RAW is way More Better than JPG ...

Detail Man · Oct 10, 2011

Cyril Catt said:
Cyril Catt wrote:

Detail Man, I find it fascinating to learn how much can be pulled out of a raw file through the artifices of various competing softwares, changes of bit depths and file formats, demosaicing and so forth.

Cyril Catt said:
But nowhere can I find what time it takes to affect these effects. As the learning curve for the software is rather steep, the time needed to put them to full use may be considerable, ...

Post-processing. An understandably (and invariably) somewhat involved investment of time/energy.

Cyril Catt said:
... and the results do not always appear (to my eyes, on my computer screens) marked improvements over briefly tweaked jpgs, let alone OOC jpgs, ...

Cyril Catt said:
... I am not entirely convinced that, for my very uncritical needs, the apparent time and effort would be valid.

It is entirely valid for any person to reach that conclusion on the basis of their camera and/or their viewing/printing hardware and practices. I don't consider the validity of such personal judgment-calls to be in question, whatsoever . Nobody else knows what the world looks like through your eyes - so it is recommended that people follow their own perceptions in such things.

Cyril Catt said:
Perhaps that is the difference between a mere amateur photographer and a dedicated amateur or a professional photographer?

Dunno. But we as people are not only more than our machines, we are also more than the social labels that others (or ourselves) may choose to ascribe. Different people have different pleasures.

If some particular in-camera JPG "engine" processing is deemed to be adequate in the eyes of any individual, then "more power to them" ! This is not a debate about if RAW - it's about when RAW

However, we find every bit as much (if not more) disagreement between JPG shooters as to what particular camera models (with all of the available on-camera controls tweaked) are capable of rendering an "adequate" JPG image-file ... and one is stuck with what a particular camera provides.

Thus, this seems (to me) like a whole other "can of worms". So, (it seems), "pick your poison !

bugbait · Oct 11, 2011

OK Detail Man I finally got some time to poke about the forums tonight and I just compare your DXO and SikyPix versions of the painting above.

Again viewing at full resolution and on a good 1920x1080 32" monitor (Sony Bravia XBR9 TV).

The DXO version is far better at rendering the plumage barbs. Makes for a more lively image. But you did sacrifice a good bit of artist splatters of water color and wash around the edges. But given the two I would of picked DXO as well. But first masked out the more blank canvas before applying most of the effects. As I suspect you might have done but that would of complicated the comparison between the two RAW processors bringing in Photoshop.

As for RAW being Way More better;

If you have to submit 30 of your best photos to a periodical editorial board every 4 working hours - not knowing which they will use; JPG with favored settings is the way to go. If you are going to view the image maybe 6 times ever, JPG is likely the way to go. If you are a working mom or most anybody with darn little time for your passion but not profession of photography JPG may be all you have time for and not fussing about in Photoshop and RAW processing gives you more precious time to shoot more photos, see more things and happenings.

If you know there is a lot going on in an image that you can not see until enhancement RAW is the way to go. If you can't quite see how the pigmented forms come together on an critter, you can only stretch the color and light so far around to get a better contrasted view, better understanding of the anatomy. If you are selling the objects you are photographing, real isn't necessarily better. Here super real can come into the equation and still not even be cheating because you have to shoot the person place or thing on a day with mucky light or a bad case of adult acne or sunburn. If you want to light up a bosom or several blooms at once but not most of the surroundings RAW is the only game in town that will do it all so subtlety. Practically magic in the results. If you enjoy dialing in and out all the underlying factors, squeezing all the goodness out of a single photograph, enjoy the challenge and are willing to buy or even trial use various software RAW is the way to go.

For me, raw is better for final output of pleasurable images. And often for analysis of material and source images. When I have time. Luckily my new camera the DMC-FZ150 does not penalize me significantly with longer write times for RAW plus Fine JPG. A bit of a miracle that.

BugBait Stephen

Detail Man · Oct 11, 2011

bugbait said:
bugbait wrote:

OK Detail Man I finally got some time to poke about the forums tonight and I just compare your DXO and SikyPix versions of the painting above.

Again viewing at full resolution and on a good 1920x1080 32" monitor (Sony Bravia XBR9 TV).

The DXO version is far better at rendering the plumage barbs. Makes for a more lively image ... But given the two I would of picked DXO as well.

There are differences in the resolution of high-frequency (fine-details) of the feather structure !!!

bugbait said:
But you did sacrifice a good bit of artist splatters of water color and wash around the edges.

By the way, the picture is composed of actual real feathering and "bird-stuff" in addition to (some type of) paint. That's why it makes an excellent test of the de-mosaicing algorithm, as well as the system architecture, and overall potential "acuity" of the particular processor/editor being used.

Furthermore, the Silkypix effort took me a very long time to struggle with one night - while the XnView/DxO processing the next morning proceeded much more rapidly and simply ! ...

bugbait said:
... But first masked out the more blank canvas before applying most of the effects.

