Do we really need raw converters?

Hello everyone:

Here is an example of a picture taken with the GF1 and a Yashica 50/2 lens. Are shown: the crude jpeg image; then the same jpeg PP with PS3, then the converted Raw image using 2 procedures mine (GF1f) and the Huelight beta1 version from FujiColy (thanks Colin for your effort; see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=34578116 ). I also added the 100% cropped images of the eye. Amazingly the best color rendition (very close to the actual color of the doll's eye) came from the Jpeg image post-processed with PS3.
Thanks for your comments.
--
Paul

crude jpeg









jpeg after PS3 postprocessing









raw image using my conversion profile









raw image using huelightbeta1 conversion

It would seem, as far as my interest in mFT seems to leads me, OOC JPGs do give pause to the RAW only devotee. But I think the answer ultimately lies in how fine a presentation one can eke out of the JPG to begin with, and the character of the study in question (no less the output purpose).

Personally, I'm utilizing OOC JPGs surprisingly often since acquiring the E-P2, but I still find that RAW is called for frequently as well.

--
...Bob, NYC

'Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't.' - Little Big Man

http://www.bobtullis.com

Your experience mirrors my own. I have found that the JPEGs colours from my GH1 are more accurate (if not necessarily more attractive) than those from raw files processed in LR3 and SP4, with SilkyPix's being a bit better than Lightroom's.

Unfortunately, the detail resolved from raw files - and here, Lightroom wins - is discernibly higher than that obtained from the JPEGs.

I now reserve shooting in raw to those occasions when extracting the very finest detail is paramount.

I do not see where that link takes me to the sample pics
--
http://www.martindareff.com

South Beach... early AM

Simply judging RAW vs JPEG based on what you feel provides the most realistic output for a small sampling of images misses one of the major points of using RAW in the first place: Control. You can use a RAW converter to manipulate RAW images in ways that you just can't with a JPEG.

I often shoot RAW + JPEG (both with my GF1 and my Nikon D200) when I am taking photos that I don't plan on spending too much time post-processing. If the JPEG looks good, I roll with it. I can almost always do better processing the RAW image with Adobe Camera RAW and Photoshop CS4, but if all I'm trying to do is duplicate the JPEG then what's the point? For me RAW has the following benefits:

• More control over the creative process. I can play with the white balance, saturation, local contrast, exposure, etc. more easily than I can adjust these things in Photoshop.
• Easy and better correction of problems like chromatic aberration, purple fringing, and distortion.
• Better dodging and burning tools like the Adobe Camera RAW's digital version of the graduated neutral density filter, and control points that let me adjust exposure, contrast, saturation, and more for specific parts of the image.
• More data for recovering detail from shadows or highlights, and for heavy post-processing or manipulation. Once a JPEG is generated that has too much contrast, sharpness, saturation, etc. you can't go back. With RAW you can.

So no...I don't supposed I need RAW for every photo I take, but personally I would never want to give up that level of creative control and quality for the photos I really care about. That said if you are happier with the colors from your JPEG output, and you aren't able to do as well with your RAW converter using the same white balance: You may need to tweak the colors in your RAW converter to taste and save the profile for future use. The tonal curve also has an impact. I usually have no trouble pretty much duplicating the JPEG, but again if I like the JPEG I just go with it anyway. RAW is more useful when you aren't just overwhelmed by the JPEG and you want to play with the colors, white balance, etc. to see what else you can come up with.

Sean

I shoot my GF - 1 in raw only and have a recipe that I apply to all images out of the box. Gives me just what I want in the way of sharpness and color presentation and is perfect for most images, and a great starting point for those that need a little help.
--
http://www.martindareff.com

South Beach... early AM

Are you using Adobe converter?

--
http://www.libraw.org/

If your question was serious and not just a bit of rhetoric in the endless (and pointless) JPEG versus raw debate, then the answer depends who "we" is.

I certainly need raw converters, but as far as I know I'm not part any group for which you are spokesperson ;-)

--
John Bean [GMT]

Mostly concur here. I have shot RAW since 2001--its as easy for me as jpeg--and I've used a multitude of RCs over the years. They get better and better. I have never used just a default RAW image so comparing it to a jpeg is pointless for me. I also don't process a lot of my own shots. I only process the ones I feel worth dealing with, though I usually don't purge my database of unused shots either. Occasionally I shoot RAW plus jpeg, but usually the jpeg is a distraction for me--I'd rather process from my own view of the image.

Diane

sean000 said:

Simply judging RAW vs JPEG based on what you feel provides the most realistic output for a small sampling of images misses one of the major points of using RAW in the first place: Control. You can use a RAW converter to manipulate RAW images in ways that you just can't with a JPEG.

