RAW vs JPEG 2 mountain pics

The last 2 weekends I've gone hiking in the Cascades at sunrise and trying different compositions, camera settings, etc.. Comparing RAW and SHQ JPEG I really can't see a difference. No matter how I post process the RAW I can't seem to make it look any better than the JPEG, so I'll just stick with JPEG. The camera is a C8080.

Here are a couple shots. First one is Mt. Hood from Trillium Lk.



Second one is South Sister from Sparks Lk.



Q

I take it those are the jpegs, then? I realize a bunch of folks will probably chime in here and say that there is no way anyone can take good pictures without shooting RAW, but hey-- there are a lot of us out here who are very happy with jpeg's. I say if it works for you, don't fix it.

That claim is not new, and specifically the 8080 JPEG engine is supposed to be exceptional.

I don't expect the hard-core fans of RAW to yield the point, though!
--
Steve

Forgot to say that those are lovely shots, Hugemoth. I especially like the first.
--
Steve

Beautiful!!!
--
http://photobucket.com/albums/b325/maggiesue1/

They are both very nice shots no matter what format you used.

I shoot with an 8080 too. In general, your experience with RAW vs. JPEG is the same as mine. After several tests, I end up shooting JPEG a very high percentage of the time. The only exceptions is if it is a subject with very high contrast, and/or if I intend to make a print larger than 8 x 10. RAW can increase dynamic range over JPEG, and give about 1 stop more detail in the highlights too boot. And with big prints, RAW can produce a little better image. And, in addition, RAW can cover up lots of mistakes in exposure and WB.

Both of your photos here are especially nice, and very well done. Nice work, indeed.

--John C.

I have just returned from a four day shoot in the Languedoc and shot everything in .orf and shq .jpeg

When the shots are viewed in (and processed by) Silkypix Beta 3 there is a very marked difference in the colour temp. All the raws are warmer and all the jpeg cooler eg. Outdoor Bright Sunlight .orf gives 4727k and the same shot in jpeg is 6500k.

Still getting to grips with Silkyupix Beta 3 and have a long way to go!

--
EJM

nice shots!

Hi,

Very nice shots. I particularly like the first shot.

--
Fiorano

and i would add that if you have time [because on the 8080 raw takes time...], shoot raw and shq at the same time, which the camera allows, conveniently.

although the jpegs out of the camera are outstanding, among the best of any cam, the raw shot has oodles more info---it's a much larger file. storage is cheap. why not have those orf's for the future? if you ever want to manipulate them in pp, you will have a lot more data to work with with the raw file. who knows what you'll want to do in the future?

In most of the time, JPG is fine. But in some situations I'll take a RAW and squeeze out from its higher dynamic range everything what I can in post processing. This is especially for high contrast images or fine dark/light details. But RAW takes time in both, in shooting and PP.

There's also another technique to get a higher dynamic range, but only for static shots - bracketing with exposure shift and then combining into one HDR image with Photoshop or Photomatix (last one do great job on HDR images).

Another RAW usage is to shot high quality shots with a lot of details for large prints or screen previews, when even SHQ JPG artifacts are unwanted.

--
http://picasaweb.google.com/vjevdokimov

tex wrote:
storage is cheap. why not have those orf's for the

tex said:

future? if you ever want to manipulate them in pp, you will have a
lot more data to work with with the raw file. who knows what
you'll want to do in the future?

Click to expand...

Agreed here. True - .ORF files are around 13 MB from an E500, but a 120 GB external hard drive doesn't cost the earth and the main thing is - you have the digital negative for future - because we don't know how imaging software will evolve and there may be techniques in 10 years time that can salvage even the the bleakest shot! And you may very well want to return to something you shot years before.

John Chandler also hit the nail on the head. certain contrasty situations are better managed if shot in RAW. I still shoot JPEG & RAW roughly 50:50.

But who knows - it may well be possible to rescue / extrapolate even JPEGs with imaging software in the future. If you do shoot JPEG, make sure its SHQ and make sure you always "save as" so that the original JPEG remains as it came out of the camera.

Once a month its usually a good idea to go back to your shots and be more judicial with what you want to keep and what can be deleted.

For all we know - JPEG may well get replaced by other formats.

--
AH

Optimum tempus garantitum omnibus

Nice photos! And you are right that the 8080 does a fine job in jpeg. I have read that is the case with the E1 also, but not all cameras produce such such nice jpegs out of cam. Just think, you are out enjoying the Cascades while someone else (like me) is at home processing raw photos - LOL.

Do you print your photos? See my reply to John Chandler.
Jay

John Chandler said:

And with big prints, RAW can produce a little better image. And,

Click to expand...

