S5 : Jpg v Raw

John, you sure nail those points neatly. Occasionally you meet others who'd give you a frown for not shooting raw with their typical remark 'you're not bringing out the best of your hardware if you shoot jpg only.' They are correct but it's a case of 'to each his own'. So it's best to take the safer route to use the Raw+Fine setting when I know I have a real need for that specific pix to come out well. PP with the various raw converters can be rather tedious specially when one is not really familiar with all those features but not when you have the time and technically savy. Time to go out and grab some shots.

Wrong Wrong Wrong!!!!! To all those that shoot Jpeg, fine I am happy for you but let us not confuse the quality difference, which certainly on S3's is marked.

I am not talking colour balance, which can be fine but do not assume that 8 bit Jpeg colour depth against 14 bit RAW and noise reduction and sharpening in camera which can not be undone comes close to the control and quality increase you have in RAW capture.

To those that can't see the difference I would say take another look..if you don't care about the difference that is a matter for you, but let us not pretend it does not exist or is not important. Photographers by their nature are always seeking perfection..it is what keeps us absorbed, IQ is everything and if a device is capable of greater performance we will seek it out...and keep pushing the boundaries. Check out s7Raw..it's free and it has changed my life!!

I have been pro 25 years and mostly in weddings and I will only shoot RAW... it is also so much quicker as well to correct white balance in RAW and tweak the DR "on the run" so to speak! The sharpness is improved and the whole image loses that edgy digital look with smooth noise and creamy skin tones. Quality over quantity??

Now my rant..skip to last paragraph if you wish!

I am old fashioned because I come from an era of film and when 150 pictures at a wedding which is correctly managed and posed was more than enough..and I say to those who shoot 1500 snaps..why...because you can charge more??

I can tell you if I shot 150 they got 150..precious few duds..all with chosen backgrounds and environments...all balanced and fill flashed..all outside back lit...none shot in blazing high contrast sunlight..well, you know where I am coming from...and none with the benefit of seeing each image on the back of the camera! Every guest would be in a picture with the right partners and family and guess, what!! ..they would all be looking at the camera! No snaps of the bride with a fag in her mouth that she can look back on in 20 years thinking what a beautiful magical day that was...shame about the fag/bottle sticking out of my mouth and the pictures of the bridesmaids or pages in tears or screaming...!!!

Is it just because with digital you can? Try that with a Hasselblad/Metz on a Manfrotto..and is it because with digital one doesn't need to qualify as a wedding photographer to do the job and market pressures have convinced the public that "reportage" style is more natural..or is it just that many who claim to be "wedding photographers" are not able to control hundreds of guests and manage the whole event.....I digress but it is Sunday afternoon!!!

And for those that have missed the connection...Jpegs..speed and quantity over quality..different era, different attitude.

You know they used to shoot weddings on plate cameras, wet process and print..and still get it back to reception!!..It's attitude, application, creativity, technical skill and understanding and a meticulous attention to detail that makes a photographer..always only be happy with the "Best" achievable. Photography, certainly in the UK has been down graded enough, and all the above is relevant to that situation as we see our earning potential eroded on a yearly basis as "good enough" and "can't tell the difference" become the accepted levels of critical faculty. Why employ a professional.."my mate has one of them digital cameras..he takes great snaps, I'll get him to do our wedding..its all informal stuff anyway..probably won't be able to tell the difference"...and you know, these days, he/she would have a good point wouldn't they?

Shoot RAW!!!!

This post by the "oldmaster" is dead on, 150% correct.

"machine gunning" a wedding today has replaced good old fashing lighting and posing. the new name for this type of wedding is called "photojournalism."

At one time I personally would shoot 1100 to 1500 files at a wedding. I would usually post about 800 files, thinking that I would sell more pictures on line.

The truth of the matter is that the more pictures I posted, my sales went down. I found out the too many choices confused the client and they would just not get around to ordering-putting it off to later. the funny thing is that later never came around.

the "Oldmaster" is correct, in my opinion, that 200 good shots will sell just as many photographs as 1100.

The digital weddings today that impress me are the guys and gals that use old fashion lighting and posing. The beauty today is good files at high ISO's which we couldn't do as well in the past.

I read an article by Dennis Reggie where he says he and his associates will expose 4000 RAW files at a single wedding. WOW!! Can you believe the support and staff required to get that wedding ready for proofing?

