RAW is way More Better than JPG ...

I had my originals download turned off. You should be able to get it now. It was already 1600 on the long edge.

It was done in Photoshop darkened using the simple duplicate layer/multiply technique just because I hadn't done it that way for a while and it was mentioned elsewhere in this thread. I brought out the detail without using any common sharpening by increasing the tonal contrast and micro contrast.

Both things can be done in PS itself but I like using the tonal contrast in Nik's Color Efex Pro as it's much easier and very tweakable. For the microcontrast I used the, aptly named, Topaz Detail 2.

In both cases I used duplicate layers and the layer blending options to protect the highlights since that's usually where you blow detail when using these techniques.

Then I just adjusted the saturation targetted for the bark and again for the green leaves in an adjustment layer.

Collapsed everything and saved it as a jpeg. I then opened it in Lightroom just because that's where my Upload to DPReview plug-in is. I used the default downsampling to bring it down to 1600 on the long edge and no output sharpening.

It's a lot of work to get this kind of result from a jpeg but several years of looking and playing in the Digital Darkroom forum here have taught me a thing or two

Glad you like it this way.

Detail Man said:

Detail Man said:

Julio wrote:

Perhaps the tones were not as you saw them (I prefered the bark a bit redder and more saturated) but I do believe if you look closely, you'll find more detail here:

Click to expand...

I like your work, Julio ! The sharpening that you have done looks as good (or perhaps better) than previous efforts. The high levels of color-saturation seem to work out well (where it comes the tree and it's surface in the foreground area, anyway). What software application did you use ?

Any chance that you could re-post the image downwardly re-sampled to a 1200 pixel width and 1600 pixel-height - so that it can be directly compared to the 1200x1600 RW2> JPG that I posted?

Click to expand...

--
http://fotoman99.smugmug.com/

Detail Man said:

Detail Man said:

Cyril Catt wrote:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

... I accept the viewpoint stated by G. K. Chesterton, art critic and philosopher, ‘if a thing is worth doing it is worth doing badly’.

Detail Man said:

From another possible perspective, "if a thing is worth doing badly, then perhaps it is equally worthy to (perchance, if it suits one's own fancy) endeavor (on occasion) to attempt to do it well"

Click to expand...

DM, Sorry, my quote was out of context. Chesterton was not advocating shoddy workmanship, but suggesting that even if you feel you are not going to make a perfect job of something, it may still be better to get off your butt and have a go, than to let the opportunity go and do nothing.

If you google the phrase you will get blogs from dozens of perfectionists who have suffered for years from the trauma of trying to be perfect, and in Chesterton's aphorism found liberation from the obsession that they are failures if they are not perfect at all times. For example, Evan, at comes up some more reasons to support Chesterton’s thesis against perfectionism, which Evan sees as: It is against learning. It’s Bondage to Yesterday. It Discourages Playing. It substitutes quantity for quality. It encourages tunnel-vision. It discourages individuality. It can be very inhibiting.
--
Cyril

Thanks for enabling download of the original ! (When lining-up the two images in an image viewer) what do you think about how the RW2> JPG and your JPG> JPG differ in fine-detail resolution ?

Julio said:

Julio wrote:

It was done in Photoshop darkened using the simple duplicate layer/multiply technique just because I hadn't done it that way for a while and it was mentioned elsewhere in this thread. I brought out the detail without using any common sharpening by increasing the tonal contrast and micro contrast.

Both things can be done in PS itself but I like using the tonal contrast in Nik's Color Efex Pro as it's much easier and very tweakable. For the microcontrast I used the, aptly named, Topaz Detail 2.

Click to expand...

I think that the micro (also called "local") contrast techniques used are (in essence) Unsharp Masking operations (with a very wide pixel Radius, and a relatively low Strength). Do you see "sharpening" artifacts in your image ?

Julio said:

In both cases I used duplicate layers and the layer blending options to protect the highlights since that's usually where you blow detail when using these techniques.

Click to expand...

Julio said:

Then I just adjusted the saturation targetted for the bark and again for the green leaves in an adjustment layer.

Click to expand...

(My personal impression). The color-saturation is very heavy. I think that this works out pretty well on the surface of the tree itself, but gets pretty intense where it comes to the surrounding, as well as the far-field, areas. My own personal impression is that high levels of color-saturation can (sometimes) act towards diminishing a sense of fine-detail - so maybe some reduction (in theory, though there is no need to do so just for me) might be a "plus" towards the sense of overall fine-detail in the image.

Julio said:

Collapsed everything and saved it as a jpeg. I then opened it in Lightroom just because that's where my Upload to DPReview plug-in is. I used the default downsampling to bring it down to 1600 on the long edge and no output sharpening.

Click to expand...

I (personally) believe that I see some "sharpening artifacts" - my own guess is from the USM-related processes involved in your "micro contrast" procedures, and still visible despite the downwards re-sampling performed (with no post-sharpening applied).

Julio said:

It's a lot of work to get this kind of result from a jpeg but several years of looking and playing in the Digital Darkroom forum here have taught me a thing or two

Click to expand...

Is it your feeling that layering techniques that you utilized are a necessary component to being able to achieve the results that you have ?

Julio said:

Glad you like it this way.

Click to expand...

I do. Thank you for your effort ! Have just lined up all of the JPG efforts submitted (my own included) in XnView at 100% view (of their 1200x1600 pixel-size) along with the RW2> JPG processing, and I don't think that any of them equal or better the RW2> JPG. I do like your JPG> JPG submittal best overall, however, and my comments above are simply my mind at work.

