 0% LN

selective NR 50-25 + s-curve (drag ends to cover the range, no more)

exposure correction + selective NR 50-25 + 2/3 EV + s-curve

exposure correction -2/3 EV + selective NR 50-25 + s-curve

white balance correction +2000K, sharpening 0.8px unsharp mask 200%

white balance correction -2000K sharpening 0.8px unsharp mask 100%

EC -1/3 EV, SNR 50-0, s-curve, WB -1250K, contrast +25, local contrast +10, brightness +10

EC -2 EV brightness +45 contrast +15

and last but not least: drag the hue slider all the way to one extreme (pick one)

on both the JPG and the RAW.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
on purpose
In reply to carl english, 3 months ago

carl english wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

Leonard Migliore wrote:

Lanidrac wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

I routinely apply negative EC in the Raw converter to my photos before sending them to Photoshop for further work. By taking advantage of the extra headroom in the Raw files I get more DR and a bit less noise; when shooting JPEG you have to sacrifice the headroom or the photo ends up being too bright because exposure and every other camera setting is baked into the JPEG file. Consequently, I never shoot Raw+JPEG because the JPEG files are of no use to me.

FYI, you can edit jpegs in certain versions of CSRAW almost with the same amount of headroom of raws by opening the jpegs via Adobe Bridge. You will be surprised at how much can be done (regained) from those jpegs in CSRaw. Much more than editing a jpeg in Pshop alone. It depends on the Raw file version and the version of CSraw with Bridge whether it works or not. Try it.

And why would I want to have almost as much headroom?

I look forward to seeing how blown highlights are recovered.

Why do you keep blowing your highlights Tony, looks like your priority is equipment rather than getting it right in Camera, try harder with your exposures.

because the sensor records 50% of the data from the brightest 3 EV (or something like that) of the image. That means that in a 15 EV DR image you have 50% of data, say 13 MB, of the brightest 3 stops, and 6% of data, 1.5MB, of the darkest 3 stops of your image. Most sensors have around 1 to 1½ EV of highlight headroom. You lose a lot of information in both highlights and shadows if you always expose correctly and don't bracket, leading to worse images quality. It's something you should really know when using a digital sensor.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AlphaTikal
Contributing MemberPosts: 543Gear list
Like?
Re: Do selective NR
In reply to canonagain123, 3 months ago

canonagain123 wrote:

and last but not least: drag the hue slider all the way to one extreme (pick one)

on both the JPG and the RAW.

Are you doing that with all of your images? In real life images without extreme editing, there is no difference in "sharpness" and details, what the lens and sensor can resolve. That was what we was talking before. Off courese there are OTHER limits of JPEG, like 8-bit. But that is an another story. Your example is not practical. Why don't you show us?

-- hide signature --

· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.

 AlphaTikal's gear list:AlphaTikal's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony SLT-A65 Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chris59
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,650Gear list
Like?
Re: What?
In reply to AlphaTikal, 3 months ago

AlphaTikal wrote:

I do shoot in RAW+JPEG for years and with my camera, I can't see a difference in terms of resolution. Can you somehow show an example? It is easy to say something without proofing. Again, I think this was true in early days. You have your resources here in Dpreview. So show me what difference it makes in resolution / details with the use of RAW or JPEG.

I'll show you two examples, one with iso 100 and one with iso 3200. One is from raw developer with no processing, even a standard curve, noise reduction and sharpness is NOT applied. The other one is processed in camera. The shots are taken very carefully. These are 100% crops from my 24mp crop camera Sony Alpha 65 with Sony 50mm f/1.8 lens. You cannot see any difference in resolution. You don't need to take my word for it. Try it yourself.

Ouuhh ... sorry, but I can't somehow upload my images. I get error.

Check any combination of cameras here on DPR.  Check any part of the new studio test setup in JPEG and then click on RAW - the difference is not subtle.  Do that first...  then post your verdict.

