My RAW test.

The test is designed to show ME if RAW will work better than SHQ for ME for MY uses. This may help others, but it wasnt an all encompassing test for everyone's purposes.

MY USES: (That wasn't "yelling", RI, I'm using caps to signify a heading.)

80% of my work is printed at 8x10, 8x12 and 11x14. 8x10 and 8x12 are Fuji Frontier prints and 11x14 are Epson 1280 prints. I will eventually send 11x14s to the lab but I dont currently use one that prints digital 11x14 so I need to research it and I'm a bit lazy.

10% of my work ends up leaving me on CD to be printed by the client using various methods of various sizes.

5% of my work ends up for digital, onscreen use only.

5% is printed on Epson large formats at larger than 11x14.

MY SUBJECT:

Snapshots - for now. I will not waste client time performing a sterile studio test. It is too time consuming. I WILL do a studio test but it wont be until after New Years. I will only do it on a personal shoot and that should be the first week or two of the new year.

The snapshots used were no great photographic achievements. They were just that, snapshots, composed only to include details and not proper photographic composition. The subjects were chosen for their included colors and details. Wide, blank skies were included because noise lives in blank skies. Actually I give God credit for the blank skies - I didnt create them, I only shot them.

CAMERA SETTINGS:

I will get c-r-a-p for this, no matter. You do your tests, I'll do mine. Shots were taken in APPERTURE PRIORITY mode. I chose this mode because I often shoot in it outdoors. IN studio I only use MANUAL, but outdoors I often use A. I was also curious to see if RAW and SHQ handles exposure differently for some reason. Shouldn't, but I was curious to see. I had NO Exposure Compensation set although I usually shoot at -.3 to -.7 when in A or S. I wanted to see what the camera gave me ON IT'S OWN. SHQ had low and soft contrast and sharpness settings.

FILE PROCESSING:

RAWs were converted using the Olympus Photoshop plugin and processed with the second option, which is "RGB, WB, and Color Adjustment". My test is to see if RAW gives better FINAL results than SHQ, NOT which converter is better. No doubt my whole test is flawed because I didnt use Bibble.

Each file was given a minor levels adjustment and USM of 100% 1.5p/13th. All files were then saved as uncompressed TIFFs for output to Frontier. (PSD for Photoshop, TIFF when IT is needed. All things have their purpose. Fun, huh?)

I also saved the RAW as a TIFF DIRECTLY after conversion - with no alteration made. This will be used for other comaprisons, not print comparisons.

PRINTER SETTINGS:

Like I said, this test is for MY use so I used MY settings. I see too little difference between 2880 and 1440 so I printed at 1440.

I work in an sRGB colorspace which my monitor is calibrated for. I use no profiles for my Epson 1280, I just print the sRGB files as they are. Frontiers are an sRGB system and my files are printed exactly as are saved to CD - NO ALTERATIONS BY THE LAB. I want my bad eyes to make the mistakes, not the lab.

Inkjet prints have been made on my Epson 1280 at 1440dpi. 8x10.66, 210ppi. No interpolation. Printed on regular Epson Glossy Photo Paper. $19.99 for 100 sheets at Costco. Works for me.

(I accept that each Frontier is different but my results have been accurate enough to forego custom profiling.)

I will follow up with

THE IMAGES
and
THE RESULTS

I have my Inkjet results already. I took the files to be printed on the Frontier and they were, uh... how do we say... not prepared properly. I usually print everything as Level 12 Jpeg and I took TIFFs this time. Turns out the Frontier cant handle 16Bit TIFFs. Oops. The results were interesting, though. I will take them back tomorrow. I'll post my inkjet results tonight, though. (But Boomtown is on so it might be late.)

I prefer for comments to be made AFTER I post all phases of the test (this, images, then results) but do what you like. I'll have everything but the Frontier reults up tonight.

For those who care,

GageFX

(For those who dont, what are you doing int his thread?)

--

E-10, LiPo, FL-40, Stroboframe 120 QF, Lumiquest Softbox, Speedotron Force 10s, AlienBees, HP P1100, Epson 777, Epson 1280

Like I said, they're snapshots. I went to Disneyland yesterday and thought it would be a good place to get some non-run-of-the-mill subjects.

SHQ: 2240x1680 1:2.7 Jpeg, Low Contrast, Soft Sharpening
RAW: Oly ORF

All shots in A mode.

All shots in ESP, exposing for the whole scene. I did not zoom-expose.

