7D and JPG

Hi, George - I've seen some nice results from people who use RSE, and it definitely is less resource-intensive than KM's software. I continue to shoot RAW+JPEG, as JPEG can be fine much of the time - if I really want to adjust in-depth, I'll switch to the RAW version. So just keep that possibility in mind, in case you find your time being eaten up by editing.

Rich

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember from the early 7D days threads about how moderate the in-camera post processing was, and that it was a good thing. If you want saturated, bright and contrasty pictures, can't you get them by changing settings?

--
my gallery: http://www.mdk-photo.com
Dynax 4 - Super 35mm SLR !
Dynax 7D - Super camera !
24-105D f/3.5-4.5 - Super lense !
100-300 APO - Super lense !
3600HS - Super flash !
Pixma ip5000 - Super printer !

i know that RAW is much better, in the sence of correcting various parameters.

but the JPE (Extra Fine) pictures, if captured with the right exposure and white-balance will be as good as a RAW...

i use +1 sharpness in camera, and i have no problems when it comes to detail (maybe i dont look for them)

remember that we want a whole picture - and not just 6 million perfekt pixels

--
my gallery: http://www.mdk-photo.com
Dynax 4 - Super 35mm SLR !
Dynax 7D - Super camera !
24-105D f/3.5-4.5 - Super lense !
100-300 APO - Super lense !
3600HS - Super flash !
Pixma ip5000 - Super printer !

Hello.

I'm sorry (maybe I doing something wrong) but I compared JPE and JPG and I see only light white balance and colors saturation difference (colors like Canon "wash out" pictures). Details still not enought, and seem the same as JPG. Tommorow I make small comparison if You want (so in Poland now is 11PM - I'm going to sleep )

RAWfrom RSE much much better....

liquid stereo said:

I've given up on shooting JPGs. Even for my walk-around everyday
photography. For this type of photography, I've started shooting
lower-resolution RAW.

The poor performance in the dark/black regions is absolutely
stunning. I've tried every permutation of sharpness, contrast, etc.
and the result is always rather poor.

Am I missing something? Has someone found the optimum set-up?

Thanks!

Click to expand...

Well as a 5D user I will say the jpeg engine did get a bit of a tweak and is a tad better than the 7D in this respect. With super fine you can get very good pp results as the compression is so low. I use both and have no major problems with jpeg, though RAW does have an edge for more dramatic exp compensation and tweaking, though not a huge one...dr is among the best out there in this respect though.

I'm new to the forum and to the technology...What is PP?

What do these abbreviations represent? RSE IMO

ARe you using DiMAGE software to process your photos or another software?

RSE...Rawshooter Essentials...free from pixmantec.com
PP...Postprocessing
IMO..in my opinion???

Have fun,
Greg

I have gone through several stages on this. Starting out with jpg and moving to raw plus jpg and finally to raw only - can't trust that jpg magnifier on the 7D - listening Sony - need a better viewer - the histogram reader is fine. I have concluded that raw for digital is the only way to go. More importantly though is the processing program. Now I have used several including RSE and Photoshop CS2, Silky, Dalifer, FS Viewer, Dimage and Bibble - my choice after much thought and comparison is Bibble Pro.

OK -this is my choice - not to disparage Adobe Photshop - but I am not a pro and I really think you have to be one to enjoy all the refinements that this great program offers - for me - Bibble covers all the bases. Hey, it is $69 or $129 US so you decide - download the trial and use it for two weeks - I did.

Back to the original thought - when you see what your jpg would have delivered - and then work it through the program and see your results - you will never - I mean never - shoot Jpg only - You will never get out of a jpg what a raw will deliver with a little work - ultimately ------ How Important Is the Shot!!!!!
Love this forum - I only hope I give 1/2 of what I get!

