Reading mode: Light Dark

Disadvantage of RAW

Go to last post
I

IA123

Leading Member
Messages
763
Reaction score
0
Hi Everyone,

While I agree, RAW gives greater control with regard to shadow and highlight control, I don't find RAW images clean.

Canon have produced execellent in-camera noise reduction algorithms that are hard to redo in post processing.

I don't think DPP actually performs the same noise reduction algorithm either.

So, if you shoot RAW, how do you go about getting the same in-built camera reduction?

Thanks in advance, hope to learn more and more from everyone here.

IA
 
IA123 said:
I don't find RAW images clean
Click to expand...
What does this mean? I DO find them clean. So, what don't you find "clean"? Are you shooting only noise?
IA123 said:
Canon have produced execellent in-camera noise reduction algorithms
that are hard to redo in post processing
Click to expand...
Here is the surprize: what the camera is doing when converting the raw data in JPEG is the post processing . When the computer of the camera can do that, why would it be "hard to redo" in a larger compuer, on the very same data?

--
Gabor

http://www.panopeeper.com/panorama/pano.htm
 
IA123 said:
Hi Everyone,

While I agree, RAW gives greater control with regard to shadow and
highlight control, I don't find RAW images clean.
Click to expand...
RAW is not clean, RAW is the unmolested data right off the sensor.
IA123 said:
Canon have produced execellent in-camera noise reduction algorithms
that are hard to redo in post processing.

I don't think DPP actually performs the same noise reduction
algorithm either.
Click to expand...
No, this is understandable, the in camera stuff is optimized to run on DIGIC-III, while the software stuff is designed to run on a PC. Since the instruction sets and capabilities are fundamentally different, why would you assume that one would produce the same results as the other.
IA123 said:
So, if you shoot RAW, how do you go about getting the same in-built
camera reduction?
Click to expand...
I do not, I shoot RAW so that I can produce the best final image from the starting point. IN general I can get this done in DPP, but for a few images, I also use photoshop to do those things that DPP (nor the camera) can do.

JPG from the camera IS already molested data. RAW is what happened on the sensor.

--
Mitch
 
MitchAlsup said:
No, this is understandable, the in camera stuff is optimized to run
on DIGIC-III, while the software stuff is designed to run on a PC.
Since the instruction sets and capabilities are fundamentally
different, why would you assume that one would produce the same
results as the other.
Mitch
Click to expand...
On camera PP including noise reduction are all very limited algorithms since theres no way they can expect the onboard processor to do anything fancy when you need to shoot continuous and conserve power and not heat up too much. NR on a proper computer with good software should yield results that are the same if not better than in camera NR. Especially if the algorithm is the same but I doubt it is although I doubt the in camera algorithm is really that fancy compared to all the offline options like NN, NI, LR, etc.
 
IA123 said:
While I agree, RAW gives greater control with regard to shadow and
highlight control, I don't find RAW images clean.
Click to expand...
All images are raw. The difference between what we call raw and JPEG are where the conversion to output file takes place. While DPP doesn't reproduce the in-camera algorithms exactly and thus results in images which have their own distinct look, Raw Image Task does replicate the in-camera DSP program. Use this and you'll achieve the same image characteristics as if you'd shot in JPEG, with the advantage of being able to tweak WB, exposure and other conversion settings.

David
 
Hmm… most of the responses so far were non-responsive.
IA123 said:
While I agree, RAW gives greater control with regard to shadow and
highlight control, I don't find RAW images clean.

Canon have produced execellent in-camera noise reduction algorithms
that are hard to redo in post processing.
Click to expand...
Part of the issue is that Canon's noise reduction relies quite a bit on blocking up the shadows. Noise is heaviest in shadows, and by taking them to (nearly) black the in-camera JPEG conversion has an easier job of keeping noise under control.

If you want to preserve the shadow detail, you'll necessarily have a more difficult time dealing with noise.