None of the image-processing used was of a type that would have been affected by masking-out and re-adding the background areas. (As an aside), I did use the "Spot removal" tool in DxO to interpolate-out a lot of little spots on the painting area, and just a small handful of tiny errant tiny lone feathers on the actual bird-stuff itself.

bugbait said:
As I suspect you might have done but that would of complicated the comparison between the two RAW processors bringing in Photoshop.

Adobe applications that will not divulge what they specifically do to an image at default settings are potentially problematic - one reason that I am not an Adobe "devotee". Too much "secret sauce".

bugbait said:
As for RAW being Way More better;

Some good thoughts there, Stephen !

bugbait said:
... If you want to light up a bosom or several blooms at once but not most of the surroundings RAW is the only game in town that will do it all so subtlety. Practically magic in the results.

I have not lit up any "bosoms" lately ... but that sounds like a creative/artistic endeavor, indeed !

bugbait said:
For me, raw is better for final output of pleasurable images. And often for analysis of material and source images.

bugbait said:
When I have time. Luckily my new camera the DMC-FZ150 does not penalize me significantly with longer write times for RAW plus Fine JPG. A bit of a miracle that.

Get a good mark on the moon on a good night (the upcoming full moon is the smallest, most distant moon for quite some time), fire off a pile of RW2s, convert to TIFs, then stack them using Enfuse (or something similar) for a Signal/Noise Ratio improvement (in uniform-field areas of the image) equal to the square-root of "N" (where "N" is the number of stacked identical images) !!!

bugbait · Oct 11, 2011

Sometime you should see what I have done in Lightroom with tiny MRI films. Or neuroanatomy dissections for that matter. Especially once injected with contrasting dies. Amazing how much anatomy can be revealed with a little light and color manipulation. Even of non raw single images. B&W in the case of MRI.

I'll light up some blooms for you sometime. I should stop messing with the camera for a few days and get some work done.

Yet I am itching to give ACDSee version just released a go next to the DXO and Camera RAW. So I will probably miss behave. Likely several hour past my bedtime.

Stephen

bugbait · Oct 11, 2011

p.s. I did note they are real feathers but with my double vision this time of night I gave the artist the benefit of the doubt. My eyes are not much good sometimes, but I feel very lucky when they are.

Detail Man · Oct 11, 2011

bugbait said:
bugbait wrote:

Sometime you should see what I have done in Lightroom with tiny MRI films. Or neuroanatomy dissections for that matter. Especially once injected with contrasting dies. Amazing how much anatomy can be revealed with a little light and color manipulation. Even of non raw single images. B&W in the case of MRI.

Hmmm.

bugbait said:
I'll light up some blooms for you sometime.

Not sure what you mean by "lighting up some blooms". Something like this:

or this:

???

bugbait · Oct 11, 2011

Detail Man said:
Detail Man said:

bugbait wrote:

Sometime you should see what I have done in Lightroom with tiny MRI films. Or neuroanatomy dissections for that matter. Especially once injected with contrasting dies. Amazing how much anatomy can be revealed with a little light and color manipulation. Even of non raw single images. B&W in the case of MRI.

Click to expand...

Hmmm.

Detail Man said:

I'll light up some blooms for you sometime.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by "lighting up some blooms". Something like this:

Ahhh no, not at all my friend. Over the next few weeks I'll be doing a good bit of getting to know the fz150, a few thousand shots at least.

I will make a point of adding that kind of work into my processing software comparisons. Provided the weather doesn't wipe away all the blossoms. The nursery around the corner has slashed the prices on all the roses so there isn't much left, sad that. But I'll find something.

Detail Man · Oct 11, 2011

Detail Man said:
Detail Man wrote:
I've been using RAW Therapee 3.01 to work on some FZ28 RW2s and FZ50 RAWs.
Have started with a FZ28 RW2.

The user interface (in all respects including the crop and tone-curve tools, as well as the histogram display) is absolutely world-class, more complete and (I think) arguably better than than the user-interfaces of either LR-3.x, DxO-6.x, or SP-3.x. The processing-times necessary to preview the in-process image are impressively short, and the development-time seems pretty snappy as it goes.

And, bless their hearts, they have Lanczos re-sampling. Very nice for the Lanczos devotees ! ...

The Noise Reduction seems like one weak area. It looks like that needs to be farmed out to the LR-3.x Color/Luminance NR tools. RAW Therapee can call other editors while in process ...

The NR does fall short of LR 3.x NR. Some frustrating news. There seems to be something not quite right (perhaps) relating to the embedded thumbnail. RT 3.01 exports a 16-bit TIF that has a definite magenta hue to it (viewing with XnView 1.982. When I merely Copy and Paste the image file to make a working copy, the copy displays a thumbnail that is free from the magenta hue ?!?!?

Tried to import both the original 16-bit TIF as well as it's copy into Lightroom 3.5. LR 3.5 balks, says it "cannot read the preview", and (as well) will not import the image-files ...

