Is RAW much better?

akin_t wrote:
.

akin_t said:

So you can adjust certain things after you've taken the picture ... Pretty neat huh? You can adjust the following after the fact:
White Balance
Exposure (albeit by a certain amount before noise comes into the picture)
Vignetting
Noise reduction technique

Click to expand...

I use Bibble 5 pro for my pp

All these things I do with jpg files no problem. That's if they need them.

akin_t said:

You might be thinking "Wait can't I do all this stuff in JPEG" ... I think you can (haven't tried) but then I'm guessing your images will be more susceptible to degradation and artefacts.

Click to expand...

See above. Don't see any degradation worth worrying about.

I have been down the raw road and found very little difference in both formats except in the time and storage department. Decided it was not worth the time and hassle.

A couple of weeks ago after reading these forums I decided to try once more ( thinking I must have got it wrong according to the posts to the contrary ) and set my 7d to take both formats. Could not see any important differences except the time taken to pp the files.

Now if I think the light is a little flakey I just press the Raw/Jpg button and take one of each just to be sure.

No one ever complains about my photos even when printed very large. In fact I all ways get the opposite reaction.

This is just my opinion. People who think differently have every right to think the way they do, just as I have.

Best regards to all photogs

--
Sel ................
To me, PC means personal computer, not politically correct.
http://flickr.com/photos/selsphotos/
http://sel.photosales.co.nz

Here is the comparison between LR3 and DPP. As I said I tried everything in LR3 and I can't get it as crisp. I use DPP as my converter only and everything else I do in PS. Too bad because I really do like LR.



Take a close look at silver jewelry around around her neck.

DPP



LR3



--
The solution is always simple. Getting there is the hard part.

MikeFromMesa said:

The reason I think that something may be going on during the file save from RAW to TIFF is that I have noticed that when I use dxo to post a RAW photo I see a definite improvement, but when I save the RAW in TIFF first (using photoshop elements) and then post it using dxo I do not see any improvement and the dxo processed RAW photo (saved as TIFF) does not look any better than the original saved TIFF file.

Click to expand...

Which original? You mean the TIFF that PSE created? Didn't you just say that you see a definite improvement?

MikeFromMesa said:

And the unprocessed TIFF file looks as good as the dxo processed RAW photo.

Click to expand...

PS (not sure about PSE) strips the converted file from part of the EXIF. DXO then cannot do much - it needs that part for some but not all of its corrections.

Peter 13 said:

You cannot view the RAW file without special software, and even if you could, you would not recognize easily what is there. So the question how the RAW looks is without much substance.

Click to expand...

Not to be too pedantic, but on OS X you can view the cr2 files in Preview - which is hardly special software. (Under the hood, obviously, it does its own raw conversion with some default settings)

You can also view the RAW files in QuickView on OS X - like coverflow but for images in a directory.

Is the DPP photo after processing in CS5? Maybe by first converting to TIFF you are getting an extra level of sharpening?? I think I see sharpening artifacts in the DPP version on the jacket around the shoulders that are not present (at least as much) in the LR3 sample. Also, the fine hair (peach fuzz) on the side of her neck looks more defined in the LR3 sample.

Zee Char said:

Here is the comparison between LR3 and DPP. As I said I tried everything in LR3 and I can't get it as crisp. I use DPP as my converter only and everything else I do in PS. Too bad because I really do like LR.



Take a close look at silver jewelry around around her neck.

DPP



LR3



--
The solution is always simple. Getting there is the hard part.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39169343@N04/

I have no experience with OS X but I can guess that what you see is the embedded JPEG. If you can view the RAW file, it will look as an awfully pixelated copy of what you expect to see, at 100%, at least, with three colors only; if you decide to use software that colorizes the pixels.

Ryan Gardner said:

Peter 13 said:

You cannot view the RAW file without special software, and even if you could, you would not recognize easily what is there. So the question how the RAW looks is without much substance.

Click to expand...

Not to be too pedantic, but on OS X you can view the cr2 files in Preview - which is hardly special software. (Under the hood, obviously, it does its own raw conversion with some default settings)

You can also view the RAW files in QuickView on OS X - like coverflow but for images in a directory.

Click to expand...

To me the most important advantage of shooting RAW instead of JPEG is the ability to better manage images where there is under or over exposure - my impression is that jpegs lose enough data that your ability to successfully correct exposure is more limited. For that reason, I never shoot JPEG's.

