Reading mode: Light Dark

Why Even Bother to RAW Process At All !!!

Go to last post
Detail Man

Detail Man

Forum Pro
Messages
17,489
Solutions
11
Reaction score
2,745
From a tiny little tree making it's silent way to the primeval skies many sunrises ago :





A proud and aged redwood raised by the creek that nurtured the world's tallest trees:





My DMC-LX3 OOC (Fine) 10 Mpixel JPG (ISO=80, F=3.2, S=20, STD Film Mode, Contrast=0, Saturation=0, NR= -2, Sharpening = -2) is so fine and dandy that I just can't for the life of me see any difference at all when I record a RW2 image-file and then RAW process using DxO Optics Pro:





I think that you will agree that RAW processing makes no difference at all. Why even bother? .. :P

Note : If you would like to play with post-processing the LX3 OOC JPG to see if you can make it better than the processed RW2 displayed above, you can download the full-sized original OOC JPG from my DPR Gallery, and post your own versions of the tree image here on this thread. Feel free !

Please do let us know what post-processing software program(s) you used to make your version. The pixel-size of my RAW processed JPG is resized to 1600 pixels height and 1200 pixels wide.
 
kernow said:
kernow wrote:
Just one small detail, it is raw, not RAW. ;)
Click to expand...
Jim. You might remember me carefully taking the time to type the term "raw" in lower-case letters hundreds and hundreds of times in my posts for several months time beginning in August 2010 ???

After a while (because absolutely nobody else that I can think of whatsoever actually observed the subtlety that you point out themselves - I decided to abandon it (in the interest of being more easily understood by readers) ... ;) ... Life is truly full of irony, is it not? Thanks for noticing ... :P
 
Detail Man said:
From a tiny little tree making it's silent way to the primeval skies many sunrises ago :





A proud and aged redwood raised by the creek that nurtured the world's tallest trees:





My DMC-LX3 OOC (Fine) 10 Mpixel JPG (ISO=80, F=3.2, S=20, STD Film Mode, Contrast=0, Saturation=0, NR= -2, Sharpening = -2) is so fine and dandy that I just can't for the life of me see any difference at all when I record a RW2 image-file and then RAW process using DxO Optics Pro:





I think that you will agree that RAW processing makes no difference at all. Why even bother? .. :P

Note : If you would like to play with post-processing the LX3 OOC JPG to see if you can make it better than the processed RW2 displayed above, you can download the full-sized original OOC JPG from my DPR Gallery, and post your own versions of the tree image here on this thread. Feel free !

Please do let us know what post-processing software program(s) you used to make your version. The pixel-size of my RAW processed JPG is resized to 1600 pixels height and 1200 pixels wide.
Click to expand...
I have argued this raw matter for years on forums. raw users are determined that their way is the only way and the rest of us JPEG users are a bunch of illiterates. Best to post your fine pics and say nothing I think. BTW, is it JPEG or jpeg?? That is so critical, you know:-))

--



Time, that aged nurse,
rocked me to patience.
http://rkhndjr.smugmug.com/
 
Detail Man,

thx for this thread as it is the compliment to my previous thread on the subject....for some reason I had thought you were an advocate for raw ( or RAW)

BTW, on my screen the two shots appear to be much different lightness ...hard to make a comparison of shadow details, but I take your word for it ...also, why shoot jpeg with sharpness at -2? ...I would have chosen +2 if I weren't PP

Stew

I tried two images to upload but there is something wrong with forum's album functions ...the two images I see on puter are identical in intensity, but the album show the raw very dark ala your posting

can't get the upload to work now, will try later
 
I use RAW over 90% of the time.
To me if you are to do PP-ing, might as well shoot RAW.

I've gotten use to do PP even with my previous JPEG only camera, so going RAW was a no brainer for me.

Biggest advantage shooting RAW for me is on higher ISO settings where the LX5 OOC JPEG just obliterates precious detail even at NR-2. It's easily seen shooting RAW + JPEG.

The only situation that I use JPEG on my LX5 is when I have good light and need fast shot to shot speeds.

I think DM you're sarcastically saying RAW is better than JPEG right?
I saw a reply post that thinks otherwise.
 
Detail Man said:
Detail Man said:
kernow wrote:
Just one small detail, it is raw, not RAW. ;)
Click to expand...
Jim. You might remember me carefully taking the time to type the term "raw" in lower-case letters hundreds and hundreds of times in my posts for several months time beginning in August 2010 ???

After a while (because absolutely nobody else that I can think of whatsoever actually observed the subtlety that you point out themselves - I decided to abandon it (in the interest of being more easily understood by readers) ... ;) ... Life is truly full of irony, is it not? Thanks for noticing ... :P
Click to expand...
It's all in the details man.
--
Oll an gwella,
Jim
 
I dont care if its Raw or Jpeg if its a good photography that's good enough for me :)

lee
 
Detail Man said:
Note : If you would like to play with post-processing the LX3 OOC JPG to see if you can make it better than the processed RW2 displayed above, you can download the full-sized original OOC JPG from my DPR Gallery, and post your own versions of the tree image here on this thread. Feel free !
Click to expand...
Don't know about "better", but I am very interested in the RAW versus JPG issue and love experimenting with PP, so it was a difficult offer to turn down after our most interesting discussion recently. So, this is all meant in the same spirit as previously.