--
TroyMich
My shots!
http://pbase.com/ferriolo

TroyMich said:

I have gone through several stages on this. Starting out with jpg
and moving to raw plus jpg and finally to raw only - can't trust
that jpg magnifier on the 7D - listening Sony - need a better
viewer - the histogram reader is fine. I have concluded that raw
for digital is the only way to go. More importantly though is the
processing program. Now I have used several including RSE and
Photoshop CS2, Silky, Dalifer, FS Viewer, Dimage and Bibble - my
choice after much thought and comparison is Bibble Pro.
OK -this is my choice - not to disparage Adobe Photshop - but I am
not a pro and I really think you have to be one to enjoy all the
refinements that this great program offers - for me - Bibble covers
all the bases. Hey, it is $69 or $129 US so you decide - download
the trial and use it for two weeks - I did.
Back to the original thought - when you see what your jpg would
have delivered - and then work it through the program and see your
results - you will never - I mean never - shoot Jpg only - You will
never get out of a jpg what a raw will deliver with a little work -
ultimately ------ How Important Is the Shot!!!!!
Love this forum - I only hope I give 1/2 of what I get!

--
TroyMich
My shots!
http://pbase.com/ferriolo

Click to expand...

well Bibble is good I have used it, far better than the somewhat irritating RSP, which is also good but overcooks things and has a somwhat naff interface.

Dimage Master, despite needing a good pc, is very good albeit slower, but for colour accuracy it blows ACR away.

RAW has its points no question, but lets be realistic here, I use both a lot, and I dont see a vast difference. Sure RAW is better for extreme exposure lattitude...but aside from that jpeg is far from inferior..

a jpeg shot.....



more jpeg only:





RAW:

PP = Post processing.
RSE = Raw Shooter Essentials.
IMO = In My Opinion.
Regards, Jim

Agracedfamily said:

What do these abbreviations represent? RSE IMO

Click to expand...

--



Odds N' Ends album here:
http://www.pbase.com/jimh/inbox&page=all
Z album here: http://www.pbase.com/jimh/marilyn_the_car&page=all

Barry,

If you get the images dead on in camera and never do any post processing, then you won't get much from raw.

If you plan to edit your files later either artisticlly or to correct a problem, there really is no substitute for raw. Even things like noise . Ca and distortion are better removed when using raw.

The other hidden advantage of raw is that raw processing is an active research area with beter methods coming avaialble all the time. If you shoto jpeg, you are limited to the processing in your camera today. If you shoot raw you can always reprocess your images with better technology in the future. There are many cases you can find in phils reviews where the jpegs in the camera at a "pixel peeping" level ehibited artifacts that weren't present if processed with the cameras raw software.

Eric
http://www.bibblelabs.com

Eric,

Well said. That was actually my thought...wouldn't it be nice to have my best shots in RAW format so in the future when the software, or my ability, improves, I'll be able to squeeze the most out of them.

Now, off to buy a bigger hard drive. ;-)

Greg

RAW is simply a lifesaver in case you didn't get exposure/WB right at shooting time. Whether you blame the camera or yourself for not having used exposure compensation, spot metering etc. is up to you. If you get it right, you do not benefit from saving in RAW with the exception of esoteric PP requests.

What do you loose for using this lifesaver? On the 7D and AX you loose the ability to zoom the picture you've just taken. IMHO a must to control whether your subject is in focus. So on these cameras you are forced to shoot RAW + JPEG. On the 7D this seems to work fine (don't have a 7D, so can't comment) on the A2 the camera becomes unusable slow. So on the A2 it is a hard decision to use RAW (I still use RAW and sacrifice the zoom option), on the 7D you sacrifice quite a significant amount of memory (RAW + JPEG vs. JPEG), but memory is cheap nowadays, on the 5D the little drawback in additional memory usage and slowdown for continuous shots is by far outweighed by the benefits of the RAW format.

From another perspective: A lot of photographers say, for important shots you shot bracket exposure. Shooting RAW gives you the same advantage but 3x JPEG is bigger in filesize than 1x RAW and if you shoot anything other than a still life, it is likely that not all of your bracketing JPEGs are usuable.