Cyril Catt said:

Cyril Catt said:

Detail Man said:

Cyril Catt wrote:

... I accept the viewpoint stated by G. K. Chesterton, art critic and philosopher, ‘if a thing is worth doing it is worth doing badly’.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Cyril Catt said:

Cyril Catt said:

From another possible perspective, "if a thing is worth doing badly, then perhaps it is equally worthy to (perchance, if it suits one's own fancy) endeavor (on occasion) to attempt to do it well"

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Cyril Catt said:

DM, Sorry, my quote was out of context. Chesterton was not advocating shoddy workmanship, but suggesting that even if you feel you are not going to make a perfect job of something, it may still be better to get off your butt and have a go, than to let the opportunity go and do nothing.

Click to expand...

I gathered that upon reading your quote of him, and do agree that it is a point well-taken with respect to the potential missed opportunities that hesitations in general can sometimes result in ...

Cyril Catt said:

If you google the phrase you will get blogs from dozens of perfectionists who have suffered for years from the trauma of trying to be perfect, and in Chesterton's aphorism found liberation from the obsession that they are failures if they are not perfect at all times.

Click to expand...

That's interesting. I have some of that intensity (for laboring towards a sense of a job well done) in me wired in from (I think) nature and nurture in my time. As I age, I let go of some of that ...

The seemingly potentially humorous thing about this is that while some folks may sometimes imagine that the reward for "a job personally perceived as well-done" is the admiration of others for the fruits of such labors - thus indirectly leading to a personally held sense of self-worth - I've found in my own life experience that few if any others typically notice, or, if so, are unconcerned with such details whatsoever. Emotional needs for such recognitions are a prescription for frustration ...

Some (yourself not included) at times seem to (for whatever personal reasons related to what's going on in their own heads/hearts), revile/condescend towards such thoroughness - as if it were somehow going to "bite them" (or in some way diminish the veracity of their own chosen style).

I find (with or without the pro or con observations of others) that endeavoring to do a careful and thoughtful job of what I endeavor to do has often brought me a sense of depth of experience and accomplishment that (for me) bears a level of (personal) meaning that is essentially unrelated to and independent of how others might approach such endeavors. It's just the way that I am.

As hard as I find it to please myself sometimes, it seems vastly less convoluted than processes of endeavoring to look to others for direction and/or recognition (as oft rife with irony as they are).

Cyril Catt said:

For example, Evan, at comes up some more reasons to support Chesterton’s thesis against perfectionism, which Evan sees as: It is against learning. It’s Bondage to Yesterday. It Discourages Playing. It substitutes quantity for quality. It encourages tunnel-vision. It discourages individuality. It can be very inhibiting.

Click to expand...

Those thoughts do resonate with me. (I think) that the important thing (may) be to live and work in ways that engender and gratify one's own sense of meaning, and (without prejudice, or condescension) leave the personal styles and "druthers" of other individuals to those individuals ...

Thus, "image quality" is (I think) but a state of subjective mind, and a debilitating sense of "seriousness" only arises when one imagines their own templates imposed upon the minds of others. If we all had the same world-view, (it seems) that there might be little need to "converse" (and "converse-ation" only need be "averse-ation" if/when the heart/mind insists upon conformity).

Detail Man said:

Thanks for enabling download of the original ! (When lining-up the two images in an image viewer) what do you think about how the RW2> JPG and your JPG> JPG differ in fine-detail resolution ?

Detail Man said:

Julio wrote:

It was done in Photoshop darkened using the simple duplicate layer/multiply technique just because I hadn't done it that way for a while and it was mentioned elsewhere in this thread. I brought out the detail without using any common sharpening by increasing the tonal contrast and micro contrast.

Both things can be done in PS itself but I like using the tonal contrast in Nik's Color Efex Pro as it's much easier and very tweakable. For the microcontrast I used the, aptly named, Topaz Detail 2.

Click to expand...

I think that the micro (also called "local") contrast techniques used are (in essence) Unsharp Masking operations (with a very wide pixel Radius, and a relatively low Strength). Do you see "sharpening" artifacts in your image ?

Click to expand...

There might be artifacts, I didn't look all that closely and just trusted my layer blending--which essentially is just a way of nullifying the effect for the highlights-to take care of most of it.

Detail Man said:

Detail Man said:

In both cases I used duplicate layers and the layer blending options to protect the highlights since that's usually where you blow detail when using these techniques.

Click to expand...

Detail Man said:

Then I just adjusted the saturation targetted for the bark and again for the green leaves in an adjustment layer.

Click to expand...

(My personal impression). The color-saturation is very heavy. I think that this works out pretty well on the surface of the tree itself, but gets pretty intense where it comes to the surrounding, as well as the far-field, areas. My own personal impression is that high levels of color-saturation can (sometimes) act towards diminishing a sense of fine-detail - so maybe some reduction (in theory, though there is no need to do so just for me) might be a "plus" towards the sense of overall fine-detail in the image.

Click to expand...

I've been told many times that I tend to be heavy-handed with saturation and I think it's true And you're right about the heavy saturation of peripheral detail doing nothing useful--I particularly notice that now looking at the rocks in the water on the left which are way too blue. If I get sometime tomorrow I'll play with it a bit more. I enjoy postprocessing challenges.

Detail Man said:

Detail Man said:

Collapsed everything and saved it as a jpeg. I then opened it in Lightroom just because that's where my Upload to DPReview plug-in is. I used the default downsampling to bring it down to 1600 on the long edge and no output sharpening.

Click to expand...

I (personally) believe that I see some "sharpening artifacts" - my own guess is from the USM-related processes involved in your "micro contrast" procedures, and still visible despite the downwards re-sampling performed (with no post-sharpening applied).

Detail Man said:

It's a lot of work to get this kind of result from a jpeg but several years of looking and playing in the Digital Darkroom forum here have taught me a thing or two

Click to expand...

Is it your feeling that layering techniques that you utilized are a necessary component to being able to achieve the results that you have ?

Click to expand...

Probably not. It's just what I do when I want to be extra careful or try something new. As a matter of fact 95% of the time I use nothing but Lightroom itself to process my RAWs. It has plenty of post processing power for most things.