I have used DPP, PSE and DxO Optics Pro. All of them do the job, but:

-Noise reduction is more difficult to manage in DPP than in other programs. On the other hand, DPP is set up with the same choice of picture styles and white balance that the camera offers. It does a fine job of converting images, has a simple, easy to understand layout, and has useful batch mode features.

-PSE is the most commonly used image processing software. I don't particularly like it. The organizer part of the program lacks the simple file structure that DPP and DxO offer, and can slow the program to a crawl on older computers. I don't like the overly bright and intense images produced if the basic or guided mode is used in the editor portion - to me they look over processed. Noise management is rudimentary unless you add a plug in. It is set up to push users to buy additional services from Adobe. On the other hand, because it is popular, almost everyone can use PSE at some level.

I'm currently using DxO optics pro becase it offers a relatively clean interface, with enough ability to customize settings. It offers powerful noise reduction, and provide customized sharpening, peripheral illumination and chromatic aberration correction for many combinations of lenses and cameras.

One big advantage that Raw (or Raw converted to 16bit Tiff) has is that you have a lot more information to work with, especially more so with cameras of 14bit depth (but some of the older cameras of all manufacturers still have a lot whether 10 or 12 bit depth). If you multiply it out you'll see that an 8bit file gives 256 levels, a 14 bit file gives 16,384 levels and converted to 16bit Tiff will still all pretty much be there. So gradations in tonality in color and tone are much finer. Because of the amounts of information, the mathematics are less prone to loss of accuracy through rounding. However there are issues to a degree..it seems some Raw converters (even some older versions of Adobe's own ACR) have interpreted colors in ways different from each other, especially with the cameras from some manufacturers, yet more modern one's seem much better. I've worked with jpgs and they have a lot more latitude than many RAW disciples give them, especially if your exposure and white balance is "right on"...But no matter RAW does give much more information to work with, and a computer is much more powerful in crunching numbers than the processor in a camera, I'd think. Some manufacturers conversion algorithms to jpg are much better than others, it seems also. So as with anything there are issues, and trade offs. If you are a prolific shooter, the processing gets old, most Canons however allow you to shoot RAW and jpg at once, which to me is ideal. Hone your exposure skills through the jpgs, use 'em for posting on the net...if you get a really good one that you want to print you've got all that info sitting there in the RAW file. To me DPP does a good job of conversion, but nothing beats Photoshop for editing which your RAW or 16bit tiff will need. The latest version of ACR seems pretty good at conversion as does a free Beta tester of a program called Scarab Darkroom that I've been trying..but so far seems to only allow 8 bit conversion, yet allows for quite a lot of editing as does Lightroom, before conversion.
Here's a good article:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml

Just my two cents in a billion dollar world.
--
http://www.pbase.com/madlights
http://barriolson.aminus3.com/

Like the Joker said: Why so serious?

once I process the RAW what's the next step?....save as JPEG?.....what happens to the RAW file?

I guess I was not clear in my statements. Here is what I meant.

1) If I used dxo to post the original RAW photo I could see the effects of the post in the generated jpg.

2) If I first saved the RAW in TIFF format using pse and then did the dxo post on the TIFF, I saw no difference in that output jpg.

So RAW -> dxo -> jpg - difference clear and visible

RAW -> pse -> TIFF -> dxo -> jpg - no difference visible.

But I have since received an email from dxo in response to my query about this odd functionality and they told me that they cannot do post on a TIFF properly unless certain settings are used when doing the pse Save As and that if the TIFF that is generated is too large, they run into 32 bit limitations due to the 32 bit version of Vista. Because of that I did the following:

1) converted the RAW to TIFF using dpp. Then used dxo to do the post. When I did that I could see the post changes.

I hope that clears up the confusion.

After you have finished processing the RAW file you typically save it as a jpg. Nothing happens to the RAW file as the save process creates a new file and does not over-write the original file.

My typical work flow is something like this:

1) Do a quick triage on my new photos. Since I take a lot of pictures on continuous I end up with more photos of a subject than I need or want. I pick the one(s) I want and delete the extras,

2) I examine the photos that I want to keep and note any special processing that is needed. Since I don't usually use a bubble level I often find photos that need some rotation and cropping and I make note of them. I also look for any lighting or color that I am not happy with and want to change using RAW. For example I took some photos at a wedding of my niece and noticed that I had used the wrong white balance and changed that in the raw photos,

3) I then post the RAW photos using dxo and save the outputs as jpgs.