(Example images have been saved at Level 8 Jpeg. I really wanted Level 12, but those files were over 800k each. Not good. Full size images are available. I will post those links in a final post.)

IMAGE ONE: Tom Sawyer's Island

M Mode (I thought I used all A, guess not.)
ISO 80
1/200 s
f 5.6



Images are shown RAW UNPROCESSED, RAW processed, then SHQ processed. "Unprocessed" are conversion only - no adjustments.





IMAGE TWO: Car Toon Spin

A Mode
ISO 80
1/125 s (Raw), 1/100 s (SHQ) (It metered differently fo the two)
f 5.6







IMAGE THREE: Club Buzz

A Mode
ISO 80
1/250 s
f 5.6







ONSCREEN CONCLUSIONS:

RAW are more vibrant right out of conversion. Even though they are dark, they are still more vibrant.

There is much more DEPTH to the RAW. The SHQs almost look 2 dimensional compared to the RAW.

The RAW contain MUCH more noise but the noise looks more "film-like" compared to the SHQs. The SHQ noise looks like NOISE, where the RAW noise loos like GRAIN.

SHQs almost look like HIGH contrast as opposed to LOW. I checked my settings and it was set to LOW. This is VERY strange. I dont generally have this problem. The RAW pulled ALOT out of the completely overcast sky and the SHQ processed it as a flat sky. This is a HUGE difference.

RAW processes in option 2 with a strange color cast sometimes. Although EASILY corrected I got red skies in two images. Definitely a conversion problem. Not serious enough to HAVE to try something else. I am always open to viable suggestions, though.

RAW wins hands down for on screen results.

There is no comaprison. RAW is the winner. It severly loses in work-flow, but the results are great.

RAW Pros: More vibrant colors, more dynamic range, more depth.

RAW Cons: Time consuming conversion, longer camera write times, uses more storage space.

GageFX

If we could afford 1GB CF card .)
RAW processed beats SHQ
--
http://www.pbase.com/jjg/galleries
http://www.sirucats.com/

Gagefx,

Another great comparison and seemingly a bit fairer in that all images seem to have been post processed to look their best. (well, fairer to me?)

I can actually see what appears to be much greater detail from the RAW most obviously in the lettering in the Buzz Lightyear crops, but most of the other difference appears to be due to metering differences? By that I mean it appears the camera meters differently for the two modes or that the difference is due to the in-camera processing. I'm left wondering whether the detail that seems blown out in the sky behind the "lamp post figure" from the Buzz Lightyear shots in the JPEG image is from slightly different metering between the two shots, whether the camera is acting differently(metering) in the different modes, whether in-camera processing or the JPEG algorithym is doing it(my guess), or whether it really is from the 10 bit vs. 8 bit difference... (dynamic range)

I'm SOOOOO confused. But, thanks, it's food for thought. Now, I guess it'll take exploration in a more highly controlled environment to tell?

You tug at one tiny little thread and things just start unraveling...

Will there be any difference apparent from the Frontier's output? Enquiring minds want to know... ;-)

Most importantly, does the difference warrant the extra storage space and write times required? Will they affect shooting flow? Arghhh, one little thread...

I just spent 45 minutes typing up the print results and the forum dumped the post. I'm irked.

This is the brief version.

Again, this test is for MY needs and I have already run dpi tests in the past. I print at 1440. I will as long as I use this printer, maybe not when I get my next printer.

Epson 1280
Media: Photo Paper
DPI: 1440
High Speed OFF

The RAW wins. The prints have more depth and range. By "depth", I mean the look DEEP. 3 dimensional. The SHQ prints look 2-D. The RAW color is more accurate. RAW noise does not show up at all. If it IS visable it is hiding as "film-grain".

Sorry this is so brief. I went into much greater detail before, but now in rewriting, it really wasnt necessary. The RAW is MUCH better than the SHQ inkjet prints.

I WISH it weren't so. It is. Grrrrrr.

Dont hate me Beth.

Frontier results will be posted tomorrow. I expect them to be the same.

GageFX

--

E-10, LiPo, FL-40, Stroboframe 120 QF, Lumiquest Softbox, Speedotron Force 10s, AlienBees, HP P1100, Epson 777, Epson 1280

Gerald, slap yourself for posting before I had all three posts up. It was a simple request. Ignored.

No matter.

Gerald M. Payne said:

Another great comparison and seemingly a bit fairer in that all
images seem to have been post processed to look their best. (well,
fairer to me?)