Detail Man said:
Still "dinking around" with combinations of control-setting on the Richardson-Lucy deconvolution-deblurring gizmo. Not yet familiar enough with using it to judge it. I may prefer DxO Lens-Softness.

When kept at conservative settings, the R-L deconvolution-deblurring can do a bit - but is a bit disappointing (as compared to DxO's "Lens Softness" corrections). (Both) the RL DD as well as the USM sharpening-tool options have a way (at higher settings of the control-parameters) of generating a the same kind of "gritty" and ugly artifacts that are all too reminiscent of the foibles of Lightroom 3.x sharpening tools ... It (also) need some of that LR 3.x NR to "tame the artifact beast" ... but Lightroom will not preview/import the 16-bit TIFs ...

Detail Man said:
...Version 3.01 is known to be stable on PC systems.

It is stable, but clearly in need of some bug-fixing ...

I get the impression that all of the development time is now being spent on the "next generation" Version 4.x betas ...

Detail Man said:
There is (also) a 4.x beta that has already seen a significant amount of development, as well. It may (it sounds) be a bit more PC resource-hungry than the 3.x versions.

Look like I will have to move on to try the latest version 4.x beta for 32-bit Win OS. Am hoping that my 2 GB of RAM is enough for this (well-reputed, but said to be more resource-hungry) beast.

Here's a loss-less JPG of a cropped (and not re-sampled) FZ28 RW2 produced by RAW Therapee 3.01, without the NR that it really needs (to smooth out a bit of the "roughness" of the sharpened results more so than to reduce image-noise), mildly sharpened using Sagelight 3.1 USM:

Here's the download link for (Win 32-bit) RT 4.0.3.4:

http://rawtherapee.com/releases_head/windows/RawTherapee_WinXP_32_4.0.3.4.zip

Will report as to resource compatibility with 2 GB RAM, as well as any stability issues encountered.

Egret · Oct 11, 2011

Rawtherapee 4 does appear to be more resource hungry and for me definitely is improved with a 64 bit machine. Since I am using a 6 Gbyte machine, I am not sure how well it plays at 2 Gbyte. Seems reasonably stable on my machine both in the 32 bit and 64 bit versions. Much more stable for me than some of the earlier versions of Rawtherapee 3 which went bonkers at the least little thing like trying to load an image before it created all the rest of the thumbs.

ennemkay · Oct 11, 2011

definitely

Detail Man · Oct 12, 2011

Detail Man said:
Detail Man said:

Detail Man wrote:
...Version 3.01 is known to be stable on PC systems.

Click to expand...

Detail Man said:

It is stable, but clearly in need of some bug-fixing ...

Click to expand...

Detail Man said:
Detail Man said:

There is (also) a 4.x beta that has already seen a significant amount of development, as well. It may (it sounds) be a bit more PC resource-hungry than the 3.x versions.

Click to expand...

Detail Man said:
Detail Man said:

Look like I will have to move on to try the latest version 4.x beta for 32-bit Win OS. Am hoping that my 2 GB of RAM is enough for this (well-reputed, but said to be more resource-hungry) beast.

Click to expand...

Detail Man said:
Egret wrote:

Rawtherapee 4 does appear to be more resource hungry and for me definitely is improved with a 64 bit machine. Since I am using a 6 Gbyte machine, I am not sure how well it plays at 2 Gbyte.

Detail Man said:
Detail Man said:

Here's the download link for (Win 32-bit) RT 4.0.3.4:

Click to expand...

Detail Man said:
Detail Man said:

http://rawtherapee.com/releases_head/windows/RawTherapee_WinXP_32_4.0.3.4.zip

Click to expand...

Detail Man said:
Detail Man said:

Will report as to resource compatibility with 2 GB RAM, as well as any stability issues encountered.

Click to expand...

Installed RT 4.034 for Win 32-bit (XP Pro, Dual-core Intel 2 GHz, ASUS P5GC-MX/1333, 2 GB RAM).

I have a little over 1 GB of free RAM with a few other programs open. Running RT 4.034 pulls that down to around 1.0 GB. The previewing does proceed somewhat slower. When processing to save off a 16-bit TIF output image-file, the free RAM slowly droops down to around 500 MB. Not too bad. No crashes from running out of RAM.

Despite the amount of free RAM that remains, there is a roughly matching reduction in the disk-cache-space as well. When I multi-task, and after closing RT 4.034 then multi-tasking, there's lots of disk-activity (re-caching and paging) for a little while - so it does exact a chunk out of the system's usual relatively snappy state for a bit.

It's worth it, though. RT 4.034 appears to be stable on my system, has a number of new features and improvements, and I am finding some balance between the RL deconvolution-deblurring, the Chrominance/Luminance NR, and some mild post-USM applied (after any pixel-size re-sampling).