And by the way, I also have DXO and like it very much for some things. I particularly like it for applying the 5D Mk II look to my 7D RAWs... I have a friend at work-another Canon DSLR shooter-who tells me that's cheating, but I sure like the results

Detail Man said:

Detail Man said:

Glad you like it this way.

Click to expand...

I do. Thank you for your effort ! Have just lined up all of the JPG efforts submitted (my own included) in XnView at 100% view (of their 1200x1600 pixel-size) along with the RW2> JPG processing, and I don't think that any of them equal or better the RW2> JPG. I do like your JPG> JPG submittal best overall, however, and my comments above are simply my mind at work.

Click to expand...

In some things I think I actually see a bit more detail in mine with the odd leaf here and there. For example, the leaf on a small branch next to the trunk at the extreme middle right. But you're probably right about atifacts here and there.

I did this strictly for fun and as a challenge not to prove jpegs as good as RAWs since, in fact, I shoot RAW almost exclusively (which was the main reason why I finally chose the FZ150.) This happens to be a well exposed jpeg without noticeable noise and low contrast. It's probably the easiest type of jpeg to ehnance in PP since you can poke it and prod it much more than normal. Imho, it's when you shoot more challenging subjects (high contrast, dim settings, high ISO, etc.) that the advantages of RAW become more obvious.

Cheers.

--
http://fotoman99.smugmug.com/

Julio said:

Julio said:

Detail Man wrote:

I think that the micro (also called "local") contrast techniques used are (in essence) Unsharp Masking operations (with a very wide pixel Radius, and a relatively low Strength). Do you see "sharpening" artifacts in your image ?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Julio said:

There might be artifacts, I didn't look all that closely and just trusted my layer blending--which essentially is just a way of nullifying the effect for the highlights-to take care of most of it.

Julio said:

Julio said:

In both cases I used duplicate layers and the layer blending options to protect the highlights since that's usually where you blow detail when using these techniques.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Cool ! I have yet to find the personal patience to take a "layered" approach to post-processing (more a statement about my own temperament than anything else). I have become quite spoiled by the "real-time interfaces" of DxO, LR/CR, RAW Therapee, Silkypix, etc.

This has tended to make me less willing to engage in "daisy-chained" post-processing operations as in my previously used PSP9, GIMP, etc. (where each intermediate step has to be undertaken with a mental anticipation of how the subsequent steps in the "daisy-chain" will be conducted, as well as additionally "intuiting a mental-picture" of how the final result of the entire process will possibly turn out in the final viewing). The number of serial-steps involved can exponentially complicate the process, and require a great deal of "lopping back" to earlier stages of the process (to re-adjust).

Julio said:

I've been told many times that I tend to be heavy-handed with saturation and I think it's true

Click to expand...

(A lover of color-saturation myself, as many of my older images in my DPR Gallery attest to). I have found that my aesthetic preferences have changed over time, and that my eyes seem to end up choosing less overall color-saturation now that I have a sRGB-calibrated, S-IPS (actually, it's really an H-IPS) TFT/LCD flat-screen monitor-display - as compared to when I used a "TN" type TFT/LCD flat-screen monitor-display (which dithers the color-information during scanning, and does not actually provide 24-bit color-depth), and my Trinitron CRT monitor. It makes me wonder if the use of high color-saturation compensated (to some extent) for limitations existing in former monitors ?

Julio said:

And you're right about the heavy saturation of peripheral detail doing nothing useful--I particularly notice that now looking at the rocks in the water on the left which are way too blue. If I get sometime tomorrow I'll play with it a bit more. I enjoy postprocessing challenges.

Click to expand...

(Only) at your leisure, should you be so moved. My personal two cents regarding my own "druthers" (only):

I agree with you about the water's appearance. The branches, sticks, etc. laying on the ground (particularly to the left of the tree) have a highly color-saturated look to them, and the foliage of the evergreen tree (on the left) has a very intense Green hue. The green of the moss on the tree itself works out, but the dark Red hues of the tree-bark (while pleasing), might (like the surrounding branches and sticks laying on the ground) perhaps benefit from a somewhat lower level of color-saturation.

Julio said:

Julio said:

I (personally) believe that I see some "sharpening artifacts" - my own guess is from the USM-related processes involved in your "micro contrast" procedures, and still visible despite the downwards re-sampling performed (with no post-sharpening applied).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Julio said:

Julio said:

Julio said:

It's a lot of work to get this kind of result from a jpeg but several years of looking and playing in the Digital Darkroom forum here have taught me a thing or two

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Julio said:

Julio said:

Is it your feeling that layering techniques that you utilized are a necessary component to being able to achieve the results that you have ?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Julio said:

Probably not. It's just what I do when I want to be extra careful or try something new. As a matter of fact 95% of the time I use nothing but Lightroom itself to process my RAWs. It has plenty of post processing power for most things.

Click to expand...

(With regards to RAW, and not to TIF/JPG processing), what are your feelings about Adobe's (single-pass) deconvolution-deblurring that is mixed-in by increasing amounts if/when the "Detail" slider-control is set above a value of Zero ? How do you think that the LR 3.x Sharpening tools compare to the use of DxO's "Lens Softness" corrections for increasing image clarity/acuity ?

Detail Man said:

And by the way, I also have DXO and like it very much for some things.

Click to expand...

Cool ! DxO transforms my LX3 RW2s - makes it like a different (and much preferred) camera entirely. I am a (fully and publicly admitted) LX3+DxO fanboy in an "Adobe uber alles" world ! ...

Detail Man said:

I particularly like it for applying the 5D Mk II look to my 7D RAWs... I have a friend at work-another Canon DSLR shooter-who tells me that's cheating, but I sure like the results

Click to expand...