Click to expand...

I think Trent was just as objective. It just didnt SOUND like he was. I think.

Gerald M. Payne said:

I can actually see what appears to be much greater detail from the
RAW most obviously in the lettering in the Buzz Lightyear crops,
but most of the other difference appears to be due to metering
differences?

Click to expand...

I guess. I dont know.

Gerald M. Payne said:

By that I mean it appears the camera meters
differently for the two modes or that the difference is due to the
in-camera processing.

Click to expand...

Again, beats me.

Gerald M. Payne said:

I'm left wondering whether the detail that
seems blown out in the sky behind the "lamp post figure" from the
Buzz Lightyear shots in the JPEG image is from slightly different
metering between the two shots, whether the camera is acting
differently(metering) in the different modes, whether in-camera
processing or the JPEG algorithym is doing it(my guess), or whether
it really is from the 10 bit vs. 8 bit difference... (dynamic range)

Click to expand...

Did I mention I dont know?

Gerald M. Payne said:

I'm SOOOOO confused.

Click to expand...

SO AM I!

Gerald M. Payne said:

But, thanks, it's food for thought. Now, I
guess it'll take exploration in a more highly controlled
environment to tell?

Click to expand...

Studio shots are forthcoming. Just give me time.

Gerald M. Payne said:

You tug at one tiny little thread and things just start unraveling...

Will there be any difference apparent from the Frontier's output?
Enquiring minds want to know... ;-)

Click to expand...

I think the difference will be as strong as the inkjet difference. At least I hope. IF NOT, I will stick with SHQ as that is the source of 80% of my final prints.

Gerald M. Payne said:

Most importantly, does the difference warrant the extra storage
space and write times required?

Click to expand...

If the Frontier results are as dramatic, then YES. I am not happy about it and cant shoot a full work load until I get about 1G more of CF. That doesnt make me happy. It's kinda funny. The extreme quality of the E-10 RAWs might just make me switch to the 1Ds that much sooner. BUt then again, I'll need more CF anyway for the 1Ds so maybe this whole thing will SET BACK the 1Ds. I dont know. Argh.

Gerald M. Payne said:

Will they affect shooting flow?

Click to expand...

ABSOLUTELY. Trent is not dealing with a full CF card when he says his Jpegs take more time than RAW to process. The open INSTANTLY and the adjustments are quick and easy on a properly shot photo. Even slight errors are quickly corrected. RAW takes FOREVER to convert and the the levels are much less simple. Not HARD, just less simple. More thinking involved. More adjustments to make. Not HARD, just LONGER. Plus the inability to browse them in ACDSee. That alters a HUGE part of my workflow.

Oh wait, you said "SHOOTING" flow. Yeah. That too. I dont even want to think about that. Maybe the 1Ds WILL come sooner. NOW that darn "shots per minute" thread is going to haunt me.

Gerald M. Payne said:

Arghhh, one little thread...

Click to expand...

Oh no. It is MUCH more than that now.

GageFX

--

E-10, LiPo, FL-40, Stroboframe 120 QF, Lumiquest Softbox, Speedotron Force 10s, AlienBees, HP P1100, Epson 777, Epson 1280

He should be honest with the people reading this post and tell them that three days ago he did not have a strong grasp on RAW file conversion:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=3968751

And that even after receiving instructions, his understanding was a little …err … foggy at best. A quote from gagefx on using RAW software “ I seem to have discovered the same method as Bart. I've been using #2 and then bringing the middle up (down, over - whatever)”. Yes, whatever … very precise.

RAW file conversion is a little like working with negatives and prints in a lab … it takes some time and experience to achieve the best results. But that didn’t stop gagfx from presenting himself as a qualified “tester”.

Also RAW conversion software varies greatly and is critical to getting good results …. Bibble Labs is to RAW conversion what PhotoShop is to image editing … the gold standard by broad consensus. Just because gagefx had never heard of Bibble and did not use it doesn’t make it any less so.

So people should know that the understanding and experience in converting RAW files in this test is limited at best, and that the choice of software for this “test” was based on whatever gagefx could get his head around in a few hours.

--
E10
http://www3.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=3757

gagefx said:

ABSOLUTELY. Trent is not dealing with a full CF card when he says
his Jpegs take more time than RAW to process. The open INSTANTLY
and the adjustments are quick and easy on a properly shot photo.
Even slight errors are quickly corrected. RAW takes FOREVER to
convert and the the levels are much less simple. Not HARD, just
less simple. More thinking involved. More adjustments to make. Not
HARD, just LONGER. Plus the inability to browse them in ACDSee.
That alters a HUGE part of my workflow.