I often shoot RAW + JPEG (both with my GF1 and my Nikon D200) when I am taking photos that I don't plan on spending too much time post-processing. If the JPEG looks good, I roll with it. I can almost always do better processing the RAW image with Adobe Camera RAW and Photoshop CS4, but if all I'm trying to do is duplicate the JPEG then what's the point? For me RAW has the following benefits:

• More control over the creative process. I can play with the white balance, saturation, local contrast, exposure, etc. more easily than I can adjust these things in Photoshop.
• Easy and better correction of problems like chromatic aberration, purple fringing, and distortion.
• Better dodging and burning tools like the Adobe Camera RAW's digital version of the graduated neutral density filter, and control points that let me adjust exposure, contrast, saturation, and more for specific parts of the image.
• More data for recovering detail from shadows or highlights, and for heavy post-processing or manipulation. Once a JPEG is generated that has too much contrast, sharpness, saturation, etc. you can't go back. With RAW you can.

So no...I don't supposed I need RAW for every photo I take, but personally I would never want to give up that level of creative control and quality for the photos I really care about.

Click to expand...

--
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic
G1 gallery http://www.pbase.com/picnic/temp_g1

John Bean (UK) said:

If your question was serious and not just a bit of rhetoric in the endless (and pointless) JPEG versus raw debate, then the answer depends who "we" is.

I certainly need raw converters, but as far as I know I'm not part any group for which you are spokesperson ;-)

--
John Bean [GMT]

Click to expand...

i get the impression you are referring to the use of the images taken/the profession of which you are in.

If you need to print big or taking photos for client based work, RAW for me is always best. It just gives me more options later. For personal screen based photos i would sometimes just go for JPEG.

Thanks for the comparison though.

Did everyone use polariod instants?

--
Charles
My family images are at http://www.stakeman.smugmug.com
Be sure of your subject.
Never, force the shot.

Here is the reason for launching this thread: since I got this camera, I started working with raw and several converters (Silkypix, ACR 5.6, LR 2.6...) and did not take into much consideration the OOC jpeg images. I was, however, stunned by the quality of Jim Radcliffe's pictures shown of this forum that are all OOC jpegs processed with PS3. Therefore I went to perform this simple testing and it turns out that actually the Jpeg images out of the GF1 turned really and easily very well with a short PS3 step of PP and I found it finally more convenient that running raw conversion.

This is not to say that raw images are useless and I agree with previous comments that they give much greater control for postprocessing.
Thanks for all your comments.
--
Paul

PS: in my testing the raw conversion was performed with ACR 5.6

.. without a raw converter somewhere in the image chain from capture to what you've posted, your jpeg would not exist.
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

Travelshooter said:

I shoot my GF - 1 in raw only and have a recipe that I apply to all images out of the box. Gives me just what I want in the way of sharpness and color presentation and is perfect for most images, and a great starting point for those that need a little help.
--
http://www.martindareff.com

South Beach... early AM

Click to expand...

My thoughts too in general about RAW versus JPEG. If you can preset your conversion software batch process according to any default you choose (presumably including the camera presets) then there is little cost in shooting RAW and you have greater flexibility for images that require something other than the default (whatever it is). That's why I shoot RAW only, though RAW + JPEG would be another approach (just one that is more cumbersome).

--
Paul

This would be great if you do mind sharing your profile conversion.
--
Paul

I actually prefer #2 more -- it's more contrasty. I don't ever bother with "life like" colors. I much prefer the color treatment I want.

Having said that, the biggest reason for RAW for me is to get back highlights and shadow details due to the limited dynamic range of these smaller sensors. But in terms of color, clarity, etc., I find the EP1 jpgs to be quite satisfactory.
--

I refuse to wed myself to any of these vendors. I'm just having fun taking pictures,
and watching the technology develop.

...the blame lies between the chair and the keyboard, not with the software. ;-)

Learn more, read some good books, keep looking for information online, and pretty soon your RAW converter skills will improve.

--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/

...I would have thousands of useless ORFs and CR2s sitting on my hard drives. So I kinda do need one.

Just like with film, where I develop my own negatives and make my own wet prints in the darkroom, I need the digital negative (i.e. RAW) to have control over the whole process. It's not so much about resolution & colour differences between RAW & JPEG for me, but the ability to apply the tone curve and white balance properly post-capture, so I don't need to fumble with those settings in some camera menus when I actually want to concentrate on the picture while shooting.

When I have a camera in my hand, I only want to concentrate on content, light, composition and exposure. Those are already enough to occupy all of my attention at times, and then some... Shooting RAW lets me worry about some of the technical parameters later, and choose them better than I ever could out in the field.

Besides, I find being in charge of every step from shutter release to (something resembling) my original vision represented on print a big part of the fun!

By "we" do you mean those who have not put in the time, study and practice to learn how to use a RAW converter?

Shooting RAW is like owning a darkroom back in film days. Just because you have a darkroom, it does not mean you can do a better job than the automated equipment at the film processor. A lot of people buy expensive equipment, expecting that it will turn them overnight into good photographers.