The weird thumbnail hue behavior seen in image-files made by RT 3.01 is gone - but Lightroom 3.5 continues to reject the 16-bit TIFs made by RAW Therapee (Version 4.034 as well as 3.01) !

(Semi-seriously), I would not at all put it past Adobe to have intentionally done something in Lightroom to "blacklist" RT output image-files. Adobe likely has little interest in "feathering the cap" of the RT developers who offer something high-quality, free , and non-invasive based on DCraw ...

For me, (with the exception of LR 3.x Color NR tool), RAW Therapee 4.x is a more powerful item with a better UI, choices of de-mosaicing algorithms and Lanczos re-sampling as an available options

Why merely endlessly dink around with the JPG-mode controls on a camera when one could (instead) be endlessly dinking around with RAW Therapee ? If you like to fiddle, it's not really harder in the end than dinking around with image-editors and plug-ins, and nothing could be more versatile and potentially effective.

There seems (to me) to be a lot to like about RAW Therapee 4.x - as well as some new and very interesting functionalities to familiarize with. I have found my item for my FZ50/FZ28 RAWs/RW2s !

For LX3 or LX5 RW2s, DxO Optics Pro 6.x with "Lens Softness" corrections remains the most acute

Here's a loss-less JPG of a cropped (and not re-sampled) FZ28 RW2 produced by RAW Therapee 4.034 (replacing the previously posted Version 3.01 effort), mildly sharpened using Sagelight 3.1 USM (Radius=0.70, Strength=100%) JPEGsnoop 1.52 reports 9.56 Bits/Pixel of JPG image-data:

Gary R. · Oct 12, 2011

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

The second half or your comment never did stand; clipped is clipped. I know some like to attach magical qualities to raw format, but it's just not there. It does nothing to increase the dynamic range of a sensor...the range between the completely dark or '0' level, and the top, or completely bright.

Open a new file in Photoshop, with white background, 16-bit. Now make a copy of it at 8-bit. You now have both an 8-bit and a 16-bit file with blown highlights...in fact the whole image is a blown highlight. Can you recover any detail from the 16-bit file? If raw can truly recover blown highlights, you should be able to, because raw is simply a higher bit version of the image data, unprocessed.

Certainly, if there is some detail in the higher few bits of your 256-bit-per-color jpg file, you can use the corresponding raw file to take that info in those few bits and increase the contrast (you can do that with the jpg file also, but with the raw you'll have more 'steps', or finer increments between the very-near-white and the absolute white.

But how much detail is in that very-near-white area, and how important is it? Make or break the photo? How many of your photos are overexposed to where that's an issue, and how does it weigh against the sacrifices in usability that most compact cameras have when using raw?

If the camera is on a tripod shooting a photo of a tree that's not going anywhere, or flowers or bushes, perhaps there are no sacrifices to using raw. But action shots, timing critical shots, shots requiring bursts or very quick recovery can certainly be completely lost; how does that weigh against the miniscule amount of possibly-irrrelevant detail in those couple of high-end bits?

Using the LX3-5 for example, many features are not available...say for example the multi-film mode which I find very convenient in assessing different processing possibilities. Sure, I can live without it, and I can, as I often do, convert the files later to assess the b/w potential, but it can be very convenient and save some time; how does that weigh against the idea that maybe I can use the extra increments in those few top bits for something if I blow the exposure?

The LX3/5 are pretty capable with raw and don't have huge sacrifices, but in other cases it's not so. One real-world example with my FZ50 are the shots in this series:
http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse/cg2007

Had I been a disciple of the current bent of this forum, and decided that I must use raw for the "best IQ", I would have gotten one photo of the approaching wave, and missed the rest of the sequence because of the shot-to-shot time. The sequence was published worldwide, and brought in thousands of dollars, and had I followed the current advice here, would have brought nothing, and I could have said "gee, thanks for the great advice".

So the idea that with these cameras, "raw is better and anyone serious must use raw" is shortsighted, or just plain wrong. For trees and flowers, fine, use what you want, but I'll enjoy the features my camera has to offer, and happily take the hit if and when I didn't switch to raw in some extreme situation where it might have been beneficial to do so.

Fanaticism abounds on this issue...just look at the length of this thread about something that's not really that important in the big picture...there are many more important things to concern oneself with in taking good photos, and it basically boils down to a personal preference, for which there is no "right" or "wrong". The only "wrong" is the amount of effort given here to convince others that it's of earth-shaking importance and all must acknowledge the superiority of raw, or it will be posted again and again until they give up. Sorry for the long post, but in comparison to the amount this same 'raw is best, admit it' stuff has been repeated, it's hardly anything.

Why use a compact camera to begin with, if it's of such importance; a DSLR will give far better highlight recovery, and actually DOES have better dynamic range.

--
Gary

Detail Man · Oct 12, 2011

Gary R. said:
Gary R. said:

Julio wrote:

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

Click to expand...