Click to expand...

I agree that RAW takes WAY too long to open. My biggest gripe about RAW.

As far as manipulating files go, I think it's what I'm used to. I've been using RAW for so long that when I open a RAW file I can do the curves and levels right off, I know what works. I don't use jpg so it takes me a long time to figure out what works.

Looking at the results of my test I understand why it takes me so long. The jpg files to my eyes look like they have a film over them. I spend most of my time trying to get rid of this. That is, it takes me longer playing with it to make the picture look the way I want it to look.

It takes about 30 seconds to open a RAW on my computer + 2 or 3 minutes (at most) to do levels and curves compared to instant open jpg (0 seconds) + 4 or 5 minutes of curves, levels, etc. to get it to look right.

I don't use ACDSee, but I do hate the fact that I can't browse RAW in PS. If I have a lot of files I keep Camedia open in the background so I can quickly see which file goes to which picture.

We did some things different, which is good. It gives a wider test. When you have time to do studio tests it will give us even more to go with.

You said you had some problems with colors after converting from RAW, such as red skies. I didn't have any problems with colors on my 2nd method shots. I wonder what the difference is. AFter converting my shots are, of course, very dark, so I just adjust with curves in RGB mode with a little tweaking in levels so the results aren't too contrasty. Since I spent some time playing with this (about 500 shots from Wyoming over a couple of weeks) I can almost do the adjustments in my sleep. Unfortunately I have to use my eyes so I can't write an action to automate it.

I use 1440 on my printer 90.45% of the time, lower 9.45% of the time (test prints) and 2880 0.1%, if that. I do see the difference, not in the detail (even 720 gets most of the detail) but in dynamic range - the darks seem a little darker and more detail is pulled out of underexposed areas.

I go back and forth with colorspace. Everyone has their opinions. I did some tests with RAW conversions and liked going straight to Adobe the best, but I may want to do another series of test. Later. After Christmas.

Anyway, so far you seem to be getting similar results to what I was seeing.

Mike, I'm sure Gage will have an answer of his own or maybe he won't bother. I think you're being overly critical. The first two lines of the first post reads:

"The test is designed to show ME if RAW will work better than SHQ for ME for MY uses. This may help others, but it wasnt an all encompassing test for everyone's purposes."

I think that's being honest enough for everyone to take what they want and leave the rest.

Regards, Maxven

RI (mike mahoney) said:

He should be honest with the people reading this post and tell them
that three days ago he did not have a strong grasp on RAW file
conversion:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=3968751

And that even after receiving instructions, his understanding was a
little …err … foggy at best. A quote from gagefx on
using RAW software “ I seem to have discovered the same
method as Bart. I've been using #2 and then bringing the middle up
(down, over - whatever)”. Yes, whatever … very precise.

RAW file conversion is a little like working with negatives and
prints in a lab … it takes some time and experience to
achieve the best results. But that didn’t stop gagfx from
presenting himself as a qualified “tester”.

Also RAW conversion software varies greatly and is critical to
getting good results …. Bibble Labs is to RAW conversion what
PhotoShop is to image editing … the gold standard by broad
consensus. Just because gagefx had never heard of Bibble and did
not use it doesn’t make it any less so.

So people should know that the understanding and experience in
converting RAW files in this test is limited at best, and that the
choice of software for this “test” was based on
whatever gagefx could get his head around in a few hours.

--
E10
http://www3.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=3757

Click to expand...

Maxven said:

Mike, I'm sure Gage will have an answer of his own or maybe he
won't bother. I think you're being overly critical. The first two
lines of the first post reads:
"The test is designed to show ME if RAW will work better than SHQ
for ME for MY uses. This may help others, but it wasnt an all
encompassing test for everyone's purposes."
I think that's being honest enough for everyone to take what they
want and leave the rest.

Regards, Maxven

Click to expand...

that is true, but by posting his results for all to see I felt that inadequacies in the tester and test methods should be made known. a quick review of his recent posts will reveal an inexperience in RAW conversion.

--
E10
http://www3.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=3757

gagefx said:

Like I said, they're snapshots. I went to Disneyland yesterday and
thought it would be a good place to get some non-run-of-the-mill
subjects.