While I do prefer the excellent Color NR of LR3/CR6 for the most demanding NR needs, the DxO Luminance/Chrominance NR is also interesting. DxO concentrates on higher ISO functionality (and I think that I have seen some evidence that DxO NR works best in such situations). I almost always shoot in "raw" at a maximum of ISO=200 (with my LX3, FZ28, and FZ50), so I am typically wanting it to also work well at the lower-ISO "end of the spectrum".

Here is an interesting article from a while back where the author speculates that DxO 6.x employs what may be somewhat unconventional Luminance NR techniques (occurring early-on along, and possibly integrated along with the deconvolution-deblurring processes involved in the "Lens Softness" corrections) at the early stage of initial de-mosaicing:

Optics Pro adds noise after conversion to restore the material and fine detail to the image. It's not really a noise that is added but the elements of very fine scale calculated on the basis of a noise mapping contained in the original raw file. Thus, the output image demosaicing is very smooth (see below), and the luminance slider handles mostly not the level of noise being removed but the amount of fine detail is added!

In version 6, Optics Pro can also act on the level of noise reduction before demosaicing.

Its operation is as follows :

0 = no noise reduction, either before or after demosaicing.

20 = 100% reduction in noise before demosaicing and 80% addition of fine details on the image

50 = 100% reduction in noise before demosaicing and 50% addition of fine details on the image

100 = 100% reduction in noise before demosaicing and no additional information for the image

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpha-numerique.fr%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26view%3Darticle%26id%3D395%3Ala-reduction-de-bruit-avec-dxo-optics-pro-6%26catid%3D67%3Adxo-optics-pro%26Itemid%3D317&act=url

At any rate, high levels of DxO NR can and does sometimes result in a characteristic "plasticine" look to the subject matter - and the excellent Color NR of LR3/CR6 has (in my experience) often proved to be more capable of dealing with high-noise images (with some color-de-saturation creeping in at Color NR settings approaching 50, which is somewhat reversible by increasing Vibrance and saturation levels in order to compensate for these effects).

Detail Man said:

In some things I think I actually see a bit more detail in mine with the odd leaf here and there. For example, the leaf on a small branch next to the trunk at the extreme middle right.

Click to expand...

What I concentrate on in this shot is the fine (and notoriously hard to shoot, as well as to process) structures of the moss on the tree surface, itself.

Detail Man said:

But you're probably right about artifacts here and there.

Click to expand...

My eyes see what appears similar to USM artifacts in the structure of the moss itself - although nothing (including my camera, hand-held technique in this case, and DxO RW2 processing with "Lens Softness" corrections, and mild post-re-sampling USM) does as much visual "justice" to what my eyes know exists in these mossy realms as I would like to see. Moss is very, very hard to resolve for a number of reasons including the natural lighting and it's very subtle and delicate color-contrasts, in addition to elements such as focus integrity and camera-stability).

(Out of all of my many attempts to capture mossy realms), the array of variables very nicely aligned for me in this close-up shot (in a way that represents the subject-matter as my eyes perceive it):

Detail Man said:

I did this strictly for fun and as a challenge not to prove jpegs as good as RAWs since, in fact, I shoot RAW almost exclusively (which was the main reason why I finally chose the FZ150.) This happens to be a well exposed jpeg without noticeable noise and low contrast.

Click to expand...

Not accidental - and it was the one out of something like 30 shots where my hand-held technique and the OIS held-in along with the AF system to provide the best-looking image-clarity, along with an appropriate exposure-level for detail-accuracy.

Detail Man said:

It's probably the easiest type of jpeg to ehnance in PP since you can poke it and prod it much more than normal.

Click to expand...

I always record a (Fine) JPG (STD Film Mode, NR = -2, SHARPNESS = -2) along with my RW2s for the purpose of being able to easily and effectively and quickly sort through my (typically many multiple) tries, in order to select the best few "keepers" for (hopeful) polishing into "gems".

Detail Man said:

Imho, it's when you shoot more challenging subjects (high contrast, dim settings, high ISO, etc.) that the advantages of RAW become more obvious.

Click to expand...

Those are the "regions" where (I think) so much in the way of possibilities/potential for post-processing can easily be lost in the in-camera produced JPG, such that the user is as a result relegated to only being able to minimally improve upon the OOC JPG as it has been recorded.

My old TZ4 (and my ZS7 as well, sometimes, but in somewhat different ways) have a way of producing JPGs that generally have very nice color-balance, but are (already) color-saturated to the point where little more is advisable, and have an "already processed look" to them which do not lend the user much in the way of useful leeway in JPG post-processing.

Best Regards,

DM ...

Detail Man said:

Detail Man said:

J C Brown said:

Detail Man wrote:

Finding a "raw" processing software application that is user-friendly, straightforward to use, suits one's druthers, and provides results pleasing to the photographer and viewer's eyes is truly the key

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

.
.

Detail Man said:

Detail Man said:

Detail Man said:

It is important to understand that a brief but frustrating and unproductive go trying to use Silkypix (or some other application) on a Lumix camera model RW2 image-file does not mean that all is lost!

Click to expand...

Hi DM,

Does that mean it's all a matter of 'Taste'?

Click to expand...

(Perhaps) a taste for results that truly please (each individual's own) mind's eye ... a worthy cause.

Click to expand...

My comment above was intended simply as a humorous reference to the 'Tastes' used in Silkypix.

Detail Man said:

Detail Man said:

On a more serious note, with all my other interests and commitments I haven't yet managed to find the time required to follow up your on advice and do any serious experimenting with Silkypix.

Click to expand...

As you may recall, I chose to "sweat some blood" for a few hours attempting to derive a result from Silkypix that was (I thought noticeably) better than your FZ50 OOC JPG (of the bird-picture).

Whereas, the next day, I de-mosaiced your FZ50 RAW using XnView to a 8-bit TIF, and DxO Optics Pro 6.x (functioning as a generalized image-editor) much more rapidly provided much better results in many important respects (which you remarked appeared very true to the original colors of the subject-matter as perceived by your eyes).