The second half or your comment never did stand; clipped is clipped. I know some like to attach magical qualities to raw format, but it's just not there. It does nothing to increase the dynamic range of a sensor...the range between the completely dark or '0' level, and the top, or completely bright.

It sounds like you are hoping for somebody to "spar with" other than yourself, Gary Roberthouse. Something tells me that Julio is too nice of a fellow to be obliged to endure your thunderous wrath. Perhaps I can oblige your burning desire for momentary satisfaction - but you will need to look elsewhere for ongoing therapy ... (After all), good "mental hygiene" truly starts at home ...

Gary R. said:
Open a new file in Photoshop, with white background, 16-bit. Now make a copy of it at 8-bit. You now have both an 8-bit and a 16-bit file with blown highlights...in fact the whole image is a blown highlight. Can you recover any detail from the 16-bit file? If raw can truly recover blown highlights, you should be able to, because raw is simply a higher bit version of the image data, unprocessed.

Rather than setting up a "straw man" that scares away the crows in your own backyard, consider (if you would dare) looking at a somewhat "bigger picture":

Gary R. said:
Gary R. said:

Gary R. said:

GaborSch wrote:

The JPEG data is mapped in the respective color space; that implies the nonlinear transformation as well ("gamma curve"). That includes the loss of lots of original pixel values. Even more: the applying the S-curve eliminates most of the original pixel values from the very highlights and shadows. The RGB values 253, 254, 255 (only three different levels) may replace dozens of the mapped values, which os hundreds of raw pixel values.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Gary R. said:
Gary R. said:

Gary R. said:

You can reduce the intensity ("exposure" in ACR) in the raw conversion, or use "Recovery" (in ACR) or some custom curve, in order to assign more output levels to the highlights. Suddenly details of the clouds appear in the formerly plain white sky or on bright cloths, etc.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Gary R. said:
Gary R. said:

Gary R. said:

- The late Gabor Schorr, photographer extraordinaire, and the developer of Rawnalyze .

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=33639042

Gary R. said:
If the camera is on a tripod shooting a photo of a tree that's not going anywhere, or flowers or bushes, perhaps there are no sacrifices to using raw. But action shots, timing critical shots, shots requiring bursts or very quick recovery can certainly be completely lost; how does that weigh against the miniscule amount of possibly-irrrelevant detail in those couple of high-end bits?

A fair point relating to older camera models that record in "raw" format (and a point that I have made myself on this very thread, in case you have actually read the posts). However, it seems that the speed at which "raw" image-files can be recorded in currently available camera models renders your (valid in relation to older camera models) arguments rather "moot and unripe" (as they say in Court when the judge summarily dismisses a frivolous claim). Gary ... "Get with the program" !!!

Gary R. said:
Using the LX3-5 for example, many features are not available...say for example the multi-film mode which I find very convenient in assessing different processing possibilities. Sure, I can live without it, and I can, as I often do, convert the files later to assess the b/w potential, but it can be very convenient and save some time; how does that weigh against the idea that maybe I can use the extra increments in those few top bits for something if I blow the exposure?

I don't think that anybody is trying to take away your favorite JPG-mode "woobies", Gary ...

Gary R. said:
The LX3/5 are pretty capable with raw and don't have huge sacrifices, but in other cases it's not so. One real-world example with my FZ50 are the shots in this series:

http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse/cg2007

Your point that the FZ50 (had it been in RAW recording mode) would have missed some shots due to the fact that it takes several seconds in order to write the recorded RAW image-file to the camera's memory-card) is a fair one (that I have yet to see any person attempt to dispute ... ...). For that matter, the LX3 and LX5 (after their 3-shot RW2-buffer fills) take a few seconds in order to accomplish the same thing ...

I like to use the (truly) continuous (Fine, 10 Mpixel) JPG burst-mode of the LX3 to go after the priceless moments too ephemeral to be captured in RW2 format by the LX3. Imagine that! ...

Gary R. said:
Had I been a disciple of the current bent of this forum, and decided that I must use raw for the "best IQ", ...

Now we come to the beginning of the "emotive" and "dismissive" sections of your "reduxive" rant (a "signature" element of your personal psycho-pathology).

Gary R. said:
... The sequence was published worldwide, and brought in thousands of dollars, and had I followed the current advice here, would have brought nothing, and I could have said "gee, thanks for the great advice".

How can us "mere mortals" who lurk on this forum, deathly afraid of your "sagely wrath" become someone as lofty and lucrative as you, Gary ? We try, but life here in Lilliput is just not the same as your charmed life on Mount Olympus, oh great one ...

Gary R. said:
So the idea that with these cameras, "raw is better and anyone serious must use raw" is shortsighted, or just plain wrong.

There you go again - assuming that you, your particular applications, preferences, and tastes somehow necessarily define what the great unwashed hoi polloi must certainly comport with, and what they must certainly want. Your propensity for desiring to be seen as a "populist leader" speaking on the behalf of some (on your part) perceived snide majority of "regular folks" is well known from your previous posts.