The "Oldmasters" comments should be read and studied. I thank him for this very informative post.
Respectfully,
DAvid Miller

I would like to thank you and the "oldmaster" for your comments, which I believe is applicable beyond wedding photography.

During my younger years several decades ago, I took up photography and tried freelancing. Then, cost was a natural constraint on the number of shots. Spent time to try to get things right during the shooting, and then spend time in the darkroom to find the picture hidden in the negative. Walked away from taking any pictures for a long, long time, and only recently returned.

Digital changed many things, and there is a temptation to use the "machine gunning" approach. Also, digital software also allows for faster and more processing of images. So, initially, I found myself shooting away.

However, I have noticed a couple of things. One, for the vast majority of the times, it is usually my first or second shots that I like best. Two, I concentrate my PP efforts on only a few shots, and I find myself not wanting to look at dozens or more shots of the same subject. JPG works, but working with raw is much better for the few I really try to extract the photographic vision in my mind from the files. Here, I am a little old school because I see PP as the modern equivalent to the darkroom, which I believe is integral to many types of photography.

Given my limited time for photography, I have modified my approach -- fewer shots taken at a slower pace, JPG+RAW, and more time experimenting with PP.

Bottom line is that I take the oldmaster's "quality over quantity" to heart. Quality is not there yet given that I am far from being even a decent photographer. But I do enjoy the effort and hope to improve with time.

mmmmmmmm said:

This post by the "oldmaster" is dead on, 150% correct.

"machine gunning" a wedding today has replaced good old fashing
lighting and posing. the new name for this type of wedding is called
"photojournalism."

At one time I personally would shoot 1100 to 1500 files at a wedding.
I would usually post about 800 files, thinking that I would sell more
pictures on line.
The truth of the matter is that the more pictures I posted, my sales
went down. I found out the too many choices confused the client and
they would just not get around to ordering-putting it off to later.
the funny thing is that later never came around.

the "Oldmaster" is correct, in my opinion, that 200 good shots will
sell just as many photographs as 1100.

The digital weddings today that impress me are the guys and gals that
use old fashion lighting and posing. The beauty today is good files
at high ISO's which we couldn't do as well in the past.

I read an article by Dennis Reggie where he says he and his
associates will expose 4000 RAW files at a single wedding. WOW!!
Can you believe the support and staff required to get that wedding
ready for proofing?

The "Oldmasters" comments should be read and studied. I thank him
for this very informative post.
Respectfully,
DAvid Miller

Click to expand...

I would like to share a few thoughts.

There really is no such thing as a totally RAW file that is viewable. After an image is captured each camera maker makes some decisions for you so you can view an image.

If you are good with getting your exposure and white balance correct when shooting, there is very little difference between Raw and jpeg.

When the light is changing or from mixed sorces RAW will give you more options.

I have printed and sold large prints from jpeg and raw files.

Greg Governale

..it was not so long ago that I was told I was wrong about Raw by the j-peg shooters on this forum. I won't say any names ..... mmmmmmmm and skippy ... It took an Oldmaster to convert the old timers .... bout time

mmmmmmmm said:

mmmmmmmm wrote:
The "Oldmasters" comments should be read and studied. I thank him
for this very informative post.
Respectfully,
DAvid Miller

Click to expand...

--
Fotomat

Greg Governale said:

If you are good with getting your exposure and white balance correct
when shooting, there is very little difference between Raw and jpeg.

Click to expand...

See...... It's never ending ..i give up!

maybe you should re read what Old Master wrote.. it's Fact
--
Fotomat

Hi fotomat,

I guess I could say that I might have been wrong in the past.

I think what I really said in the past, or I meant to say, was that one could do a wedding just as well with Jpeg files. I was using Gary Fong's Bullseye II for color correcting. This program worked good as long as you had a gray, white, or black area to "click" the eyedropper on. Beside, most of the pictures in the B&G's album were small, smaller than a 5X7.

I think what won me over was LR and CSIII. The fuji files are quite large which is possibly the only drawback with RAW. I actually shoot RAW+Jpeg. I project the wedding at the reception with ACDsee. The Jpegs project nicely.

I didn't like HU because the drop down menus were so slow.