Click to expand...

Feeling very guilty that it had taken up so much of your valuable time and effort I remember that well. I also recall, from your private communication, the following comments which you made in relation to the RAW image of my FUJIFILM test chart.

"To my surprise, I found that the LR 3.3 de-mosaicing algorithm used on FZ50 RAWs - when applied to these particular grids as subject-matter, anyway - clearly under-performs the in-camera processes! While many other aspects of the two (OOC JPG and processed RAW) images were varied widely in tweaking the RAW in process, there appears to be an overlap of three individual lines in the de-mosaiced RAW that the OOC JPG was relatively free of.

I suspect that Panasonic may well have "tweaked" the Venus III to excel in such test-target oriented performance. Impressive for in-camera hardware demosaicing (given the limited hardware resources and time that the camera has to generate a OOC JPG).

My over 2,000 attempts to use my FZ50 (at ISO=100) to shoot the intricate foliage-detail in my nature/landscape with only 2 successes showed me that the FZ30 had left the FZ50 "in the dust" where it came to such high spatial-frequency subject-matter existing interspersed (as opposed to existing apart and isolated, as is the case with the test-chart lettering and grids). This goes to show the potential complexity and/or potential "non-linearities" (the term here used in a general sense) of these JPG Engines when presented with different varieties of high spatial-frequency edge-information existing nearby to adjacent photo-sites (as opposed to in cleanly isolated areas)."

As an FZ50 owner I was particularly interested in your conclusions regarding the difference between intricate foliage detail which is interspersed and isolated detail such as lettering and grids. From a personal point of view I regard the ability of a camera to capture and portray both of these forms as equally important.

Thanks for your comments and recommendations in relation to the use of Silkypix SE 3.x and RAW Therapee.

In a private e-mail you wrote:

"I recently used the latest Silkypix 3.173 to process this Photography Blog RW2 image-file, and was very impressed by the results. Have never seen Silkypix make any "raw" image look so good, or have so much fine-detail information."

As it was very simple to do, that led me to download Silkypix 3.173 and include some RAW images in my recent EZ Zoom tests.

Jimmy
--
J C Brown

J C Brown said:

J C Brown said:

J C Brown said:

Does that mean it's all a matter of 'Taste'?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

J C Brown said:

J C Brown said:

(Perhaps) a taste for results that truly please (each individual's own) mind's eye ... a worthy cause.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

J C Brown said:

My comment above was intended simply as a humorous reference to the 'Tastes' used in Silkypix.

Click to expand...

Ah, right ... I'm so numb to Siklypizz in general that I forgot all about their trendy "Tastes" ...

J C Brown said:

J C Brown said:

As you may recall, I chose to "sweat some blood" for a few hours attempting to derive a result from Silkypix that was (I thought noticeably) better than your FZ50 OOC JPG (of the bird-picture).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

J C Brown said:

Feeling very guilty that it had taken up so much of your valuable time and effort I remember that well. I also recall, from your private communication, the following comments which you made in relation to the RAW image of my FUJIFILM test chart.

Click to expand...

Jimmy ! I'll have none of it. Each and every time that I have chosen to spend some time perusing and playing with various things (including RAW versions of the the test-chart and the bird-picture images) it has always been a matter of my personal choice ! Period. Thank you for your considering my "time and effort" to be "valuable". While life is indeed short and fleeting, no matter how short and fleeting it may be, interacting with and assisting people of quality = quality of life.

J C Brown said:

Thanks for your comments and recommendations in relation to the use of Silkypix SE 3.x and RAW Therapee.

Click to expand...

My point is simply that if you are to spend your time and effort in the pursuit of image-quality, (as our experience with the bird-picture demonstrated well the potential superiority of processed FZ50 RAW over FZ50 OOC JPG), there surely ought to be a tangible and substantive reward that will result from such efforts. Siklypizz is for the most part a mediocre tool , and the fact that it seemed to work well once de-mosaicing/processing a high-quality MFT 16 Mpixel MOS image-sensor ...

J C Brown said:

In a private e-mail you wrote:

"I recently used the latest Silkypix 3.173 to process this Photography Blog RW2 image-file, and was very impressed by the results. Have never seen Silkypix make any "raw" image look so good, or have so much fine-detail information."

Click to expand...

... is more a testament to the G3 and it's sensor than it is to the functional integrity of Siklypizz ...

J C Brown said:

As it was very simple to do, that led me to download Silkypix 3.173 and include some RAW images in my recent EZ Zoom tests.

Click to expand...

"EZ Zoom tests" ? ... Sounds like you are way ahead of those who have merely speculated about the characteristics of EZ Zoom ! I recommend that you try to keep presentations of your results relatively short and simple to read - as few will be willing/able to scrutinize and comprehend the intricacies of your test-methods, and (even I, the "detail man") tend to get a "sore brain" easily ...

People probably just want to hear a confirmation of their own speculations - the presentation of controverting evidence is seldom well-received (based upon emotional, and not rational, factors). However, you are already known to be so careful and thorough in your thoughts and endeavors that I sincerely doubt that anyone with a functional brain would/should criticize your methods !

If you prefer the resolution on the right side of this image to the trend that evolves moving left, you may be interested in learning about how JPEG Encoding is like degrading your optical/sensor IQ



Two of the reasons that a JPG image-file has a smaller file byte-size than a raster scan (TIF or BMP) image-file involves the "lossy" operations existing within the chain of processes of JPEG Encoding:

Chroma Sub-sampling reduction of color-channel resolution :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG#Downsampling

Quantization Filtering (reduction and removal) of high spatial-frequency (fine-detail) resolution:
http://www.dspguide.com/ch27/6.htm

Hi DM,

I apologise for my apparent delay in responding to your reply to my post. It appears that after clicking on 'Post' my previous response disappeared into a DPR black hole.

