Raw vs Jpeg

BrettRTurner said:

BizzaBoy said:

Unless you have batch-processing you end
up converting images one by one. This is a massive waste of time. So
if you need to use RAWs to get the advantage you need to go all the
way. Lightroom + Photoshop CS3 are around $1000 (unless you make use
of promotions and educational discounts). If you go pricewise lower
end you might want to consider ACEsee Pro 2.0 (I guess it will sell
for around $200, but you'd still need a image editor).

Click to expand...

Paint Shop Pro X, $60 with $60 rebate
(good deal just before PSP XI came out, widely available, discussed
on the
retouching forum)
SilkyPix 3.0, roughly $135
(depending on how your local currency is doing vs. the Yen)

Even without rebates, a first-tier raw processor with a fast batch
mode and a very capable editor for under $200. If you don't like
SilkyPix you can substitute Bibble for about the same price.

I love the results I see every day from Adobe software, but you can
get 80+% of the power for 20% or less of the price.

Click to expand...

If you happen to have access to a K-12 student (called your children), then Adobe Lightroom is $99, and Photoshop CS3 extended is $299. I do like SilkyPix as a converter, but not as an organizer. It seems that I spend most time in sorting and rejecting pictures to narrow them down to the keepers. I found ACDsee Pro 2.0 and Lightroom the nicest ones. What is good about Bibble and CS3 is that there is good noisereduction available as plugins or direct. I am biased there as I shoot lowlight indoor sports. Bibble is cheaper, but for CS3 you get more learing resources (books, videos, online; thus you spend less time fiddeling around how things work, you can actually read a book and get the know-how). The nice thing about CS3 over Elements is that you can specify a color profile when you export to JPG. This comes in handy if you want reasonable gammut compression if the JPG is targeted for your camera store printer which could be a crappy Fuji Frontier printer (don't know whether Bibble does that or not).

With neither ACDsee Pro 2.0 nor Bibble nor Silkypix I found any documentation of how precise their internal pixel processing path is (8bit, 16bits, 32bit fixed point, 32 bit floats). With CS3 I can select.

In any case the bottom line is that you will have to invest additional resources in software, as the bottom end P&S minded SW solutions will not be good enough in terms of time spend, and in terms of quality delivered. If it takes me longer to process RAW than JPGs and the output quality is the same given the tools I have available, then there is no reason to use RAW. Only if the whole tool-chain from the camera to the final image is capeable of producing a better endresult, then RAW is justified.

bdery said:

If you batch process, what is the advantage of using RAW? I thought
the point was to tweak every picture individually. Since you will
eventually produce a JPEG with your RAW file, I fail to see what you
gain by working this way.

Click to expand...

Out of a series of images a lot of them need the same settings to begin with. Thus you can batch-process them as a first pass to select the keepers. Some of the keepers then need slightly different settings, which you apply in a second pass (also it's likely that a group of images need the same settings). This natuerally corresponds to the fact that you do not change the camera settings for every picture you are taking. Also the lighting does not change for every single image.

In effect this first batch-pass I was citing is what the on-camera engine does when it converts RAW to JPG internally.

It depends on your workflow, how much memory you have, what your requirements are etc...

I don't think RAW gives you better image quality, but it gives you more potential for better image quality. It all depends on what you do with the information, and what your idea of "image quality" is.

Software is getting better, memory is getting cheaper. You have the choice one way or the other.
--
Lipo

BizzaBoy said:

bdery said:

If you batch process, what is the advantage of using RAW? I thought
the point was to tweak every picture individually. Since you will
eventually produce a JPEG with your RAW file, I fail to see what you
gain by working this way.

Click to expand...

Out of a series of images a lot of them need the same settings to
begin with. Thus you can batch-process them as a first pass to select
the keepers. Some of the keepers then need slightly different
settings, which you apply in a second pass (also it's likely that a
group of images need the same settings). This natuerally corresponds
to the fact that you do not change the camera settings for every
picture you are taking. Also the lighting does not change for every
single image.

In effect this first batch-pass I was citing is what the on-camera
engine does when it converts RAW to JPG internally.

Click to expand...

Actually the way SilkyPix works you set the settings on each photo and mark it for batch processing. So for the photos that are all the same, you copy the settings to a cloak room (like a clipboard but there are 4 clipboards) and paste your settings to the photos that get like adjustments, adjust individuals, then after you have marked all the ones you want to batch process you start the batch and way they all go.