-- hide signature --

· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chris59
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,650Gear list
Like?
Re: Do selective NR
In reply to AlphaTikal, 3 months ago

AlphaTikal wrote:

canonagain123 wrote:

and last but not least: drag the hue slider all the way to one extreme (pick one)

on both the JPG and the RAW.

Are you doing that with all of your images? In real life images without extreme editing, there is no difference in "sharpness" and details, what the lens and sensor can resolve. That was what we was talking before. Off courese there are OTHER limits of JPEG, like 8-bit. But that is an another story. Your example is not practical. Why don't you show us?

That is the wrong way around!  There is a difference in sharpness and resolution at exactly the same settings but no difference in the number of dynamic range steps because all JPEGs are limited by 8 bit depth.

-- hide signature --

· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chris59
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,650Gear list
Like?
Re: that's only
In reply to canonagain123, 3 months ago

canonagain123 wrote:

salla30 wrote:

The main reason I keep the jpg's is as a guide to lens corrections.

I don't often compensate using LR, sometimes its good to have the camera corrected JPG handy to guide me to adjust for distortions.

And also in case I need to quickly transfer to tablet or someone else's PC or need to quickly send a jpg off to someone without fiddling with conversions.

Disc space is so cheap these days, why throw out any information you may regret later?

-- hide signature --

only if you shoot JPG in the first place, then you can keep it.

I have lens distortion profiles (perfect correction) for all my lenses in my raw processing software, the distortion can be corrected with one click. I have the same profiles in all my software that supports it, so I can correct it at any point along my workflow, at RAW, tiff, png or jpg stage, whenever I please, or leave it uncorrected, it's just as simple either way. like someone already mentioned, import/developing presets make life a lot easier and raw development quicker.

You forgot to mention that you can apply the same lens corrections with the latest Canon DPP software on old RAW files and improve their image quality too.  Try doing that with 8 year old JPEGs!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chris59
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,650Gear list
Like?
Re: What?
In reply to BaldCol, 3 months ago

BaldCol wrote:

or Canon

Sorry, no.  JPEGs from 400D and 50D benefit from being created in post processing.  Noticeably better image quality than JPEGs produced in camera.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Do selective NR
In reply to AlphaTikal, 3 months ago

AlphaTikal wrote:

canonagain123 wrote:

and last but not least: drag the hue slider all the way to one extreme (pick one)

on both the JPG and the RAW.

Are you doing that with all of your images? In real life images without extreme editing, there is no difference in "sharpness" and details, what the lens and sensor can resolve. That was what we was talking before. Off courese there are OTHER limits of JPEG, like 8-bit. But that is an another story. Your example is not practical. Why don't you show us?

-- hide signature --

· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.

Why don't I start shooting JPGs just for you? I don't need to, there are plenty of image series showing raw vs jpg comparisons! http://www.prophotoshow.net/2010/04/30/jpeg-vs-raw-example-conclusion/ like that one, though only on one point (DR and HLR) http://lmgtfy.com/?q=raw+vs+jpg+samples http://lmgtfy.com/?q=raw+vs+jpg+latitude+samples

Do I do EC for all my images?  Yes! Do I do selective NR to all my images? All the ones above a certain ISO, all the ones that need it! WB correction? always and then some, after all, I don't strive for neutral, I strive for appropriate!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
hahah!
In reply to Chris59, 3 months ago

Chris59 wrote:

canonagain123 wrote:

salla30 wrote:

The main reason I keep the jpg's is as a guide to lens corrections.

I don't often compensate using LR, sometimes its good to have the camera corrected JPG handy to guide me to adjust for distortions.

And also in case I need to quickly transfer to tablet or someone else's PC or need to quickly send a jpg off to someone without fiddling with conversions.

Disc space is so cheap these days, why throw out any information you may regret later?

-- hide signature --

only if you shoot JPG in the first place, then you can keep it.