When I later discovered that it hadn't appeared in the list of posts to your thread I checked the 'User', 'My Threads' list which indicated that it had been posted 5 hours earlier. As 9 hours after posting it still hasn't appeared I will try again with the following response.

Detail Man said:

Detail Man said:

J C Brown wrote:

Feeling very guilty that it had taken up so much of your valuable time and effort I remember that well. I also recall, from your private communication, the following comments which you made in relation to the RAW image of my FUJIFILM test chart.

Click to expand...

Jimmy ! I'll have none of it. Each and every time that I have chosen to spend some time perusing and playing with various things (including RAW versions of the the test-chart and the bird-picture images) it has always been a matter of my personal choice ! Period. Thank you for your considering my "time and effort" to be "valuable". While life is indeed short and fleeting, no matter how short and fleeting it may be, interacting with and assisting people of quality = quality of life.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your reassurance and for your complimentary remark. Though I will continue to appreciate the time and effort you put into PPing these test images, I will stop feeling guilty about it.

Detail Man said:

Detail Man said:

Thanks for your comments and recommendations in relation to the use of Silkypix SE 3.x and RAW Therapee.

Click to expand...

My point is simply that if you are to spend your time and effort in the pursuit of image-quality, (as our experience with the bird-picture demonstrated well the potential superiority of processed FZ50 RAW over FZ50 OOC JPG), there surely ought to be a tangible and substantive reward that will result from such efforts. Siklypizz is for the most part a mediocre tool , and the fact that it seemed to work well once de-mosaicing/processing a high-quality MFT 16 Mpixel MOS image-sensor ...

Click to expand...

That is very sensible advice. After reading your comments yesterday I downloaded and installed RawTherapee then using its default settings allowed it to process a RAW image from one my tests. I assume that the larger than normal 7838 KB JPEG file resulted from its use of a low compression factor and that the matching .pp3 file is the equivalent of the .spi files in a SILKYPIX_DS folder.

Detail Man said:

"EZ Zoom tests" ? ... Sounds like you are way ahead of those who have merely speculated about the characteristics of EZ Zoom ! I recommend that you try to keep presentations of your results relatively short and simple to read - as few will be willing/able to scrutinize and comprehend the intricacies of your test-methods, and (even I, the "detail man") tend to get a "sore brain" easily ...

Click to expand...

These tests were designed to determine to what extent, if any, the use of EZ Zoom would affect the focussing and metering functions of my FZ50 and to provide credible documentary evidence with which I could demonstrate my findings.

Detail Man said:

People probably just want to hear a confirmation of their own speculations - the presentation of controverting evidence is seldom well-received (based upon emotional, and not rational, factors). However, you are already known to be so careful and thorough in your thoughts and endeavors that I sincerely doubt that anyone with a functional brain would/should criticize your methods !

Click to expand...

Thanks again for your valuable advice and for your very complimentary remark. I will try to remember to keep the content of any future EZ Zoom post both short and simple.

Jimmy
--
J C Brown

DM as you may acknowledge, RAW is NOT better than JPG in the LX-3 and could you please explain the reason for this exceptional case? Thank you.

DM: I fear that you are reading too much into my question. I put it as simply as I could, and I am only an amateur. If the LX3 is devoid of most of the internal processing which was later added to the LX5; anti-vignetting, anti-distortion measures etc., it is then the straight shot. And the LX5 having these measures would benefit from RAW because firstly it undoes these measures before continuing it's thing. Of course I don't know what the hell I'm talking about, which is the reason I asked the question in the first place.

Julio said:

Case in point re: highlight recovery from a recent FZ150 review (bottom of page

Click to expand...

But you posted two processed raw files, so no highlight recovery is demonstrated from this example. Basically what it's showing is that "If I process the raw file this way, I can blow the highlights, and if I process it this other way, I don't. If you truly want to show that highlight recovery on raw files is superior to that of the default jpg, you would need to post the original, unadjusted jpg file and let someone familiar with curves adjustments have a go at it (all raw files are processed after-the-fact, so the jpg, if you want an honest comparison, should be given the same consideration).

"Highlight recovery" or color balance adjustments are often cited to support raw superiority, but actually, color balance is often just a simple adjustment (one is forced to do a color adjustment when using raw, but usually the jpg is shown as it comes from the camera).

Highlight recovery is possible in both jpg and raw files; if the camera's jpg processor actually clips some data at the top, then of course the raw file will have an advantage, and one can recover detail that was lost in that clipped jpg. If there was no clipping in the jpg processing, the only advantage to the raw is that you can spread smaller sections of image data over a larger area by adjusting the curves...but that's not always an advantage either, as it can give an unnatural appearance. Whether that additional bit depth is really an advantage depends on how well-distributed the image data is to begin with. A poor exposure will benefit more than a properly-exposed photo, but if highlights are blown, raw processing can't recover them either...there's nothing there to recover.

If you really want to demonstrate highlight recovery superiority of raw, you need to take a raw+ HQ jpg photo that shows just a touch of highlight clipping (using maybe the flashing highlight feature). Then process your raw photo so that you're happy with the highlights you've recovered, and give the jpg to someone who knows their way around a photo editor (or even camera raw) and curves and other adjustments, to see how well he/she can match up the jpg to your processed raw.

I'm not against or for use of raw; it's good to have as an option, but most of the time it really doesn't matter...the content and composition are far more important than the file format or bit depth used. If speed is slower, or some camera features are not available with raw, then it can actually be detrimental to use. While there certainly can be advantages, in many cases the advantage is simply that the person processed the photo to their taste (or the raw processor's taste), where they took the jpg straigt-from-camera and either didn't bother, or didn't know how to process it.