SHQ: 2240x1680 1:2.7 Jpeg, Low Contrast, Soft Sharpening
RAW: Oly ORF

All shots in A mode.

All shots in ESP, exposing for the whole scene. I did not zoom-expose.

(Example images have been saved at Level 8 Jpeg. I really wanted
Level 12, but those files were over 800k each. Not good. Full size
images are available. I will post those links in a final post.)

IMAGE ONE: Tom Sawyer's Island

M Mode (I thought I used all A, guess not.)
ISO 80
1/200 s
f 5.6



Images are shown RAW UNPROCESSED, RAW processed, then SHQ
processed. "Unprocessed" are conversion only - no adjustments.





IMAGE TWO: Car Toon Spin

A Mode
ISO 80
1/125 s (Raw), 1/100 s (SHQ) (It metered differently fo the two)
f 5.6







IMAGE THREE: Club Buzz

A Mode
ISO 80
1/250 s
f 5.6







ONSCREEN CONCLUSIONS:

RAW are more vibrant right out of conversion. Even though they are
dark, they are still more vibrant.

There is much more DEPTH to the RAW. The SHQs almost look 2
dimensional compared to the RAW.

The RAW contain MUCH more noise but the noise looks more
"film-like" compared to the SHQs. The SHQ noise looks like NOISE,
where the RAW noise loos like GRAIN.

SHQs almost look like HIGH contrast as opposed to LOW. I checked my
settings and it was set to LOW. This is VERY strange. I dont
generally have this problem. The RAW pulled ALOT out of the
completely overcast sky and the SHQ processed it as a flat sky.
This is a HUGE difference.

RAW processes in option 2 with a strange color cast sometimes.
Although EASILY corrected I got red skies in two images. Definitely
a conversion problem. Not serious enough to HAVE to try something
else. I am always open to viable suggestions, though.

RAW wins hands down for on screen results.

There is no comaprison. RAW is the winner. It severly loses in
work-flow, but the results are great.

RAW Pros: More vibrant colors, more dynamic range, more depth.

RAW Cons: Time consuming conversion, longer camera write times,
uses more storage space.

GageFX

Click to expand...

Dear GageFX: My question is this: Are you a working professional photographer? If you are, these are followups: Are you such a jerk when dealing with clients? If you are, how do you make any money? "If you are a pro your integrity should not allow you to take "snapshots." (That is a quote from the late, great Galen Rowell.) I've read your posts here and you seem egotistical, belligerent and posessessed of diahrrea of the typing finger. Give those of us who are serious about our photography a break and keep your sophomoric comments to yourself. Dave

... heck did you find so offensive about this thread that you should post such unpleasant, offensive putrid meanderings as yours here?

If you have something worthwhile to contribute to RAW v SHQ then post it, if not then kindly keep out of this thread and STFU.

Jim

BTW learn to clip the threads rather than repost everything, darned newbie...

Dave Adams said:

gagefx said:

Like I said, they're snapshots. I went to Disneyland yesterday and
thought it would be a good place to get some non-run-of-the-mill
subjects.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--- SNIP! ---

Dave Adams99177 said:

Dave Adams99177 said:

GageFX

Click to expand...

Dear GageFX: My question is this: Are you a working professional
photographer? If you are, these are followups: Are you such a jerk
when dealing with clients? If you are, how do you make any money?
"If you are a pro your integrity should not allow you to take
"snapshots." (That is a quote from the late, great Galen Rowell.)
I've read your posts here and you seem egotistical, belligerent and
posessessed of diahrrea of the typing finger. Give those of us who
are serious about our photography a break and keep your sophomoric
comments to yourself. Dave

Click to expand...

... the preamble that Gage posted was more than enough to let everyone know what the situation is Mike, I for one don't need your 'nag' to remind me. Most people around here can read as far as I can see... some read more than is actually there

What do you want the guy to do, post a disclaimer or a health warning?

Jim

RI (mike mahoney) said:

Maxven said:

Mike, I'm sure Gage will have an answer of his own or maybe he
won't bother. I think you're being overly critical. The first two
lines of the first post reads:
"The test is designed to show ME if RAW will work better than SHQ
for ME for MY uses. This may help others, but it wasnt an all
encompassing test for everyone's purposes."
I think that's being honest enough for everyone to take what they
want and leave the rest.