First thing, a few bits and pieces.

Are the two versions in your top post based on the same image capture (i.e. the RAW and the JPEG from single RAW+JPEG capture)? When I flick between them in Faststone they don't marry up. At first I thought this would have been because the JPEG would have had its geometry corrected for wide-angle barrel distortion with the RAW uncorrected, but looking more closely it looks like simple translations are involved, as though (going from the RAW to the JPEG) the camera's point of view moved up and to the left.

As already mentioned by others, the processed RAW image is rather dark, which makes comparison difficult. Also, it seems to have more contrast/micro-contrast (not sure which, or whether both) and this, I believe, increases the apparent sharpness/detail rendition. But even granted all that, the JPEG still looks very soft/lacking in detail (it's a wonderful image for examining issues of detail btw). So, given that the JPEG looks (to my eye on my screen etc etc) rather flat (both in luminance and also btw in its colours) and lacking in details, I prefer the processed RAW image, despite it being rather dark for my taste.

Having the sharpening turned down in-camera and then not post processing the JPEG version would also be relevant for the amount of detail that appears to have been captured/lost in the JPEG version.

Curiously, Faststone has "Artizen HDR 2" under Software for the processed RAW version. There must be something I've missed here I think!

Anyway, I'm not sure how much any of this informs the RAW versus JPEG debate, because I'm doubtful as to how much of these differences stem from inherent differences between RAW and JPEG - I think we are to a large extent looking at differences arising from the processing the images have had - by the camera in one case, and by you in the other. So, here is another version, based on the full size SOOC JPEG that you posted. Here is a link to it at 1200 x 1600, for comparison with the processed RAW image of the same size in your gallery - http://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/5537721402/sizes/o/in/photostream/

Here it is at 900x1200, for comparison with the versions you posted in your top post in this thread -



As I may have mentioned previously, I flick between versions of the same size, with one version exactly overlaying the other, as this makes the differences (and similarities) jump out much more than moving one's eyes between versions on the same page (or even worse having to scroll up/down a page to move between versions).

To my eyes, this version seems more similar to your processed RAW image in terms of contrast/micro-contrast and apparent detail than the JPEG version in your top post.
Detail Man said:
Please do let us know what post-processing software program(s) you used to make your version. The pixel-size of my RAW processed JPG is resized to 1600 pixels height and 1200 pixels wide.
Click to expand...
I used Photoshop CS2. If you would like to know exactly what I did I will post the details.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/
 
One important detail for digital imaging: When shooting sushi you must use RAW. ;)
 
I use RAW for all still images. I get complete control over exposure, and I know I will always get the 'best' image possible.

I have been using Irfanview, SillyPix and Lightroom, in that order of frequency.
.
 
trevmar said:
I use RAW for all still images. I get complete control over exposure, and I know I will always get the 'best' image possible.
Click to expand...
I am not starting an argument, but will say that you get the 'best' image when using the best exposure and composition. raw hasn't that ability.
trevmar said:
I have been using Irfanview, SillyPix and Lightroom, in that order of frequency.
.
Click to expand...
--



Time, that aged nurse,
rocked me to patience.
http://rkhndjr.smugmug.com/
 
Stewart Corman said:
BTW, IMHO, the diff in size is the cropping of the edge pixels from the raw version...on some of my test shots, I can see the corners vignette on the raw and the image is slightly larger # pixels
Click to expand...
I don't have RAW on my camera, but I noticed the slightly larger + vignetting effect when playing with a pair of FZ100 RAW and JPEG images in this thread - http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=37676848 .

However, if that were the case here would you not expect to see more visible on all four edges of the RAW version? Comparing the RAW and JPEG versions posted by DM, in the RAW version I see more than in the JPEG version at the top and on the left, but less than in the JPEG version on the right and the bottom. That is what made me think that the camera was pointing in a slightly different direction as between these two images.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/
 
Anyway, who cares about capitals, they are just there to make the item stand out a bit more. I use RAW for raw and jpeg for JPEG.

Meanwhile Detail Man have you come to my old conclusion that out-of-camera jpegs are OK?

I did the large and boring printing and pixel peeping tests of various RAW converters some time back and even though some converters gave slightly better details than the default Silkypix conversions, it was Silkypix that reliably gave the most pleasing results more easily, with Silkypix Pro just a whisker better than Silkypix SE.

The fine detail differences were not noticeable on A2 sized printing, only on severe pixel peeping. Adobe's ACR 6.3 (in Elements 9 trial) gave best fine detail but bad colours and not so good for light shadow details compared to Silkypix.

But in the end it was the out-of-camera jpeg with a bit more fine tuning from Silkypix SE that was judged by my wife and I to be the best by a tiny whisker.

So for me, jpegs for most shots, then for some that might give problems, RAW+jpeg and then I find I never seem to need to use the RAW anyway.

That's on both LX3 and Oly E-PL1.

Regards............. Guy
LX3 info... http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~parsog/panasonic/01-intro.html
 
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