--
Gary
Photo albums: http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse

J C Brown said:

J C Brown wrote:

Thanks for your reassurance and for your complimentary remark. Though I will continue to appreciate the time and effort you put into PPing these test images, I will stop feeling guilty about it.

Click to expand...

Very good. If I choose to spend time on something that we are discussing, it is because I want to, and I am in a position to, be able to do so.

J C Brown said:

... I downloaded and installed RawTherapee then using its default settings allowed it to process a RAW image from one my tests. I assume that the larger than normal 7838 KB JPEG file resulted from its use of a low compression factor ...

Click to expand...

Just saved off a 10 Mpixel (3648x2736 pixel-size) LX3 RW2 with the JPEG Quality Factor set to 100%, and RT 3.01 created a 9.83 Mbyte file-size JPG. The JPEG Quality Factor can be adjusted downwards from it's 100% default in the "Batch Que" window controls.

J C Brown said:

... and that the matching .pp3 file is the equivalent of the .spi files in a SILKYPIX_DS folder.

Click to expand...

Yes. I noticed that this (PP3 business) is covered in the RT 3.0 User Manual at:
http://www.rawtherapee.com/shared/documentation/RawTherapeeManual_3.0.pdf

So far I've installed (but done nothing with) RT 3.01. The previous RT 2.41 was unusably unstable on my system (a problem for some, but not all PC users particular to RT 2.41 - no problems so far with RT 3.0 and RT 3.01). As a result, my RT experience in general is so far rather limited ...

Am so "hooked" on DxO processing of my LX3 RW2s (as well as using it as a useful TIF/JPG image-editor), that I have yet to have a go at trying to process a few of my FZ50 RAWs, FZ28 RW2s. Your installing it has piqued my interest, and I'll probably be playing with it some more in the future

Know that (at this point, anyway), you probably know at least as much if not more than I do regarding the specifics of the RT 3.01 user-interface, etc. Am uncertain about the appropriateness of default settings of certain controls, and I need to peruse the User Manual myself to try to figure out more information.

BTW - I initially selected a JPG (as opposed to the RW2 version) image-file, and it appears that it can (also) process JPGs (and, I presume TIFs, too). Note that it can save-off the output to (loss-less) PNG, as well as to JPG and TIF file-formats.

J C Brown said:

Thanks again for your valuable advice and for your very complimentary remark. I will try to remember to keep the content of any future EZ Zoom post both short and simple.

Click to expand...

Engineer that you are, you are meticulous about documenting every aspect of your procedures used. This makes a great deal of sense in an engineering environment - as every aspect of your processes are important to document in case those processes/procedures need to be reviewed and scrutinized at a later time (perhaps by persons other than yourself). Entirely appropriate indeed

This is commendable (and necessary and proper in engineering). However, it can be challenging (for hacks like me) to discern within all the information presented exactly what is most important for me to grasp in order to understand what you are getting at and "where you are going with it"

... a charge that has been leveled against yours truly on occasion when some readers have indicated that they've felt bogged down in the same "details" (that I consider important to divulge in order that the reader would be able to work through the concepts, and derive the numerical results on their own if they would like). There seems to be an upper-limit to how much "information-compression" the presentation of some concepts/data can reasonably bear, however.

Fully understand and admire your thoroughness and understandable desire to fully document your work in a form that truly constitutes a scientific-paper. Nothing at all inappropriate if that's the case

I'd suggest that a significant fraction of the audience (here, anyway) is mostly concerned with results boiled down to the most basic and simplistic and visceral verbal representations, and (sometimes, and in some cases) seem unwilling or incapable of digesting anything longer than a few sentences containing no arithmetic symbols) in length. Statements of the kind: "X more better than Y in all applications and situations just because I think and say so" are big-time favorites

However, if (some) readers do not happen to see information that tends to comport with and reinforce their own impressions/speculations, it would not surprise me if (some) were to (all of a sudden) vociferously demand rigorous evidence and proof ... "No good deed goes unpunished"!

Those who know you here (ought) to have little doubt that when you set out to establish a fact, there is nobody more thorough - even leaving the so-called "detail man" with a sometimes sore (but in the end, more informed and thankful) brain ... maybe if you just communicate your results in an informal manner (saving you a great deal of labor in documentation) the wise would take note and listen - and those who entertain doubts can perform their own actual tests on their own.

Gary R. said:

Gary R. wrote:

... in many cases the advantage is simply that the person processed the photo to their taste (or the raw processor's taste), where they took the jpg straigt-from-camera and either didn't bother, or didn't know how to process it.

Click to expand...

The world anxiously awaits your sure and steady hands rendering (at 1200x1600) the sublime, ClearMan:

Direct OOC JPG download at: http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4464732135/download/987618

Detail Man said:

Detail Man said:

J C Brown wrote:

... and that the matching .pp3 file is the equivalent of the .spi files in a SILKYPIX_DS folder.

Click to expand...

Yes. I noticed that this (PP3 business) is covered in the RT 3.0 User Manual at:
http://www.rawtherapee.com/shared/documentation/RawTherapeeManual_3.0.pdf

Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. I've just downloaded a copy.

Detail Man said:

Am so "hooked" on DxO processing of my LX3 RW2s (as well as using it as a useful TIF/JPG image-editor), that I have yet to have a go at trying to process a few of my FZ50 RAWs, FZ28 RW2s. Your installing it has piqued my interest, and I'll probably be playing with it some more in the future

Know that (at this point, anyway), you probably know at least as much if not more than I do regarding the specifics of the RT 3.01 user-interface, etc. Am uncertain about the appropriateness of default settings of certain controls, and I need to peruse the User Manual myself to try to figure out more information.

BTW - I initially selected a JPG (as opposed to the RW2 version) image-file, and it appears that it can (also) process JPGs (and, I presume TIFs, too). Note that it can save-off the output to (loss-less) PNG, as well as to JPG and TIF file-formats.

Click to expand...