I have been trying to figure out if the color space available in jpeg (sRGB for the 8080) is limiting my ability to print. If I understand correctly, a raw image has no color space and can therefore be opened to any color space in photoshop? And that sRGB while most suitable for web use may not be the best for printing? I am working towards printing images and have just started to explore this issue.

What color space do you open raw images in?

Thanks,
Jay

I've used bracketing to blend shots in photoshop and it can help in some high contrast situations. I have bracketed shots of the second picture above but when I blend them the picture tends to look unnatural. I also have RAW shots of the second picture and used several different RAW converters but wasn't happy with the results from any of them. Again, that unnatural look.

I too am wondering about "colorspace" and printing. Would like to hear thoughts on the subject.

Q

I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish with the second photo. But if you'd like to extend the dynamic range a bit, I've had good success using ACR at the following settings:

Exposure: -0.75
Shadows: 0
Brightness: 50
Contrast: -50

The RAW image will look really ugly, with very low contrast and saturation. But, when you transport it to Photoshop, and adjust the levels at both ends, the image comes to life. Then you can go to work on it in Photoshop. Probably you'll need to do some general and/or local adjustments with curves, contrast, slective color, saturation, etc., to get the look you want. (Of course, you may want to use slightly less extreme settings, if you don't want to squeeze all the DR out of a single RAW image.)

I found this very interesting: Using ACR at the default, or anything near, actually reduces DR to less than what you get in JPEG. For an explanation and discussion on the subject, please see Phil's recent reviews where he discusses Dynamic Range. For example see: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/page19.asp . Note the discussion toward the bottom of the page "RAW Headroom."

I don't know if this will be helpful to you, but it was an eye-opener for me. I've been shooting a little more RAW ever since reading Phil, and testing the above procedure. I've used it on several images with high DR, and they turned out nice.

Anyway, with the very nice photos you shoot, It doesn't hurt to know of different ways to go about getting the best out of them.

Know how many Photoshop experts it takes to screw in a light bulb?

100

One to screw in the bulb, and 99 to explain other ways to do it.

--John C.

Hi folks,

I’m not going to add much to what was said in John’s part of this thread (above posts), because most was already said.

I’ll just add one more thing – bracketing. With RAW, there is really no reason for bracketing (and tripod). One can develop RAW file in many different variations and create a master piece. There’s so much more info available in the file.

Regarding RAW developing programs, as I said before, it takes time to find a converter that “feels” right, that matches ones taste, needs and workflow and to be a spot-on, comfortable, easy and fast tool. Everything is in the workflow. People are mistaken thinking that one tool (program) will do ALL the work. It WON’T!!!

I tested and worked with 3-4 different programs and I always needed some (or more) pp after RAW was converted to the image. It is not a magical format that will be perfect in only one step.

I’m most comfortable working with ACR because of its native connection with PSCS (one of the programs that feeds my family and extremely familiar environment since version 2). I developed an easy and (to me) acceptable workflow and I think that I’m getting (at least) very satisfactory results. I’m now in the process of calibrating ACR for 30D and I’m almost there (specific blue colour is making me crazyyyyy !!! )…

I’m reading so many posts on forums I’m visiting where people are struggling to get some decent/good output from RAW and eventually giving up. Most of the time it’s because they don’t understand tools they’re using, or they are inappropriate for them, or they don’t have enough patience/time to learn and employ it. Trying is not enough!…

Many times they’ll just use default settings offered by the programs, which is wrong! NO program will do a proper job in its default setting (except – partially – programs developed by the manufactures, but they’re usually not the best tools and lacking with advanced and important features).

I can tell you that Oly’s Master (for E series) and Canon’s software (DPP) are great to properly read RAW file and usually extremely accurate (especially WB), but I don’t use them because they are too slow (Master) and/or they don’t have controls I like/need (Master & DPP). Either way, after developing RAW files in these apps, I’ll still need to bring them into PS for further tweaking.

Please believe me when I say that I’m not trying to preach about RAW format here. I’m just trying to offer some help to those interested in exploring/utilizing it. It took me many months of exploring, testing, learning and “perfecting” use of this format. It is amazingly powerful and rewarding. Believe me – I spend less time from opening RAW file to creating final picture ready for upload than with jpeg – it is that easy. Again, it is all in the workflow…

Going back to original post, 8080 have astonishing!!! jpg engine, probably the best out there. Most of the time you won’t need anything else. But, if you are taking some important/difficult pictures, consider RAW. It WILL help you.

This format is untouched (except ISO), it can be processed different ways every time and we don’t know what the future will bring. Technology is a monster . For those important occasions, you’ll have a format that could be exploited in nowadays unknown ways…

Thanks for your patience,
Alex.

--
Equipment list is in the profile.

http://www.korenyi.ca/gallery/v/General
http://www.pbase.com/alekko