--
Les
anthisphoto.smugmug.com

BizzaBoy said:

With neither ACDsee Pro 2.0 nor Bibble nor Silkypix I found any
documentation of how precise their internal pixel processing path is
(8bit, 16bits, 32bit fixed point, 32 bit floats). With CS3 I can
select.

Click to expand...

Bibble's processing is all done in 16 bpp, with fixed point used internally where it's needed (not that most folks usually care about that). I thought that we had mentioned on our site that the work flow was all 16 bpp but it seems to have disappeared. Switching among different image modes is more common for general purpose image editors like Photoshop or Paintshop Pro, and I think most folks assume that the mainstream converters work in 16 bpp mode. There's no reason for a modern RAW converter to use anything less than 16 bpp unless you're trying to write a RAW converter for an iPhone or something.

-Colleen
http://www.bibblelabs.com/

I tried skipping RAW for some walk-around shooting, and went back. Adding some exposure to a high res JPG isn't such a horrible thing, but if an area is underexposed enough, pulling even a little detail up wasn't working for me. True, you can hit the RAW button, but life isn't always so predictable, and sometimes the most offhand shots are the best, and the ones you want to tweak.

Since my home computer is still a lowly G4 867, (and LR/Aperture is on the horizon but not yet,) I've settled on this workflow instead of making the decisions while I'm shooting: I shoot RAW and a low res JPG. Then, when I've loaded the cards in I put all the JPGs in a single folder and do a slideshow in GraphicConverter with a cup of coffee and delete the ones that don't make the cut with a macro as they play by. Then I put it in browse mode and make two folders, one for images I want to do sooner than later, and another for ones I'll get to when the others are done. Then I dump the RAWs into the former folder and view by name. Any the don't have a match go into the other folder, and any RAWs that don't have a JPG there get tossed.

Then I use PPL to make 16 bit TIFFs of the RAWs in the first folder, and start tweaking the TIFFs while it does that in the background. (On my rig, RAW work is too sluggish, and the cropping function of PPL is nuts IMHO, so I do hardly any RAW manipulating unless it's obvious because until I get a better home computer it's too frustrating). Then I can use any number of programs to batch them to JPGs (and then toss out the original JPGs). I've done comparisons and much prefer untweaked PS and GC converted JPGs to ones straight out of the K10D. Unfortunately, for now GC doesn't edit 16 bit TIFFs or spot tweak, but it does a great job of these kinds of tasks, easier than using PS.

I originally thought that just shooting highest quality JPGs, like I did with previous non-RAW cameras, would eliminate the need for this, but I just wasn't crazy about the relative results.

.... simply do not know how to use a RAW converter properly.

We see these strong statements all the time- there is no benefit in RAW, just go out and take pictures, RAW is for geeks, etc. Either these individuals have cameras that have better JPG engines than ours (like lens, sample variation?), or they do not know how to properly convert a RAW file, or we (those who swear by RAW) are lying. Take your pick.

brew1brew said:

Actually the way SilkyPix works you set the settings on each photo
and mark it for batch processing. So for the photos that are all the
same, you copy the settings to a cloak room (like a clipboard but
there are 4 clipboards) and paste your settings to the photos that
get like adjustments, adjust individuals, then after you have marked
all the ones you want to batch process you start the batch and way
they all go.

Click to expand...

Actually it works any way you want it to. I never use the "cloakrooms", I just use the normal clipboard. I adjust one typical image in the batch, press Ctrl-C to copy the settings, Ctrl-A to select all images, Ctrl-V to paste the settings.

All images now have identical settings with only three keystrokes. Simple

If there are several groups of images I select the images in each group rather than Ctrl-A to select all, but I still use Ctrrl-C/V to copy/paste the settings.

--
John Bean [BST/GMT+1] ('British Stupid Time')

PAW 2007 Week 28:
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/2321711/2/173247201/Large



Index page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (21 March 2007):
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/2641073

spiffy wrote:
...> How can I convert all the RAW files at once? ...

Highlight all files you want converted in PP Browser, right click, select Save to JPEG (or something like that, I don't have PPB in front of me).