Detail Man · Oct 12, 2011

Celebrating the cheesy (and seemingly innumerable) compromises that "in-camera JPG engines" bring to the world seems a bit dubious to me. For instance, have you ever seen evidence of any "majority of regular folks" ever appear to agree on what particular "in-camera JPG engine" is "the best", and without various annoying flaws regarding "this, that, or the other" ?

Do you (or any others) particularly enjoy endlessly dinking-around with a limited set of in-camera JPG-mode user-controls in search of some (seemingly rather elusive) "JPG holy grail" ?

Do you ever dream of being freed from the shackles of hoity-toity JPG-mode "bells and whistles", and the constricting tyrannies of preset, canned RGB tone-curves that some camera manufacturer's chief marketing executive who had the power to push around mere design engineers "burned-in" to your camera's firmware ?

Do you tire of trying to post-process JPG shots that your "little wonder" (in it's "auto-brain" wisdom) has botched, over-exposed, smeared, and over-crispened ? It sounds (from your own writings) like you did in the case of the ZS3 ... And what is your new "JPG holy grail" these days ?

Why merely endlessly dink around with the JPG-mode controls on a camera when one could (instead) be endlessly (non-destructively, I might add) dinking around with RAW Processors ? If you like to fiddle, it's not really harder in the end than dinking around with image-editors and plug-ins (after the in-camera JPG engine has already done it's damage), and nothing could be more versatile and potentially effective ...

Arise from the fetters that you yourself have forged, "Joe Average", and dare to accede to the vision of free will and possibilities that await you in the "RAW-domain" ! ...

... End of sermon ...

Detail Man said:
... For trees and flowers, fine, use what you want, but I'll enjoy the features my camera has to offer, and happily take the hit if and when I didn't switch to raw in some extreme situation where it might have been beneficial to do so.

It always amazes me how you so quickly extrapolate from the content of your own personally preferred subject-matter (that's great, but "big deal" and "so what") to a simplistic definition of, and a subsequent vociferous argument for what the rest of the world must certainly comport with (if they are to be "normal like Gary").

The presence of high spatial-frequency (finely-detailed) subject-matter is not limited to floral/nature/landscape shots. Such subject-matter is also present in hair, fur, feathers, eyebrows, eyelashes, etc. The list is long (and actually a matter of some reasonable importance to some other people who were not born with your own set of eyes).

Why would that surprise (much less threaten) your own sense of self-legitimacy? Why do you see yourself as some sort of "caped-crusader for the common-man", arising curmudgeon-like out of the lurking depths of internet foruma to so angrily attempt to refute that which does not look, sound, smell, and taste like your own skin (under the bogus rubric of some kind of phony "populism") ?

Detail Man · Oct 12, 2011

In a rather similar go-round a while back, you posted a JPG of a boat moored at a dock, and loudly declared something to the effect of, "where is the lack of detail in this !". I searched throughout your image for the presence of any subject-matter that would be reasonably expected to contain much of any fine-details , and I found essentially none there ... yet (another) "straw man". Your methods for hypothesis and conclusion belie the limited world that you personally choose to inhabit. Why insist on shoving that (to some others, mere) myopia down other people's throats ?

Detail Man said:
Fanaticism abounds on this issue...

Heh, heh. Have you looked in a mirror lately ?

Detail Man said:
... just look at the length of this thread ...

It's quite indecent and disgusting, is it not ? A real affront to the "public morals", indeed ! ...

Detail Man said:
... about something that's not really that important in the big picture...

(That is) Gary Roberthouse's "big picture" ... maybe if you talk loud enough and long enough, the Lilliputians will (someday, someway) "be like Gary" ?

Detail Man said:
... there are many more important things to concern oneself with in taking good photos, and it basically boils down to a personal preference, for which there is no "right" or "wrong".

After all that "attitude" , you merely slump back into an objective view regarding perceptual subjectivity ... what is the point of reading your "sermons", anyway ? They are just your opinions .

Detail Man said:
... The only "wrong" is the amount of effort given here to convince others that it's of earth-shaking importance and all must acknowledge the superiority of raw, or it will be posted again and again until they give up.

Aren't we (you, that is) so much holier than others, now ? Gary - "champion of the common man"; "liberator of those less endowed upstairs". Gary, your tutelage is so essential. A seminal and stoic pillar in the history of JPG photography !!!

Detail Man said:
... Sorry for the long post,

I sent you an invoice today for "counseling services rendered". You should receive it within a few days. The terms are 1% interest, net-30 days. Cash only, please ...

Detail Man said:
... but in comparison to the amount this same 'raw is best, admit it' stuff has been repeated, it's hardly anything.

Snarl, harumph, bah humbug, grrrr ...

Detail Man said:
Why use a compact camera to begin with, if it's of such importance; a DSLR will give far better highlight recovery, and actually DOES have better dynamic range.