Regards, Maxven

Click to expand...

that is true, but by posting his results for all to see I felt that
inadequacies in the tester and test methods should be made known. a
quick review of his recent posts will reveal an inexperience in RAW
conversion.

--
E10
http://www3.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=3757

Click to expand...

TrentMcD said:

TrentMcD said:

Trent is not dealing with a full CF card when he says...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Seems like you understand, but I just want to be clear that I was joking when I said this.

GageFX

--

E-10, LiPo, FL-40, Stroboframe 120 QF, Lumiquest Softbox, Speedotron Force 10s, AlienBees, HP P1100, Epson 777, Epson 1280

A few weeks ago you said something about having a hard time saying anything here without getting somebody mad at you. Don't worry, it didn't happen here. If I had taken it seriously I would have gotten irrational like I did with Zephalephelah earlier this week.

gagefx said:

Rembvrijn said:

Rembvrijn said:

Trent is not dealing with a full CF card when he says...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Seems like you understand, but I just want to be clear that I was
joking when I said this.

GageFX

--
E-10, LiPo, FL-40, Stroboframe 120 QF, Lumiquest Softbox,
Speedotron Force 10s, AlienBees, HP P1100, Epson 777, Epson 1280

Click to expand...

hey RI, please stop wasting our time with posts like this. Most of us are here to learn from our fellow E-10 users (PRO or NOT), so we appreciate ANYONE who takes the time to post information that could be of use.

Stop trying to pick fights and act like an adult, I'm sure people here would love to hear about your talents in converting from RAW so lets stick to that.

John Whitaker

I find all of this quite depressing. What I've considered very good quality is now being referred to as only 2 dimensional, bereft of color depth and noisy.

My very limited experience with RAW convinced me that there was a difference but not worth the painfully slow write times and cumbersome as well as slow conversions.

Where's Jaja when one really needs him? (shooting RAW with a very expensive camera I suspect).

I planned on revisiting the RAW issue when Adobe came up with a plug-in. Till then, I'll just continue to take pictures that perhaps aren't all that they could be. After all, I do this for my own pleasure....and so far I'm pleased.

gagefx said:

Gerald, slap yourself for posting before I had all three posts up.
It was a simple request. Ignored.

Click to expand...

OUCH! Now, do you feel better? Gads, man, in this day and age you thought we'd wait a whole day for you to add the Frontiers? Ah hell, you're right, my bad.

Rembvrijn said:

Rembvrijn said:

Another great comparison and seemingly a bit fairer in that all
images seem to have been post processed to look their best. (well,
fairer to me?)

Click to expand...

I think Trent was just as objective. It just didnt SOUND like he
was. I think.

Click to expand...

I think his evaluation method(his wife) was very objective concerning resource allocation(nobody else was home? ). However, I think if you're going to tweak one method you need to tweak ALL methods that are being presented unless you have a specific reason not to tweak... Ultimately, the question for me at least is which way works best with the least intervention. If quality is the sole concern, digital alone may still be a stumbling block. For only an incremental increase in quality I question the advantage if it represents a major increase in effort or presents an issue where one may miss a better shot due to not having enough media, etc.(obviously a solution exists for that one too...)

Rembvrijn said:

Rembvrijn said:

But, thanks, it's food for thought. Now, I
guess it'll take exploration in a more highly controlled
environment to tell?

Click to expand...

Studio shots are forthcoming. Just give me time.

Click to expand...

Take all the time you want, I'm just getting enthusiastic over something I had completely ruled out as waaaaay too much bother, perhaps without testing enough. MY BAD, AGAIN. It's good to occasionally have things you no longer question turned upside down. If I get overly concerned I'll just clear off some benchtop, set up a mini studio for a controlled test and see for myself. What really surprised me was the detail that seemed apparent in that lettering from the RAW shot that was apparently fuzzed up by either JPEG compression or in-camera processing.

Rembvrijn said:

Rembvrijn said:

You tug at one tiny little thread and things just start unraveling...

Will there be any difference apparent from the Frontier's output?
Enquiring minds want to know... ;-)

Click to expand...

I think the difference will be as strong as the inkjet difference.
At least I hope. IF NOT, I will stick with SHQ as that is the
source of 80% of my final prints.

Click to expand...

It's going to be interesting.

Rembvrijn said:

Rembvrijn said:

Most importantly, does the difference warrant the extra storage
space and write times required?

Click to expand...