So I apologize, you were correct, RAW is really better. I shoot all studio and family settings RAW too. LR and RAW are much faster than Jpegs and Gary Fong's Bullseye II or III.

Maybe you can teach an old dog new tricks, maybe!!!

Respectfullyl,
David Miller

Photomat,

I did read what OldMaster wrote. I did not say there was no difference! What words are used to discribe the difference is what I have some issue with.

Did you read what Radu said?
"if you nail both WB and exposure you don't have to mess with the RAFs."

I said, "If you are good with getting your exposure and white balance correct when shooting, there is very little difference between Raw and jpeg.

I shot slides for twenty years, I bracket my exposures. I will not claim that I never get an exposure wrong. It does not happen very often to me.

jpeg and raw... are just tools. Use the tool that works best for your needs and your ability.

I would much rather get the correct exposure in camera than to capture the wrong exposure and attempt to fix it later!

I do shoot raw when I feel I need to.

I have not had a publisher turn my work down because the image had been captured as a jpeg.

Greg

Well, blimey!!

I am humbled by the responses to my thread..I was expecting a huge "kick back" reaction!!!!

I must also of course take on board Greg's comments...a superb photographer and experienced judging by his threads and great pictures he posts.

A measured response but at no time has he indicated that the two formats are the same quality, just that the Jpeg option is often sufficient quality.

We know the RAW bit depth is greater and processing the file with the power of the installed PC or Mac software is more capable and certainly adjustable when compared to in-camera processing. The white balance is more easily achieved, noise and sharpness and adjustable DR sum to produce better quality output and consequently a better print. Jpegs are a processed in-camera compressed 8 bit file...may be a good one, but I do think they are more prone to the "digital look".

A matter of degree of course!

For weddings I also believe there is a practical reason for shooting RAW. RAW can actually be quicker work flow. A sequence of commands to optimise each file for white balance, exposure, DR, sharpness, hit "convert all" and go and have a coffee!

New developments in RAW processors also mean you can always go back to those files. As you know recently I have been impressed with s7. My S3 pros are now "new cameras" again!!

Some advice please from S3 users (I know the S5 has "Org") ...I have done some tests shots at 1600asa and reaffirmed that HU completely smears all the detail producing a really plasticy look to all the pictures. No other processor has this effect and I am getting superb sharp detailed 1600 asa images when processed in s7..some "grain" but lots of fine detail but no individual file batch process facility on this programme.

My version of HU is of course V2 and I can see no way of turning off or down the noise reduction...any help or advice gratefully received!!

Old Master,

I believe we would both agree that there are many ways to process a file. Different converters can and do produce different results.

It always amazes me to see how important so many photographers who participate in these forums feel noise is.

For me, subject matter, composition, sharpness, color, dynamic range and capturing the moment are much more important than noise.

If noise becomes an issue I use Dfine on selected areas of the image only. This often retains the detail while still removing the noise from the areas where it was a problem.

I respect everyone's opinion, by sharing ideas I feel we all can learn.

Greg

OldMaster said:

My version of HU is of course V2 and I can see no way of turning off
or down the noise reduction...any help or advice gratefully received!!

Click to expand...

There is a way but it's not obvious

Open HU.
Register a raw file to the plugin tray in order to open the raw converter.
Click the spanner button at top right of the raw file converter window.
On the preferences dialogue that comes up, go to the Image Conversion box.
There are three radio buttons in it.
Select "High Speed Conversion".

That is the noise control. High quality and super high quality simply increase the noise reduction.

Here's a screenshot.



BTW, I do output 16 bit tiffs. I simply opened HU here to get you a screenshot

OldMaster said:

For weddings I also believe there is a practical reason for shooting
RAW. RAW can actually be quicker work flow. A sequence of commands to
optimise each file for white balance, exposure, DR, sharpness, hit
"convert all" and go and have a coffee!

Click to expand...

Doesn't that defeat the point of raw conversion? I thought the whole point was to be able to provide the best possible settings for each file rather than a catch-all.

I also can't see the justification in using sharpening in the raw converter. No raw converter sharpens as well as Photoshop unsharp mask, carefully applied to the L channel in L*a*b colour. To use sharpening in the raw converter is failing to maximise the quality that a more sophisticated sharpening regime will achieve.