4) I then place the jpgs on our photo watching laptop and save the original RAW photos and the generated jpgs on an external drive in case something happens to our laptop,

5) Then I make another copy of the backup (in case my external drive dies) and I am done.

I typically use dxo because I like the batch functionality provided and have been very happy with its ability to address noise from high ISO photos, but processing RAW photos takes considerably more time than processing jpgs. You have to decide what is right for you and your needs.

As for me, I am seriously considering buying a 60D or 7D because of the availability of the mRAW and sRAW photos. They will allow me to shoot RAW, process RAW and save a lot of space because of the reduced size of those RAW files. And I personally think that 18MP is overkill for the photos that I generally take. But I am also aware that there are many that think that is not a good thing to do. Some people view the 10 MP photos that mRAW will produce as wasting the camera functionality. I will have to see when I get some mRAW or sRAW photos to look at and compare with full RAW photos.

Hope this is some help.

dprsok said:

Is the DPP photo after processing in CS5? Maybe by first converting to TIFF you are getting an extra level of sharpening?? I think I see sharpening artifacts in the DPP version on the jacket around the shoulders that are not present (at least as much) in the LR3 sample. Also, the fine hair (peach fuzz) on the side of her neck looks more defined in the LR3 sample.

Zee Char said:

Here is the comparison between LR3 and DPP. As I said I tried everything in LR3 and I can't get it as crisp. I use DPP as my converter only and everything else I do in PS. Too bad because I really do like LR.



Take a close look at silver jewelry around around her neck.

DPP



LR3



--
The solution is always simple. Getting there is the hard part.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39169343@N04/

Click to expand...

If I did both went through the same PP in PS after conversion. Since they were 100% crops I don't think I did anything but this was a while ago. I will try converting again in both PS and DPP and no PP for either. I have DPP sharpening on 3 and I was just trying ACR and had it on 100.

--
The solution is always simple. Getting there is the hard part.

Raw is not worth it unless you PP. In fact, unless you enjoy PP, which I do, it is probably better to just shoot in JPEG.

Darkroomdude said:

I recently read an article where the person was asking what he could do to improve his picture quality, part of the answer to his question was “There is a no-cost option that will significantly improve your pictures: shooting in RAW. The bump up in image quality you get in TIFF’s made from RAW files can be startling.”
Having never used RAW much I have some Questions
When converting from RAW to TIFF which would be better to use DPP or Photoshop?

Should just convert to TIFF then do the rest, such as color and sharpening in Photoshop?

Click to expand...

DPP sharpness on 3. ACR 100, radius .5, Mask 0, detail 3. No other PP. Better I think. I see your point about the jacket and I'm not sure pixel peeping will make that much difference in the real world regarding the jewelry. Just my standard test as wildlife is what is important to me. Eyes, beaks and claws for birding. Gotta continue to try and achieve my favorite bird photographers quality - Liquidstone I just upgraded to CS5 but I'll still experiment. I must admit ACR has come a long way on color in the last 4 years.

DPP



ACR



--
The solution is always simple. Getting there is the hard part.

Am I correct that the RGB color curves that are used to create the TIFF in DPP are the RGB curves associated with the picture style? Also, sharpening done in DPP is used to create the TIFF. So, in reality, opening the CR2 in ACR has neither of those adjustments applied. However, ACR has its own set of defaults when opening the raw.

I assume you then converted the TIFF and the CR2 to JPG using ACR with the sharpening as noted below? So the TIFF has some level of sharpening applied twice?? No question that the DPP processed file looks sharper (looking at the jewelry). But their are other differences, I assume attributable to the picture style. Brightness / color / contrast...

I wonder what the DPP shot would look like if you used the neutral picture style...maybe even with sharpness set to zero in DPP.

Zee Char said:

DPP sharpness on 3. ACR 100, radius .5, Mask 0, detail 3. No other PP. Better I think. I see your point about the jacket and I'm not sure pixel peeping will make that much difference in the real world regarding the jewelry. Just my standard test as wildlife is what is important to me. Eyes, beaks and claws for birding. Gotta continue to try and achieve my favorite bird photographers quality - Liquidstone I just upgraded to CS5 but I'll still experiment. I must admit ACR has come a long way on color in the last 4 years.

DPP



ACR



--
The solution is always simple. Getting there is the hard part.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39169343@N04/

From 2003-mid 2007 I shot jpg with my DSLR. I got some great shots.

But now 3 years later with Raw conversion software better than ever, and some OK shots in my reportoire from that era that could be great had I shot raw... I DEEPLY regret not shooting raw! Shooting jpeg is the single biggest photography mistake I ever made. There is absolutely no valid reason not to shoot raw in this day and age... even if you shoot raw and jpeg and only use the jpegs at this time.

Darkroomdude said:

I recently read an article where the person was asking what he could do to improve his picture quality, part of the answer to his question was “There is a no-cost option that will significantly improve your pictures: shooting in RAW. The bump up in image quality you get in TIFF’s made from RAW files can be startling.”
Having never used RAW much I have some Questions
When converting from RAW to TIFF which would be better to use DPP or Photoshop?

Should just convert to TIFF then do the rest, such as color and sharpening in Photoshop?

Click to expand...

--
Some cool cats that can use your help
http://www.wildlife-sanctuary.org

Even if you can't donate, please help spread the word.

dprsok said:

Am I correct that the RGB color curves that are used to create the TIFF in DPP are the RGB curves associated with the picture style? Also, sharpening done in DPP is used to create the TIFF. So, in reality, opening the CR2 in ACR has neither of those adjustments applied. However, ACR has its own set of defaults when opening the raw.

I assume you then converted the TIFF and the CR2 to JPG using ACR with the sharpening as noted below? So the TIFF has some level of sharpening applied twice?? No question that the DPP processed file looks sharper (looking at the jewelry). But their are other differences, I assume attributable to the picture style. Brightness / color / contrast...

Click to expand...

I converted the CR2 to a TFF in ACR and the CR2 to TIFF in DPP. Opened both on PS and just cropped and did a save for web in Jpeg for both. No resizing. Picture style may have something to do with it.

dprsok said:

I wonder what the DPP shot would look like if you used the neutral picture style...maybe even with sharpness set to zero in DPP.

Click to expand...

I can try that. However do you want me to leave ACR at 100 or 0? I'll just do the DPP for now and compare with ACR at 100 since it is already there.

dprsok said:

Zee Char said:

DPP sharpness on 3. ACR 100, radius .5, Mask 0, detail 3. No other PP. Better I think. I see your point about the jacket and I'm not sure pixel peeping will make that much difference in the real world regarding the jewelry. Just my standard test as wildlife is what is important to me. Eyes, beaks and claws for birding. Gotta continue to try and achieve my favorite bird photographers quality - Liquidstone I just upgraded to CS5 but I'll still experiment. I must admit ACR has come a long way on color in the last 4 years.

DPP



ACR



--
The solution is always simple. Getting there is the hard part.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39169343@N04/

Click to expand...

--
The solution is always simple. Getting there is the hard part.

Quite a difference. Interesting about DPP being sharpened twice. I wonder how that could be as I did nothing PS? I'm one more with ACR at zero sharpening.

ACR



DPP 0 sharp and neutral



DPP sharp 3 and faithful - my usual setting.



--
The solution is always simple. Getting there is the hard part.

RAW enables you to make important decisions (like the best WB) after the fact. It also gives you tremendous processing flexibility, like ACR's "recovery" control, that can bring out details in an otherwise blown highlight (I've shot open shade pics where the sky looks completely white, and ACR's recovery control turned it a lovely blue).

I'm not sure why you want to convert RAW files to TIFFs, though. TIFF files end up about twice as large as RAW files, and you're ultimately going to convert the finished product to jpeg, so why not just work the RAW file until you're satisfied, then convert to jpeg?

By the way, I disagree that there's no reason to shoot jpeg -- I shot RAW-only for a couple of years, but after getting a 50D (and seeing how good its jpeg's looked, especially at high ISO's), I now shoot RAW+jpeg (with the jpeg's set at "standard," to save room). I use the jpeg's as proofs, since they're noise-reduced and sharpened, so it's easier to see how the finished pic will look.

In any case, if you don't shoot RAW, you're cheating yourself out of a lot of the flexibility that digital offers...

--
Canon since 1969

ACR 0 sharpening



DPP 0 sharpening - neutral



ACR 100 sharpening



DPP 3 sharpening - faithful.



--

The solution is always simple. Getting there is the hard part.