If the Frontier results are as dramatic, then YES. I am not happy
about it and cant shoot a full work load until I get about 1G more
of CF. That doesnt make me happy. It's kinda funny. The extreme
quality of the E-10 RAWs might just make me switch to the 1Ds that
much sooner. BUt then again, I'll need more CF anyway for the 1Ds
so maybe this whole thing will SET BACK the 1Ds. I dont know. Argh.

Click to expand...

Round and round the puppy dog chased it's tail... Life is a beach, then you drown. If I may be so stupid as to attempt to interject a teensy bit of logic here, if YOUR CLIENTS are happy for now, at least you need not RUSH into either. Take your time and see what happens. The only guys that loose in the quality wars are the ones who jump too quickly, by that I mean before they NEED to. I don't SELL anything I do, but I do indirectly in that I use it for my own advertising. I'd sort of love to just go buy a full frame 14MP Kodak and glass and say the heck with it for a while, but early adopters usually get the shaftola one way or another. As long as your work is good enough for the clientele, you have no need to hurry onward, unless you think you can move to more upscale clientele or bring in more cash with a better quality output. Obviously, I'm putting aside artistic merit, etc. and looking at this from a financial standpoint.

Rembvrijn said:

Rembvrijn said:

Will they affect shooting flow?

Click to expand...

ABSOLUTELY. Trent is not dealing with a full CF card when he says
his Jpegs take more time than RAW to process. The open INSTANTLY
and the adjustments are quick and easy on a properly shot photo.
Even slight errors are quickly corrected. RAW takes FOREVER to
convert and the the levels are much less simple. Not HARD, just
less simple. More thinking involved. More adjustments to make. Not
HARD, just LONGER. Plus the inability to browse them in ACDSee.
That alters a HUGE part of my workflow.

Click to expand...

Yeah, if I'm not kicking myself for not cropping properly when I took the shot, jpgs are quick to adjust. I find I spend more time puddling for the shots I print because I enjoy the puddling, not because it's necessary.

Rembvrijn said:

Oh wait, you said "SHOOTING" flow. Yeah. That too. I dont even want
to think about that. Maybe the 1Ds WILL come sooner. NOW that darn
"shots per minute" thread is going to haunt me.

Click to expand...

I think that will be the biggest bugaboo for many in switching to RAW, well that and the processing time requirement if you're doing a bunch of shots.

Man's continual discovery of his dissatisfaction with things is probably the only thing that gets him out of the cave in the morning... ('course bein' nagged and/or lookin' for breakfast could have sumpin' to do wit it.)

Off to read what the rest wrote.

started roughly here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=3970721

read his ensuing replys and you can see why I hold him in less than high regard ... from his two page "slapdowns" to his poorly grounded opinions on many subjects, his value is more in humor than information.

As to his test, this is like someone running into the Goodyear store and screaming that round tires are better than square ones …. they already know it, have for some time.

Step #1 in all digital image processing workflows that have highest quality as an objective start with a RAW to 16 bit TIFF conversion … there are numerous sources infinitely more qualified and precise than gagefx describing many high quality workflows and they all start with this basic RAW to TIFF conversion.

Properly converted RAW files have more dynamic range, color depth and fidelity, sharpness and presence than JPEG files, and this is COMMON KNOWLEDGE.

Why someone would decide to advertise and complete an “test” to prove what is already very well known is to what point ??? If it's just for him as he states, why publish the results ??

And this "test" comes just hours after he says:

" I think anyone that shoots as a hobby is crazy to shoot RAW or especially TIFF ". or " I have no good reason, just that I hate TIFF. It's an emotional thing ". or "TIFFs never make it onto my hard drive. A single TIFF made it onto my computer once. All the PSDs and JPGs kicked the cr@p out of it. TIFFs know better than to come around here".

And his above quotes are in response to people, often newcomers, asking sincere questions in an attempt to obtain accurate information. Most forums have an objective of informing and educating, how do the above quotes further this ??

But John you are of course right in that my type of post here is a waste of bandwidth, and I'm normally one to avoid these type of personality issues, so I will not waste anymore of my or this forums' time with gagefx issues.

John Whitaker said:

hey RI, please stop wasting our time with posts like this. Most of
us are here to learn from our fellow E-10 users (PRO or NOT), so we
appreciate ANYONE who takes the time to post information that could
be of use.

Stop trying to pick fights and act like an adult, I'm sure people
here would love to hear about your talents in converting from RAW
so lets stick to that.

John Whitaker

Click to expand...

--
E10
http://www3.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=3757