I have lens distortion profiles (perfect correction) for all my lenses in my raw processing software, the distortion can be corrected with one click. I have the same profiles in all my software that supports it, so I can correct it at any point along my workflow, at RAW, tiff, png or jpg stage, whenever I please, or leave it uncorrected, it's just as simple either way. like someone already mentioned, import/developing presets make life a lot easier and raw development quicker.

You forgot to mention that you can apply the same lens corrections with the latest Canon DPP software on old RAW files and improve their image quality too. Try doing that with 8 year old JPEGs!

Indeed!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tcg550
Contributing MemberPosts: 732
Like?
Re: A reason to shoot raw + JPG
In reply to Charles2, 3 months ago

Charles2 wrote:

Depending on the camera, the camera JPG may be good for many uses yet difficult to duplicate. Even the software from many camera manufacturers does not duplicate the JPG; the camera JPG recipe is apparently regarded as a secret sauce.

With my D90 and ViewNX 2 (Nikon software) the jpg and raw image are identical.

With CS5 Bridge or Adobe Camera RAW there is a slight difference that I can't quite put my finger on. It appears to be mostly a little underexposed.

But with the Nikon software the images are identical.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
knickerhawk
Senior MemberPosts: 2,932
Like?
Been there, done that...
In reply to Lanidrac, 3 months ago

Lanidrac wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

I routinely apply negative EC in the Raw converter to my photos before sending them to Photoshop for further work. By taking advantage of the extra headroom in the Raw files I get more DR and a bit less noise; when shooting JPEG you have to sacrifice the headroom or the photo ends up being too bright because exposure and every other camera setting is baked into the JPEG file. Consequently, I never shoot Raw+JPEG because the JPEG files are of no use to me.

FYI, you can edit jpegs in certain versions of CSRAW almost with the same amount of headroom of raws by opening the jpegs via Adobe Bridge. You will be surprised at how much can be done (regained) from those jpegs in CSRaw. Much more than editing a jpeg in Pshop alone. It depends on the Raw file version and the version of CSraw with Bridge whether it works or not. Try it.

-- hide signature --

CSRaw (or applying the camera raw filter in PS to a jpeg) is applying the information from the non-blown channel(s) to the blown channel(s).  Depending on the image and the extent that the channels were blown in the jpeg, you'll see color shifts or blown highlights. Don't kid yourself, CSRaw is no panacea and is certainly no substitute for shooting RAW in the first place if you're dealing with scenes with high dynamic range or that would otherwise benefit from ETTR.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
carl english
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,450Gear list
Like?
Re: Been there, done that...
In reply to knickerhawk, 3 months ago

not bad for a jpg.

 carl english's gear list:carl english's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tony Beach
Senior MemberPosts: 4,666
Like?
Re: Exposure is often different, so yes
In reply to carl english, 3 months ago

carl english wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

Leonard Migliore wrote:

Lanidrac wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

I routinely apply negative EC in the Raw converter to my photos before sending them to Photoshop for further work. By taking advantage of the extra headroom in the Raw files I get more DR and a bit less noise; when shooting JPEG you have to sacrifice the headroom or the photo ends up being too bright because exposure and every other camera setting is baked into the JPEG file. Consequently, I never shoot Raw+JPEG because the JPEG files are of no use to me.

FYI, you can edit jpegs in certain versions of CSRAW almost with the same amount of headroom of raws by opening the jpegs via Adobe Bridge. You will be surprised at how much can be done (regained) from those jpegs in CSRaw. Much more than editing a jpeg in Pshop alone. It depends on the Raw file version and the version of CSraw with Bridge whether it works or not. Try it.

And why would I want to have almost as much headroom?

I look forward to seeing how blown highlights are recovered.

Why do you keep blowing your highlights Tony,

I don't. Why do you choose to be ignorant?

...rather than getting it right in Camera,

Getting it right is exactly the point. "Right" is different for JPEG than it is for Raw.

try harder with your exposures.