Whether you have to change your PP workflow, when switching from JPEG to RAW, depends on the software you are using. If you are on Mac and enjoy the somewhat limited but super-easy to use iPhoto application, you don't have to change anything. The only difference you might notice is, that the import of the pictures might be a tack slower due to the larger file size, and that the pictures are now tagged with a little RAW icon.
The same is true for Aperture.

And as someone already mentioned, you do not have to PP every picture just because you shoot in RAW now. It is more like in the old days with film, where you made small prints or a contact sheet from your film and after evaluating you redid large prints only from the keepers. Now you just batch convert all RAWs to JPEGs during import automatically (iPhoto) or with the help of little script (Photoshop) and PP only your best shots starting from the RAW file with the advanced options you have with the RAW format. Again with iPhoto or Aperture you don't have to bother with backing up your RAWs to prevent them from overwriting by accident and try to find the right RAW afterwards when you PP your keepers. (That doesn't meant you shouldn't do backups from your whole HD in case of hardware failures). The software never alters RAW files and maintains a link from the JPEGs to the corresponding RAWs. Whenever you make changes the software starts with a fresh copy from the from RAW file. (iPhoto and Aperture are a bit different in this case, but basically it works like this. For in-depth discussion look in the Mac tools forum or Apples website).

I use JPEGs only:

a.) for continuous shots of moving objects, because there is not limit other than the capacity of the CF card, when using JPEG fine and a fast card. With RAW the 5D slows down after 3 frames.

b.) when I expect people asking me for the pictures directly out of the camera. They usually don't have a software that can handle the RAW format.

Cecco

Eric said:

Barry,

If you get the images dead on in camera and never do any post
processing, then you won't get much from raw.

If you plan to edit your files later either artisticlly or to
correct a problem, there really is no substitute for raw. Even
things like noise . Ca and distortion are better removed when using
raw.

The other hidden advantage of raw is that raw processing is an
active research area with beter methods coming avaialble all the
time. If you shoto jpeg, you are limited to the processing in your
camera today. If you shoot raw you can always reprocess your images
with better technology in the future. There are many cases you can
find in phils reviews where the jpegs in the camera at a "pixel
peeping" level ehibited artifacts that weren't present if processed
with the cameras raw software.

Eric
http://www.bibblelabs.com

Click to expand...

Well I can see your point. However in my curch shot I underexposed to preserve highlight detail, by a fair bit. The shot was on ultra fine jpeg. Then I processed it via PSP X, to recover shadow detail. This worked well, and I didnt encounter a noise problem, though somtimes you do I will say that.

I dont see RAW as the miracle its made out to be, and esp on ultra fine jpeg it is so low on compression its 100% suitable for post processing IMO. Sure I do use RAW a fair bit, but it really isnt a big deal. Not trying to be funny buy considering you are working for a company producing software for RAW, its not a shocker to notice you pushing the format!

It is true to say aside from USM, contrast, etc etc, I tend not to heavily process shots...people IMO overcook things too much, and all end up doing the same thing, which is what I wish to avoid!

Hi George,

to put allight on this: all settings on the camera as there are sharperning, contrast, white balance....apply only for in-camera processing to JPG output files. When you use RAW all these settings are of no use since all parametres can be adjusted in the converison program. I´m using Rawshooter Essentials (RSE) and it comes with a specific profile for the 7D/5D. But, thinking about it you´ve touched am interesting point which I´m not able to clear up at this moment that is whether in-camera settings concerning contrast, colour saturation etc. are saved to the overhead (EXIF) of the RAW file and such interfere with the camera profile during reading the RAW file by RSE and change the starting point (visualization) of the processing in RSE. As said, I don´t believe that it happens this way but I´m not quite sure.

I think it´s important to say that there´s nothing wrong using the JPGs from the in-camera processing. In fact each one of us some day has faced will face a frustrating situation when comparing his/her shots with some taken with a much more simpler PAS camera and apparently the results of the PAS camera are sharper, crispier, more vivid, more pleasant colour, etc. - they seem to look better or at least as good as our shots. And then the doubts are rising what for spending all the money on such expensive gear and so much time with conversion, PP and so on when a fellow gets aparently better results only clicking right away.... Then it seems that all discussions concerning 8-bit, 12-bit, 16-bit, using RAW or not, conversion better to 8-bit JPG or 16-bit TIFF are marketing inventions to get our money and to maintain us occupied....