You have already tried that tact - in the hopes that I would "fly the coup" for dSLR forums, and leave you to (in your mind) benevolently rule the little fiefdom that you imagine in your mind ...

I have a suggestion for you. If you find yourself unable to avert your eyes from the published thoughts and ideas of others existing on a few threads among millions of other threads in a sea of (for the most part) uninformed and emotive blabber, why not hold your own personal self accountable for such obsessions, simply go out for a walk and some fresh air, and find some subject-matter suitably lacking in fine-details and tonal-range that your "lean, mean, JPG machine" will render to (what is merely) your own bold and foxy standards ? Please do not beat your dog !!!

John Miles · Oct 12, 2011

RAW serves no purpose for my photography at all. Image delivery is near on instantaneous so the camera processing has to achieve the desired results out of box.

It really doesn't matter how much better RAW is than a cameras processed image, if time is not on your side, you're stuffed.

--

The FZ50: DSLR handling of a bright Leica 35-420mm lens that's this good: http://www.flickr.com/groups/panasonicfz50/pool/ (slideshow always good). And now add the LX2: http://www.flickr.com/groups/lx2/pool/
[Tomorrows camera is better and smaller than todays]

Detail Man · Oct 12, 2011

John Miles said:
John Miles wrote:

RAW serves no purpose for my photography at all. Image delivery is near on instantaneous so the camera processing has to achieve the desired results out of box.

John Miles said:
It really doesn't matter how much better RAW is than a cameras processed image, if time is not on your side, you're stuffed.

True enough, John (especially in the case of our FZ50s) ! These (time-delay) limitations are (thankfully) becoming less relevant in the camera-model offerings of today ...

John Miles said:
John Miles said:

Detail Man wrote:

I like to use the (truly) continuous (Fine, 10 Mpixel) JPG burst-mode of the LX3 to go after the priceless moments too ephemeral to be captured in RW2 format by the LX3. Imagine that! ...

Click to expand...

Julio · Oct 13, 2011

Gary R. said:
The second half or your comment never did stand; clipped is clipped. I know some like to attach magical qualities to raw format, but it's just not there. It does nothing to increase the dynamic range of a sensor...the range between the completely dark or '0' level, and the top, or completely bright.

Without arguing semantics and the ultimate meaning of the word "clipped" in a photo context, I think most people reading my previous message would know what I meant

Either a jpeg or that "first look" any raw converter gives you are just a subset of the possible tones. The difference being that a raw file can be manipulated to output a radically different jpeg than the default one after the fact whereas you can't change your mind about the jpeg after the camera created it following your preset criteria. This is such an obvious difference that it's not even worth discussing.

Gary R. said:
Open a new file in Photoshop, with white background, 16-bit. Now make a copy of it at 8-bit. You now have both an 8-bit and a 16-bit file with blown highlights...in fact the whole image is a blown highlight. Can you recover any detail from the 16-bit file? If raw can truly recover blown highlights, you should be able to, because raw is simply a higher bit version of the image data, unprocessed.

It's not an 8-bit vs. 16-bit thing. It's a sub-set vs. whole set issue.

Gary R. said:
Certainly, if there is some detail in the higher few bits of your 256-bit-per-color jpg file, you can use the corresponding raw file to take that info in those few bits and increase the contrast (you can do that with the jpg file also, but with the raw you'll have more 'steps', or finer increments between the very-near-white and the absolute white.

You can do more than that. The ACR highlight recovery was first implemented in CS or CS 2, I forget which, and has been refined over the years. Channels don't all clip at the same time and what ACR tries to do with greater or lesser success is attempt to guess, based on the surrounding pixels, what the clipped channel would have contained had it not clipped. This is why sometimes the color of recovered highlights is a bit "off." But obviously, if all 3 channels clipped then you're stuck with pure white with no detail.

The bottom line is that if you have the uncanny knack for never ever overexposing a scene then yes, your jpeg highlights will be just as good but if you're like most of us and occasionally overexpose by up to 1EV portions of a scene you wish you hadn't, you can "underexpose" the raw conversion by that 1EV (more with some sensors) and get the same thing you would have gotten had you nailed it in the jpeg. That is the difference.

All the other tweaks can be done after this to either the perfectly exposed jpeg or the re-purposed RAW... actually, the raw in this example would still be subtly better since when you overexposed by 1 at the time of capture and then underexposed the conversion you in fact, maximized the signal to noise ratio... but ETTR (Expose to the right) is a different topic for a different time.

Gary R. said:
But how much detail is in that very-near-white area, and how important is it? Make or break the photo? How many of your photos are overexposed to where that's an issue, and how does it weigh against the sacrifices in usability that most compact cameras have when using raw?

OK you're reaching here

The "importance" of those highlights may or may not be real and is, obviously, situational... think clouds, wedding dresses, light blond hair etc. and sometimes (specular highlights, for example) you could care less. All beside the point.