If preserving shadows isn't a priority in a particular picture, bring the "black level" up to reduce the overall "dynamic range" and scuttle most of the noise. On DPP, drag the left edge of the Raw histogram over toward the right.
IA123 said:
I don't think DPP actually performs the same noise reduction
algorithm either.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. But Raw Image Task in ZoomBrowser EX (ImageBrowser on a Mac) does. Alas, you won't get the control over shadows and highlights. Funny, that…
IA123 said:
So, if you shoot RAW, how do you go about getting the same in-built
camera reduction?
Click to expand...
A third-party tool like NeatImage, Noise Ninja, or NoiseWare is almost a necessity if you've got a noise problem. I don't recommend using these tools in a "full auto" mode on the entire image, though. Learn to use the tool's adjustments, and to apply noise reduction selectively.

Also, keep in mind that noise looks far worse when pixel-peeping than it will in a print or on a Web page. Don't try to completely eliminate the noise, just get it down to where it's not a problem in whatever output medium you're working with.

And, of course, be more aggressive against chroma noise than luma noise. Luma noise is generally more acceptable (it looks a bit like film grain) and removing it is particularly damaging to the details in your photo. Besides, a little luma noise adds an illusion of sharpness to images.
 
The actual disadvantage of RAW is you have many options to choose from to replace the only choice you have with JPEG - Canon's NR and JPEG conversion in the chip, so it takes longer than the fraction of a second that the camera spends on it.

You can use ACR, Noise Ninja, Noiseware, DPP, etc., to find the noise reduction that best fits your image, fine tune it with masks to cover only certain areas, use different amounts, different thresholds, etc. This all takes time. In camera, you pick a number from 1-5 (or whatever, I've never actually looked at it), and push the button. Voila, it's done.

Same with WB, sharpening, color, vibrance, etc., etc..

RAW has huge advantages in controlling just about every aspect of the final project. It has the disadvantage of time. And storage space.

I choose to deal with it.
 
You never give anything up by shooting in RAW.

If you really love the "in camera" processing, then simply run the RAWs through Raw Image Task (in ZoomBrowser) using the "as shot" settings. You'll get the same processing as the camera would have given you.

But you'll still have the RAW data to process differently too. Which is a huge advantage IMO.

--
Jim H.
 
If you're mostly happy with the results you're getting from the camera's JPG engine but believe there are some benefits to be had from RAW every once in a while, I do have the solution for you:

Set your camera to shoot RAW + FINE JPG

Yes that will take up more room on your cards and backup space on your Hard Drive.

However it might save you a bunch of time and get you the result you like most of the time.

For the photos where extra tweaking is required you will have the RAW available to you.

I haven't actually done this myself, though I have toyed with the idea.

Alessandro
 
The OP wasn't really asking about that, but it is a good point.

--
Jim H.
 
Yes, in camera noise reduction apply dark frame substraction. This can't be done in PP, since dark frame taken at same ISO/exposure time/temperature is not available. You can do a table of dark frames for your sensor with different exposure times (highest ISO would be enough), but dark frame noise is also function of temperature. When you shoot fast and your camera gets hot, there is also more noise in images.
 
Maybe canon could have add Custom function to apply dark frame substraction in RAW and bring it in firmware upgrade. That would not be pure RAW, since it will not contain data as they are read from sensor. But i think it will be aceptable, since it will bring lower RAW noise with no loss of detail. Every pixel will have value from open shutter substracted by value from closed shutter.
 
Wrong!

Dark frame subtraction is only applied if long exposure noise reduction (CF-N something or other) is switched on. 'Normal' jpeg processing uses a different algorithm.

You can easily test this by setting a shutter speed of 1/2 second and firing off a burst of shots - you will get 2 shots per second, but when using the dark frame method you'd only get 1 shot off each second.

Alternatively, test it by using Zoombrowser to convert you raw files - you get the same as in camera jpegs.

--
Regards
Mark
 
Hi Everyone,

Thank you very much for all you help.

I have some memory to spare on my cards, so I'm going to start shooting RAW+JPG and process my RAW files.

Hopefully a good workflow will enable me to achieve better quality than the JPGs produced from the camera.

Thanks again ...
IA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top