Since I bought my FZ50 in 2008, I've chosen to shoot only a small number of images in raw format. Though I've used SILKYPIX with its default settings to open both RAW and JPEG images and saved the results as JPEGS and TIFs I have absolutely no experience of using it to make adjustments of any kind to my images.

After experimenting with it last night my knowledge of RawTherapee has reached the same very basic level. Using the default settings I was able to open several of my test images and save copies in both JPEG and TIF format.

I was immediately struck by the very different appearance of the images produced by RawTherapee and SILKYPIX. To my eyes the images produced by RawTherapee had a higher resolution and more accurate colours.

I must try to find time to have a look at the Manual. With my experience of post processing being limited to the occasional use of Auto Smart Fix or Auto Levels, I have a very great deal to learn.

Thanks again for all your helpful advice and for your very complimentary remarks about the quality of my investigations. They are very much appreciated.

PS, I hope you enjoyed the MP3 attachment to my recent e-mail.

Best regards

Jimmy
--
J C Brown

Thank you for your clear and concise answer, DM. It will take me a little while yet to fully comprehend what you wrote, but I can say that this forum would not be the same without your interesting and detailed comments.

I did not base my question on the samples provided, but on my remembering some previous comparisons and discussions which steadfastly recognized that the LX3 did not benefit from RAW processing, unlike most other cameras.

I can't even guess what you'd want me to do with that photo of a tree trunk, there's nothing I could do that would make that a good photo. It has nothing to do with anything I said, as I was replying to a specific post.

I'm not sure if your sarcasm in replying to my posts is a defensive measure, because you lack a meaningful answer, or just because your technique is to put down anyone who doesn't agree with you or show blind respect for your wordy diatribes.

My comment in this case had a purpose...to help those who aren't completely blinded by raw fanaticism understand that the comparison given was not a reasonable demonstration that blown highlights in jpg photos can be recovered if using raw, which is a frequent misconception. If someone is interested in arriving at the truth of the matter, instead of having a conclusion in mind and finding "evidence" to support it, they need to be scientific about it, and let the camera do its best jpg (by proper settings), and adjust it just as they do in the raw processing software, before making any comparisons.

That's IF they are interested in a genuine evaluation. If the interest is only in flattering themselves because they now have "graduated" to raw and need evidence, even if it's not valid, to support their idea that it's a necessary, positive move and the only way to get good photos, then never mind. Print the tree trunk from the raw file and hang it in a gallery, I'm sure it will impress.
--
Gary

Gary R. said:

Julio said:

Case in point re: highlight recovery from a recent FZ150 review (bottom of page

Click to expand...

But you posted two processed raw files, so no highlight recovery is demonstrated from this example. Basically what it's showing is that "If I process the raw file this way, I can blow the highlights, and if I process it this other way, I don't. If you truly want to show that highlight recovery on raw files is superior to that of the default jpg, you would need to post the original, unadjusted jpg file and let someone familiar with curves adjustments have a go at it (all raw files are processed after-the-fact, so the jpg, if you want an honest comparison, should be given the same consideration).

Click to expand...

When I posted that link a few days ago I actually thought Gordon was showing a JPG vs. RAW comparison not just a RAW processed with and without -2EV. I realized that later on and said so in this other post in a different thread:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=39528924

However, even so, his comparison is still useful to show the highlight recovery advantage of RAW (see below) and the part of my message you didn't quote in reference to improving highlights of jpegs "...it can't correctly guess what information might be missing: featureless will still be just that" is still a fact despite the imperfection of the example I linked.

Gary R. said:

If you really want to demonstrate highlight recovery superiority of raw, you need to take a raw+ HQ jpg photo that shows just a touch of highlight clipping (using maybe the flashing highlight feature). Then process your raw photo so that you're happy with the highlights you've recovered, and give the jpg to someone who knows their way around a photo editor (or even camera raw) and curves and other adjustments, to see how well he/she can match up the jpg to your processed raw.

Click to expand...

On the other side of the RAW vs. jpeg arguments I have seen jpeg evangelists at DPReview for years dismiss raw shooters as sloppy since real photographers nail the exposure every time and don't need no stinkin raw. Maybe I will achieve exposure nirvana some day but, dang it, I still miss it now and then. You've been here even longer than me so I'm sure you 've seen those comments more than once.

But the great unwashed masses of photographers here, many of whom shoot in full-auto mode and are trying to learn better techniques, are the ones who would benefit the most from these types of discussions. Many of them have never tried raw, are afraid of it and even if they have they often think that there's something "un-photographic" or downright dishonest in doing very much editing to that first look their raw developer gives them.

I happen to be one of those who know Photoshop very well and the curves that you mention are just the tip of the PP iceberg. There are countless techniques that can be used to enhance any image including the localized tweaks you can do with the aid of specific layer masks that target such things as flat vs. detailed areas, bright vs. dark, single colors, etc... and then there are all the layer tweaks you can make to further target the tonal range where your manipulation will influence the underlying layers.

I also know my way around raw developers equally well and at one point or another I have used every one of them that runs on a PC. One thing they all have in common is that, to a greater or lesser extent the first thing you see when you open a file in any of them is something very, very similar to what the in-camera engine would have given you had you shot jpeg. This is particularly so with the raw developers that are bundled with cameras (Canon's DPP for example) which read and mimick the jpeg adjustments your camera had at the time you took the raw image. And for that reason alone, Gordon's 0 EV compensation Silkypix sample is probably indistinguishable from what he would have gotten had he shot RAW + jpeg and shown us the jpeg.

So... even though if had I noticed what Gordon did I would have mentioned it, his comparison is nevertheless a good simulation of what the average photographer would be seeing had he shot RAW + jpeg... imperfect though the camera settings may have been.

The point still stands: detail clipped in a jpeg at either end is lost forever and not necessarily so with the RAW.

--
http://fotoman99.smugmug.com/