This reveals another important point: the significance of the image taken, its composition, the photographers ability to see the scene, to frame it the right way and to push the shutter in the right moment. The best gear and the most sofisticated shooting and PP procedures are never able to substitute the photographer´s skills; they are nothing more than tools. I think that´s the way to face it. The option to shoot RAW is then the choose for a data format that has the potential to end up with the best possible source -technically speaking- IF a shot is outstanding, or so to say "that master piece", the next Pulitzer. What if this shot would have been taken in JPG, low quality???? RAW files are quite big but being quite critical on revision of the files, discarding a lot of the stuff that isn´t worth to keep, the storage needs drop drastically whereas the most "JPG-shooters" keep almost everything.

Hope these point help more than they could cause confusion....

Cheers,
Michael Fritzen

Hi Greg,

as far as I know -but I can be wrong- RSE uses the camera specific profiles and the EXIF data to create a visualization of the file contents in a "mid range" with WB as shot. As I´m understanding the logics of the processing all sliders which are in a mid position on default respresent a processing -when doing the conversion with these default settings - that lead to JPG/TIFF files with a similar result as doing in-camera processing with no changes (contrast, sharpening, saturation etc.). It does not mean that RSE with the sharpening-0-default-position does not apply any sharpening at all but it is only a quite modest amount of sharpening. It´s similar with the other sliders where default 0 is in the middle of the slider. So one can apply more or less than the default.

The situation is different in the case of the settings for noise reduction and hot pixels where the default 0 is on the left side of the slider.

When I started to use RSE I had the impression that the images as they were showed in RSE looked sharper and more pleasant than the converted JPG files lateron visualized with common viewers. I discussed this matter with the people from pixmantec and they told me that there is a very powerful visualization algorithm implanted into RSE whereas common viewers work on a much less sophisticated base. In each case common viewers should not be used to judge image quality/sharpness/colours. In fact no one of the today´s monitors comes even close to the resolution of the files and for that reason looking at images on the screen shows only the image in a reduced size or it shows only part of the image. Monitor calibration is another point one has to take care for because with wrong settings the printed photos may look very differnt (disappointing clear, dark or with colour casts) from that what the screen showed. So monitor calibration finally aims for "what-you-see-is-what-you-get".

To your question considering sharpening: I generally apply a small to medium amount of sharpening in RSE (5-10). I think the more PP you want to do (in PS) the less sharpening I´d apply (leave in on default 0) since PS has very good (smart) sharpening algorithms. When doing a lot of PP in PS it might be wise to convert first to 16-bit TIFF and doing downsampling to 8-bit JPG and final sharpening only as the last steps prior printing.

Cheers,
Michael Fritzen

Barry,

I agree completely with your comments

I also have yet to see any real visual gain from RAW at all. From my 5d I shoot on the extra fine jpeg mode. I have recently taken hundreds of shots in both formats - RAW + JPEG mode and seen no real diffference in image. I'm a designer and I view on a large and new apple monitor so I should be able to identify a difference.

I'm amazed by the difference shown in the pine cone images earlier in this thread, but I'm afraid I'm still a sceptic. I wish I too could post a comparison to prove the benefits of RAW, however my comparisons show near identical images. I've been using the Dimage software and recently RAW shooter.

I have searched for burnt out highlights on my jpegs and then checked the RAWS to see if I can extract / more info. Sad to say, I've yet to prove to myself that Highlights are recoverable from RAW. For a time, I made my self believe that there was a difference (possibly to justify the extra time and full memory cards I was creating) and that RAW was superior but I've given up. Could it be, that the 5d is such a relatively modern dslr that it just creates excellent jpegs and images straight out the box?

Please prove me wrong!

Nick the sceptic