I agree with Greg. I think his list of important factors greatly outweigh the importance of shooting raw. I think it makes more sense simply to bracket your jpegs. For the space occupied by one raw file, you can save eight maximum quality jpegs. So you can bracket in half stops from -1 to +1, get 5 jpegs and still take less room than one raw file. The quality improvement from doing that, and having several shots to choose from outweighs raw benefits.

Having said that, I shot my entire series of Knaresborough in raw. That was mainly because I didn't trust myself to nail the exposure. For night shots, I always shoot raw because I have no way of knowing what WB I an going to want.

I do that with macros too.

--
******************************************************
I have a home on pbase
http://www.pbase.com/claypaws/
If you have the time to look
******************************************************

Shooting Jpg is fine with me. Especially with the film sim modes the colors comes out really good. However you are somewhat limited to JPG size M, the 6mp true native resolution. I tried shooting at L and you can see many jpg aliasing effects on the screen. Some claim you cannot see it in large print, but I haven't really try it myself.

--

Hi,

Re; batch..I think you misread me. I flag up each individual file in HU with the optimum settings for just that file only.

When it "converts all" it applies the correct individual settings to each file...sadly s7 will only do one at a time or apply the same settings to all which is why I only use it for single images, enlargements and personal work where I want "the best"..for me anyway!

Re: sharpening, I absolutely agree that "Lab Mode" sharpening is a good route but the majority of my weddings are no bigger than 6X9 prints and I accept one has to stop somewhere for commercial reasons. I can always generacally batch them in CS..I like Lab mode method, smart sharpen 50-100%. The "high pass" accutance procedure is fun too...no halos!!

I still like the speed of RAW processing, the ease of post adjustment and the "better quality" thrown in as an extra. I would never bracket on a wedding..if I take two pictures of a group or individual portraits it is hard to make them understand that they have to stand there for three/six pictures!! The art is capturing that precise moment or expression...I don't believe you can bracket that?

Make no mistake re: comments by Greg. Of course the "photographic qualities" are paramount over the technical minutiae...and I prefer to look at pictures then dissect them...I also agree with his comments re: noise. With s7 I actually prefer the noise turned off! It may be a little grainier than some but I trade that for the superb detail. I come from the film era too...a bit of grain adds to the texture!!!

It is always good just to see and comment on images posted, but I also like to examine the technical issue too..if I find a converter that to my mind improves on others I like to bring it to the attention of the Fuji users..but actually I just prefer taking pictures!

One of the reasons I re-purchased a F100 (Mint for £275 + grip...that viewfinder and focus speed..I had forgotten!!) is so I can do just that..drop the film off and let the lab take the strain...enjoy the pictures for what they are and what they were intended to do!

Thanks for the advice Re: noise reduction in HU...I should have just tried it...certainly at "super high quality" the results are ghastly and actually "Super low quality" would be more appropriate for the noise reduction at high iso. Strange that they particularly recommend this setting for high iso settings! I will give it another go on my 1600 asa S3 pics at the "fast setting"!

Thanks again!!

Yes, OldMaster, I did misread your your batch settings comment. Your explanation of your intent makes good sense.

Thank you for your reasoned and measured comments on the other points. I can see how bracketing at weddings would be difficult. I haven't shot weddings but I have done quite a few events. When photographing a fast approaching performer, there is only one right moment.

As for s7raw, I could not find any description of a command line interface for it. If there were such a thing, it would be possible to write a script for running it with a parameter file per image.

OldMaster said:

Thanks for the advice Re: noise reduction in HU...I should have just
tried it...certainly at "super high quality" the results are ghastly
and actually "Super low quality" would be more appropriate for the
noise reduction at high iso. Strange that they particularly recommend
this setting for high iso settings! I will give it another go on my
1600 asa S3 pics at the "fast setting"!

Click to expand...

I agree. Any other setting than "fast" produces ghastly plastic images at any ISO. They should have described the settings not as super high, quality and fast, but rather as noise reduction - maximum, medium and minimum. Then we could decide for ourselves which we think is the best "quality". I find that HU actually runs pretty fast when on the "fast" setting and produces excellent images.

I too have no objection to some noise in images. I never apply noise reduction to S3 images. I occasionally use Neat Image but only on shots from my Canon compact at maximum ISO.

******************************************************
I have a home on pbase
http://www.pbase.com/claypaws/
If you have the time to look
******************************************************