--
Roger

it is not a matter of using a raw converter properly. the use of a raw converter AT ALL is an extra step that a jpeg user does not do. currently, i shoot jpegs and always have. my pp consists of using pe5 as follows: i click auto level, auto contrast, and auto sharpen. and that is all. i do not crop in the pc, my goal is to compose in the camera so that cropping is unnecessary, i am doing it on 99.9% of all i shoot. can you say that?

i shot the following test last summer. if this is the great advantage to raw you can keep it with my best wishes. i do not open up the shadows under the car or in the garage because that is exactly the way it appeared to my eyes when i shot the pics. i am after accuracy not makebelieve images.

you might be interested in this; which i posted a while back.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=23677257

Russ Houston said:

Pentax Photobrowser and Photolab do a much better job to me of raw
conversion than Adobe Camera Raw. ... the Pentax software produced more
pleasing images to me.

Click to expand...

Russ:

I liked the PhotoLab image quality too, it was the interface which drove me away. Are you converting your images one by one, or using some form of batch mode? Any tips for an efficient PhotoLab workflow?

Thanks,

--Brett

John Bean (UK) said:

brew1brew said:

Actually the way SilkyPix works you set the settings on each photo
and mark it for batch processing. So for the photos that are all the
same, you copy the settings to a cloak room (like a clipboard but
there are 4 clipboards) and paste your settings to the photos that
get like adjustments, adjust individuals, then after you have marked
all the ones you want to batch process you start the batch and way
they all go.

Click to expand...

Actually it works any way you want it to. I never use the
"cloakrooms", I just use the normal clipboard. I adjust one typical
image in the batch, press Ctrl-C to copy the settings, Ctrl-A to
select all images, Ctrl-V to paste the settings.

All images now have identical settings with only three keystrokes.
Simple

If there are several groups of images I select the images in each
group rather than Ctrl-A to select all, but I still use Ctrrl-C/V to
copy/paste the settings.

--
John Bean [BST/GMT+1] ('British Stupid Time')

PAW 2007 Week 28:
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/2321711/2/173247201/Large



Index page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (21 March 2007):
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/2641073

Click to expand...

Yup, the point is that this program simplifies things and it's very flexible.

by the way I browsed your PAW07, Awesome!!

--
Les
anthisphoto.smugmug.com

spiffy said:

How can I convert all the RAW files at once? How about when they are
mixed in with JPEGS? I am not a Photoshop junkie, and I dislike
"piddly" photo editing. I have better things to do....like take
pictures....(sarcastic)

Click to expand...

If you open Pentax Photo Lab and go to the "open" menu and select the folder your mixed JPGs and RAWs are in, it will only allow you to open RAW. JPGs are greyed out. So select them all and open. Then choose a format TIFF 16bt, TIFF 8 bit, JPG,etc) and save. It will convert all of them. Isn't quick, but you can work in the background.

brew1brew said:

Yup, the point is that this program simplifies things and it's very
flexible.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Most raw converters force you to accept whatever the programmer decided to give you, but Silkypix follows Photoshop's lead by providing lots of different ways to do the same thing making it much easier to settle into a workflow that's comfortable to you.

brew1brew said:

by the way I browsed your PAW07, Awesome!!

Click to expand...

Thanks Les

--
John Bean [BST/GMT+1] ('British Stupid Time')

PAW 2007 Week 28:
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/2321711/2/173247201/Large



Index page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (21 March 2007):
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/2641073

I only used it for a while, and I think that if you use ctrl+shift (or only shift) to select all the images while opening, you can batch process...

not too sure anymore, but I think this is how it worked... I am OK with it, but ACR+ sharpening in CS and organizing with Picasa seems to be what I settled down for at the moment... Picasa is so intuitive for organization that I just can't imagine switching to something else, and it even gives you some options for small final adjustments if needed.

BrettRTurner said:

Russ Houston said:

Pentax Photobrowser and Photolab do a much better job to me of raw
conversion than Adobe Camera Raw. ... the Pentax software produced more
pleasing images to me.

Click to expand...

Russ:

I liked the PhotoLab image quality too, it was the interface which
drove me away. Are you converting your images one by one, or using
some form of batch mode? Any tips for an efficient PhotoLab workflow?

Thanks,

--Brett

Click to expand...

--
common sense is anything but common

John Bean (UK) said:

brew1brew said:

by the way I browsed your PAW07, Awesome!!

Click to expand...

Thanks Les

--
John Bean [BST/GMT+1] ('British Stupid Time')

Click to expand...

You are welcome (-:

And not only your PAW07, I'm enjoying your entire smugmug site ((-;

I love your first Amlwch photo. I have a little 19ft runabout open bow boat and can't imagine having my boat sitting on dry (muddy) ground.

--
Les
anthisphoto.smugmug.com

brew1brew said:

I love your first Amlwch photo. I have a little 19ft runabout open
bow boat and can't imagine having my boat sitting on dry (muddy)
ground.