No, I am often meticulous about my exposures. You on the other hand are clearly not because you accept underexposure as part of the price of only shooting JPEG. Maybe you should try harder to understand what others are telling you.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tony Beach
Senior MemberPosts: 4,666
Like?
Re: on purpose
In reply to canonagain123, 3 months ago

canonagain123 wrote:

You lose a lot of information in both highlights and shadows if you always expose correctly

Don't play their game. They want to constrain "correct" to what works for a JPEG setting engineered to protect highlights, it's like they're putting speed limit signs on a race course.

Clearly many don't understand how to take advantage of Raw which is the underlying premise for shooting both Raw and JPEG.  Many contend that Raw is for those that are careless.  If that was the case then you would think Raw would only be available in consumer cameras whereas many of the most consumer oriented cameras (the Point and Shoots) have no Raw option -- go figure.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Leonard Migliore
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,486Gear list
Like?
Re: What?
In reply to Chris59, 3 months ago

Chris59 wrote:

BaldCol wrote:

or Canon

Sorry, no. JPEGs from 400D and 50D benefit from being created in post processing. Noticeably better image quality than JPEGs produced in camera.

Agreed but you can get a pretty good JPEG out of a 50D; Canon gives you lots of control over the JPEG generation and I generally used them for laboratory images where I didn't really need to play with anything.

-- hide signature --

Leonard Migliore

 Leonard Migliore's gear list:Leonard Migliore's gear list
Canon PowerShot G12 Nikon D300 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 10-24mm f/3-5-4.5G ED +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
carl english
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,450Gear list
Like?
Re: Exposure is often different, so yes
In reply to Tony Beach, 3 months ago

Tony Beach wrote:

carl english wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

Leonard Migliore wrote:

Lanidrac wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

I routinely apply negative EC in the Raw converter to my photos before sending them to Photoshop for further work. By taking advantage of the extra headroom in the Raw files I get more DR and a bit less noise; when shooting JPEG you have to sacrifice the headroom or the photo ends up being too bright because exposure and every other camera setting is baked into the JPEG file. Consequently, I never shoot Raw+JPEG because the JPEG files are of no use to me.

FYI, you can edit jpegs in certain versions of CSRAW almost with the same amount of headroom of raws by opening the jpegs via Adobe Bridge. You will be surprised at how much can be done (regained) from those jpegs in CSRaw. Much more than editing a jpeg in Pshop alone. It depends on the Raw file version and the version of CSraw with Bridge whether it works or not. Try it.

And why would I want to have almost as much headroom?

I look forward to seeing how blown highlights are recovered.

Why do you keep blowing your highlights Tony,

I don't. Why do you choose to be ignorant?

...rather than getting it right in Camera,

Getting it right is exactly the point. "Right" is different for JPEG than it is for Raw.

try harder with your exposures.

No, I am often meticulous about my exposures. You on the other hand are clearly not because you accept underexposure as part of the price of only shooting JPEG. Maybe you should try harder to understand what others are telling you.

You must get off that pedestal Tony, yes we can see you have spent lots of money on equipment and would like to spend more (not happy with results eh?)

If you read my first post and many others over the years I stated there is not a good argument against using raw, problem with you and others is you poo poo those who choose not to use it and I simply point out that a high % do not choose to use raw which includes the Pro guys, ask a 100 photographers what's headroom or dr and you will get a blank look.

 carl english's gear list:carl english's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AlphaTikal
Contributing MemberPosts: 543Gear list
Like?
Re: Do selective NR
In reply to canonagain123, 3 months ago

But we are not speaking about Dynamic Range and other limitations. I was quoting and holding against "SHARPNESS" only.

-- hide signature --

· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.

 AlphaTikal's gear list:AlphaTikal's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony SLT-A65 Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
carl english
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,450Gear list
Like?
Re: Do selective NR
In reply to AlphaTikal, 3 months ago

AlphaTikal wrote:

But we are not speaking about Dynamic Range and other limitations. I was quoting and holding against "SHARPNESS" only.

-- hide signature --

· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.

Those who believe raw is heaven sent always bring in Dynamic Range and of course HEADROOM

 carl english's gear list:carl english's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads