D60 Raw, is it necessary

Here's two quick shots I took to see the difference. Both were shot at ISO 1000 to maximize any noise that occurs and are 100% crops.

This first one is the jpeg. Nothing was done to the file save cropping and resaving in Photoshop as a level-12 jpeg.



This is the raw file. It was converted using Bryan Chang's wonderful CRW-X program into 16-bit PSD (default settings) and levels were applied in Photoshop by clicking a white and gray point. Then it was converted to 8-bit and saved as a level-12 jpeg.



FWIW...

--
Mark Kubes
Marietta GA USA
G4 & D-60
If I can think it, I can make it happen...
http://www.pbase.com/mkubes

... and again this is not always possible.
Also you need a tripod or need to do careful photoshop
editing. I find it a lot easier to work with one 12bit
image... but to each his own...

Greetings,
--
Robert F. Tobler
http://ray.cg.tuwien.ac.at/rft/Photography/

That seems to me just to show how it is possible to do worse
with a linear workflow. You need a proper profile applied and also some
sharpening to compensate for the anti-aliasing filter. Third-party
raw convertors also apply (optionally) noise-reduction techniques.

As others have pointed out in this thread, the differences between
fine JPEG and RAW followed by Canon's intended workflow are
very small. RAW does allow other workflows, including linear ones,
but Canon (Chuck Westfall of Canon US) have stated that they
do not provide a linear profie because their cameras cannot be
accurately profiled. And all the linear worflows I have seen give rise
to unpleasant colour shifts on some images.

I use RAW except when I am shooting under known conditions
and so know I will not want to adjust the exposure nor colour balance
later. I batch covnert with Breeze Browser, and may later go back to some
images with BB or YarcPlus or both (since their noise-reduction
algorithms differ).

Mark Kubes said:

Here's two quick shots I took to see the difference. Both were shot
at ISO 1000 to maximize any noise that occurs and are 100% crops.

This first one is the jpeg. Nothing was done to the file save
cropping and resaving in Photoshop as a level-12 jpeg.



This is the raw file. It was converted using Bryan Chang's
wonderful CRW-X program

Click to expand...

Credit where credit is due: he just wrote the wrapper.

Mark Kubes said:

into 16-bit PSD (default settings) and
levels were applied in Photoshop by clicking a white and gray
point. Then it was converted to 8-bit and saved as a level-12 jpeg.



FWIW...

--
Mark Kubes
Marietta GA USA
G4 & D-60
If I can think it, I can make it happen...
http://www.pbase.com/mkubes

Click to expand...

--
D60. 20, 28-135 IS, 70-200/4L, 100 macro, Sigma 15-30, MR-14

Oh come on...When the results don't support your conclusion it's not a good example? hehe...

I think it's a fine example. It may not be the example you were looking for though...

--
http://www.jackzucker.com

Jack

under good lighting conditions with good exposure i would say it is hard to fina a big difference.

But now try shooting at ISO 1000 or underexpose a little and suddenly RAW makes a huge leap forward.

This is about what i do. I shoot JPEG often but resort to RAW whenever i feel that there is a requirement such as high ISO, deliberate underexposing or other times i think it may be nessecary.

--
Michael Salzlechner
StarZen Digital Imaging
http://www.starzen.com/imaging

Mike Salzlechner said:

Jack

under good lighting conditions with good exposure i would say it is
hard to fina a big difference.

But now try shooting at ISO 1000 or underexpose a little and
suddenly RAW makes a huge leap forward.

Click to expand...

I know that already. My original inquiry was regarding properly exposed photos at iso 100...

I have a page regarding ISO 4000 on the D60 (utilizing raw files...)

http://www.jackzucker.com/misc/iso4000.htm

I have take the 1D JPG to 16X24 and they look great.

Steven

Jack A. Zucker said:

Mike Salzlechner said:

Jack

under good lighting conditions with good exposure i would say it is
hard to fina a big difference.

But now try shooting at ISO 1000 or underexpose a little and
suddenly RAW makes a huge leap forward.

Click to expand...

I know that already. My original inquiry was regarding properly
exposed photos at iso 100...

I have a page regarding ISO 4000 on the D60 (utilizing raw files...)

http://www.jackzucker.com/misc/iso4000.htm

Click to expand...

--
---
My really bad Fall Adventures:
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/fall_adventures_2002

Steven Noyes said:

If you get your exposure right and the white balance set where you
want it, you will be able to tell little (if any) difference between
JPG and TIFF. Especially, if you bump the JPG Fine to 10 on the
camera.
I don't know what camera you are using, but on the 1D you can bump the
quality of the JPG to 10. It is not 11, but it is loud enough.

Click to expand...

Haha - Very nice...

On the D60 there is no option to bump the jpg quality . I can select jpg fine but that's the only granularity I have...

ACDSee lists the compression of the jpg files as 14.2

Anyone know how that maps to canon's scheme?

--
http://www.jackzucker.com

Jack

RE: I know that already. My original inquiry was regarding properly

Member said:

exposed photos at iso 100...

Click to expand...

You must have been hiding the details of your inquiry somewhere

Here is your original message

Let's see if I can get some more input here...

I posted this elsewhere and was flamed for asking for comparisons. I know raw is superior but can anyone point me to examples with comparisons? I just got my D60 yesterday and it seems to me that even shooting in jpeg mode, I can interpolate up to 20x30 fairly well...

--
Michael Salzlechner
StarZen Digital Imaging
http://www.starzen.com/imaging

The folks that prefer raw seem to mention poor exposure or improper white balance and ISO 1000 noise as big reasons to use raw. Therefore, if you're very good at setting the exposure and white balance correctly on the fly and don't shoot at ISO 1000 much, raw becomes a lot less attractive -- although I've used ISO 1000 from time to time and the sensor noise is orders of magnitude worse than jpeg artifacting.

I consider getting proper exposure a basic photography skill that should be learned early. If one consistently take shots that are incorrectly exposed by a stop or two, one really should focus on learning this skill.

For me the convenience, space and workflow issues make raw too impractical to use, and in testing the camera in actual use conditions I couldn't find any real difference in image quality between a correctly exposed jpeg image and a correctly exposed raw image.

I think there's a big photo-phile aspect to this. Some people imagine all sorts of differences, and see tiny flaws you need a loupe to detect as intolerable. I have friends like this. Just try a side-by-side yourself in shooting conditions you are likely to encounter, apply relaxed reason, and I think you'll find there's not a lot to complain about with the D60's jpeg quality.

But of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

GBM said:

I think there's a big photo-phile aspect to this. Some people
imagine all sorts of differences, and see tiny flaws you need a
loupe to detect as intolerable. I have friends like this. Just try
a side-by-side yourself in shooting conditions you are likely to
encounter, apply relaxed reason, and I think you'll find there's
not a lot to complain about with the D60's jpeg quality.

But of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Click to expand...

I think you're exactly right. Not to say that there's no perceptable difference but I think the same folks who shoot raw are also the ones saying they can hear the difference with monster cable!

P.S.

I have shot for years with Raw on the D30 so don't flame me!

--
http://www.jackzucker.com

Brian Ripley said:

That seems to me just to show how it is possible to do worse
with a linear workflow. You need a proper profile applied and also
some
sharpening to compensate for the anti-aliasing filter. Third-party
raw convertors also apply (optionally) noise-reduction techniques.

Click to expand...

OK, you've lost me here. To me the raw conversion sample I posted looks a heck of a lot better than the jpeg. The jpeg is full of multicolored noise but the raw file, while noisy, is at least relatively consistent in color across the gray patch. As far as profiles go, could you elaborate on how the application of one would have helped in this example? According to Photoshop, the patches are pretty well neutral just as they are (the darker one is a tad cyan-green, but it was a quickie correction).

Brian Ripley said:

As others have pointed out in this thread, the differences between
fine JPEG and RAW followed by Canon's intended workflow are
very small. RAW does allow other workflows, including linear ones,
but Canon (Chuck Westfall of Canon US) have stated that they
do not provide a linear profie because their cameras cannot be
accurately profiled. And all the linear worflows I have seen give
rise
to unpleasant colour shifts on some images.

Click to expand...

Agreed that the differences are minor between jpeg and raw. My examples were specifically shot & processed to show the extreme. I, like others here, use jpeg for most shooting and have blown prints up very large (20x30") with wonderful results. Unfortunately, Canon has made it very difficult for us up-to-date Macintosh users to have an effective non-linear workflow so I have been using linear conversion with manual tweaking in Photoshop with what I feel are great results - no unpleasant color casts for me.

Brian Ripley said:

Credit where credit is due: he just wrote the wrapper.

Click to expand...

And a kick ass wrapper it is. Without it, I wouldn't have access to any sort of an easily used raw converter, so I'm giving credit to Bryan, who in turn gives all due credit to Dave Coffin & Matt Dillon in the CRW-X docs.

--
Mark Kubes
Marietta GA USA
G4 & D-60
If I can think it, I can make it happen...
http://www.pbase.com/mkubes

I use JPEG 80 percent of the time, only moving to RAW in situations where im unsure about white balance settings or exposure.

But you can get 2 exposures or shots in fine JPG and still take up less space than a RAW file. For me it is more important to have time behind the camera at events than to babysit a laptop copying files.

Wish I could buy a load of Compact flash cards. Dont like the idea of IBM microdrives, My extensive experience with Hard disk failure makes me unsure of their reliability.

Thing is, I like to shoot in any conditions, and also to be able to pull out shadow detail if I need to.

Living in England, we get a lot of mugy cloudy days where skies will blow out VERY easily, hitting that exposure right is not easy, it certainly isn't like film. RAW allows the colour detail to be preserved with absolutely no loss of quality, to me this lets me tweak whatever is required, not because of my 'lack of skill' in exposure, but because of my desire for flexibility.

Unlike film, the RAW file is extremely flexible for being 'tinkered' with after shooting, that is half the point of it. If you try to correct a scanned neg which has been undersaturated/exposed/whatever, it just isnt the same.

Incidentally, one of my favourite shots was taken in JPEG and I regret it

SOOOO much, its not a huge loss, but the conditions, the setting and the sky were just so pleasing I find it hard to get the shot again in RAW.

Why do I regret it? Because while it looks OK at 10x15, as soon as I look closely at it I can see the halos and other horrid JPEG artifacts. I am not just being anal here, I would really have liked to have up-resd the image to a poster, but just know it wont be much use even using Spline interpolation.

Here is the whole image:



and here is a 100% crop of some detail



now here is a 200% Bicubic Resample of part of that, which shows that you can barely upres even THAT much without seeing the artifacts stick out at you.



Its not the end of the world, but it is the end of the line for that shot. It just won't go any higher than 10x15", which is a shame to me since as I said, I would have liked to have printed it bigger.

The way I look at it, you just never know when a shot will be pleasing to you enough for you to want to do more with it, since this shot proved JPEG's limitations to me, I have shot only RAW, except for deliberate snaps at family events, and also portraits where I know they wont want bigger than 10x15.

Raw might be 3 times the size, but its 10 times the flexibility/quality in my book.

I do agree that JPEG is 'fine' for many, and even MOST purposes, but to me RAW is the 'Pro' and JPEG is 'sumer' in Prosumer. Which quality you are after kinda dictates the file type you shoot on - PLEASE don't take offence if you are a pro who shoots JPEG, its just my determination for my photos.