Click to expand...

Little harbours like Amlwch Port are often shallow and tidal, so boats are high and dry at low tide. It's what comes of living on an island I suppose.

Incidentally those Amlwch and Parys Mountain images were from my first dSLR, a Sigma SD9. No raw versus JPEG "discussions" with that camera - it was raw or nothing

--
John Bean [BST/GMT+1] ('British Stupid Time')

PAW 2007 Week 28:
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/2321711/2/173247201/Large



Index page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (21 March 2007):
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/2641073

DrugaRunda said:

not too sure anymore, but I think this is how it worked... I am OK
with it, but ACR+ sharpening in CS and organizing with Picasa seems
to be what I settled down for at the moment... Picasa is so intuitive
for organization that I just can't imagine switching to something
else, and it even gives you some options for small final adjustments
if needed.

BrettRTurner said:

Russ Houston said:

Pentax Photobrowser and Photolab do a much better job to me of raw
conversion than Adobe Camera Raw. ... the Pentax software produced more
pleasing images to me.

Click to expand...

Russ:

I liked the PhotoLab image quality too, it was the interface which
drove me away. Are you converting your images one by one, or using
some form of batch mode? Any tips for an efficient PhotoLab workflow?

Thanks,

--Brett

Click to expand...

--
common sense is anything but common

Click to expand...

Yeah, the workflow isn't that great, but I've gotten used to it. I really want to try dual monitors as I think it would really set up well for that (preview image on one monitor, all the control menus on the other monitor).

As for batch processing, I don't do a lot of that, but I think DrugaRunda is correct in that you use ctl-click or some sort of way to select multiple images and then do some process. The only batch work I've ever done is to extract the jpegs from a bunch of raw images. That works like that. For actually doing batch processes like sharpening or something, I don't know. I generally fiddle with each one individually. If I'm cranking them out, I'll probably spend about 2-3 minutes on each image, so I can take a while to go through a vacation shoot. My trip to Peru generated over 600 shots. However, I'm faster with the Pentax software than I am with Photoshop Elements. I think it's just whatever you're used to.

I really liked the Lightroom interface, but for some reason just didn't feel like spending the $100 for it. I may revisit that decision sometime in the future.
--
Russ
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rfortson/
Even bad photography can be fun

GaryDeM said:

it is not a matter of using a raw converter properly. the use of a
raw converter AT ALL is an extra step that a jpeg user does not do.
currently, i shoot jpegs and always have. my pp consists of using pe5
as follows: i click auto level, auto contrast, and auto sharpen.

Click to expand...

I find the auto-anything in Photoshop to be rather poor.
and

GaryDeM said:

that is all.

Click to expand...

I can process a RAW file with ACR in essentially as many steps. What is the point of your post? My comment was not an attack on those that choose not to shoot RAW, but to make the point that many would argue that they can acheive the highest quality output with RAW.

i do not crop in the pc, my goal is to compose in the

GaryDeM said:

camera so that cropping is unnecessary, i am doing it on 99.9% of all
i shoot. can you say that?

Click to expand...

YES

GaryDeM said:

i shot the following test last summer. if this is the great advantage
to raw you can keep it with my best wishes. i do not open up the
shadows under the car or in the garage because that is exactly the
way it appeared to my eyes when i shot the pics. i am after accuracy
not makebelieve images.

you might be interested in this; which i posted a while back.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=23677257

Click to expand...

GaryDeM said:

it is not a matter of using a raw converter properly. the use of a
raw converter AT ALL is an extra step that a jpeg user does not do.
currently, i shoot jpegs and always have. my pp consists of using pe5
as follows: i click auto level, auto contrast, and auto sharpen. and
that is all. i do not crop in the pc, my goal is to compose in the
camera so that cropping is unnecessary, i am doing it on 99.9% of all
i shoot. can you say that?

Click to expand...

It just goes to show that some of us have very different expectations and aspirations. I rarely use auto functions as I find that they do not offer the precision/subtlety that I can achieve by hand tuning RAW conversions in combination with specific post processing.

GaryDeM said:

i shot the following test last summer. if this is the great advantage
to raw you can keep it with my best wishes. i do not open up the
shadows under the car or in the garage because that is exactly the
way it appeared to my eyes when i shot the pics. i am after accuracy
not makebelieve images.

Click to expand...

If you were interested in accuracy you would shoot RAW and calibrate your camera/RAW convertor using a colour precision target?

--
Rob