I'm perfectly aware that there are many P&S cameras and even some cheap DSLRs that impose heavy usability handicaps when shooting RAW. There are even some cameras where RAW is not provided by the manufacturer but hacked firmware provides it (some Canon P&S with CHDK) for an even bigger performance hit. But these lesser implementations of RAW say something about the camera itself and nothing about RAW vs. jpeg IQ. Raw is just more situational with those cameras.

There' isn't a photojournalist alive who would argue that capturing a definitive moment badly is worse than not capturing it at all--in PJ you take what you can get and are happy about it...this is obvious for this type of shooting but once again, it says zilch about RAW vs. jpeg IQ.

Gary R. said:
So the idea that with these cameras, "raw is better and anyone serious must use raw" is shortsighted, or just plain wrong. For trees and flowers, fine, use what you want, but I'll enjoy the features my camera has to offer, and happily take the hit if and when I didn't switch to raw in some extreme situation where it might have been beneficial to do so.

RAW is undeniably better but I only hear you attributing the second "must" part to RAW shooters. We're not the ones who are defensive and evangelical because we know for a fact that raw is better. But like any other sane photographer, I would use whatever I need to use in a pinch to get the capture... no one is arguing that except you. What we are saying is that RAW is better than jpeg: know that and take it into consideration when deciding what you're going to do. This is the correct information. Anything else is biased and misleading.

Gary R. said:
Why use a compact camera to begin with, if it's of such importance; a DSLR will give far better highlight recovery, and actually DOES have better dynamic range.

Yes, and this is why the "raw vs. jpeg" arguments happened in the DSLR forums here several years ago... hate to break it to you but raw won

P&S cameras that provide RAW are beginning to do it for real now and not just as a marketting gimmick to make the camera seem more "pro." The FZ150, for example, shoots @ 5.5 fps with AF in RAW, jpeg or both at once. Not bad for a P&S.

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

Detail Man · Oct 13, 2011

Julio said:
Julio wrote.

Julio said:

Gary R. wrote:
... "[blah blah blah]" ...

Click to expand...

Julio said:
Julio wrote.

Well expressed, Julio. I like your easygoing and thoughtful style ! It is not so much about a few bits at the very top as it is about the tonal gradations over the entire range - and the ability to make choices as to how well the fine-details within that range will be rendered showing those gradations

Regards, DM ...

Gary R. · Oct 13, 2011

Julio, I don't disagree with much of what you're saying; had the thread been titled "raw is a better file format than jpg" I wouldn't have even read the thread, or replied (in fact the only reason I did reply was your original comparison of two raw processed files as proof of highlight recovery).

With that subject line, I'd have figured it for yet another thread for folks who like to endlessly discuss things that really don't matter all that much, but they enjoy the discussion and have lots of time to devote to them.

One could as well say DSLR's are better than ultrazooms or compacts. Which isn't true either, because it depends...just as the raw vs. jpg depends. Not in the same way as discussed in your DSLR forums, because nearly all of the cameras this forum applies to are significantly hampered by using raw. Shot to shot time is just one that I tried to show by my example. The best tool is the one that does the job you need, in a manner that is suitable for your (not the other guy's) needs. I don't shoot flowers or trees all that often, but when I do, I generally don't consider it, even then, to be worth the bother of switching the camera to raw. So certainly when I'm doing action or timing-critical shots, I'm not going to handicap my shooting by using raw. If you feel it's worth it, by all means, shoot raw exclusively...and if you want to attribute your successes to the fact you used raw, you certainly have that option.

With these recurrent threads repeating (again) the importance of raw, I think a certain number of people reading these forums for advice will be misled by the constant harping of 'highlight recovery' and other real or imagined benefits, use raw on their compact camera, and miss their best shots because they've been lead to believe it's really a big deal.

If image quality is all that really matters, or the desire for protection "just in case I blow the highlights" is really a prime consideration, you might as well use raw on your compacts...the sacrifices are outweighed by "IQ" promises. But there's a lot more to good photos than technical image quality", and anyone who imagines that file format is a prime consideration in producing good photos is (in my opinion) probably looking only at their own usage of their equipment, ignoring the fact that not everyone shoots stationary objects or thinks some tiny change in image quality or output is going to make or break their photos.

In fact, shot-to-shot time and burst speed are a form of "insurance", so in compact cameras one form of insurance is sacrificed for the alleged "highlight insurance" that you feel is so important. I'll take the multiple-shot insurance myself...a missed shot is not fixable by it being a raw missed shot.

I remember this discussion from pre-raw days, when cameras saved tiffs, and despite glaring limitations of usability, some insisted on using tiff because they were superior (which they are, as far as a file format). But when no one, time and again, could tell the difference between a tiff original and a jpg when printed or online, it pretty much says it all. It made the tiff shooters feel good to be using the superior format, that's about it...their photos weren't any better than anyone else's, and they probably missed a lot of shots waiting.
--
Gary

RAW is way More Better than JPG ...

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts