My RAW test.

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.
(snip)
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
Thanks, Gage. I appreciate the effort it took to do this testing. I don't have that kind of patience. Maybe I would if I wasn't spending so much time crawling under logs looking for cute little pink noses. But I'm the kind of guy who gets discouraged when I start thinking about all this technical stuff, so until RAW gets easier AND faster (and I can afford mega-memory), I'll probably stick to using SHQ.

But if it weren't for you guys doing this experimenting, I'd probably still be stuck in P mode!

--
Cheers,
markE
  • Oly E-20, LiPo, TCON300, TCON-14B, WCON, FL-40 Wacom Graphire II tablet, Epson PS 820
-Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/marke

 
Mike,

The question over raw vs jpg has been discussed many times over the past year and the answers that came out of most of the threads seemed to suggest raw was better - for a number of reasons. However, the downsides of using raw made the majority use jpgs and hence this forum has become more biased towards jpgs. I use the word 'more' because thats what it seems to me.

Now, are we all brainless idiots? No, I dont think so. But perhaps the crowd were led by an number of very opinionated guys who were on the side of jpgs. The work that Trent and Gage have done has helped a great deal in turning that jpg 'feeling' around and for that they deserve credit.

You attack Gage because of his quest for knowledge in how to do a comparison. You specifically reject his advice because he didn't know how to use option 2. When Bart showed us all how to use curves on option 2, I didn't know what I was doing but, boy, I picked it up very quickly. I agree with both Trent and Gage's findings as they are similar to the cruder testing I did in the early part of the year. I for one will now use option 2 raw more, but not exclusively as I find jpgs work when printed at A3 on my 2100 and for certain shots that is ok.

You are also very opinionated yourself. We hear you say Raw should be converted to Tiff. I dont do that. I import raw to ps and save it as a psd. It only gets converted to a tiff when I cannot us psd any more. Am I wrong? No. Are you wrong? No. Both methods are satisfactory.

You push Bibble as the gold solution. Over the past year, there have been threads every month on raw converters. Not one has come out with a summary that Bibble is the best for the Ex. It has been mentioned many times and maybe the odd person has praised it - but many did not. My recollection is that the commonest view is that the oly plug in is the best. I cannot comment on bibble because I have never used it. If it was the best, I am sure someone would be singing it's praises. Perhaps you should do a test to compare bibble with the ps plugin to convince us.

This site has not been as active and informative over the past few months as it was at the beginning of the year (maybe that's because most of the topics have been discussed 10 times) however.....these threads on jpg vs raw have been great for both the experienced and the inexperienced users. Shame it has to degenerate into slanging matches.

We can all learn from each other and I for one would like to hear more about the comparison of bibble with the plug-in. What are your experiences?
started roughly here:
snip

--
Dr Bob

Gallery: http://www.gm0eco.com
!!!Scottish Castles now in the Gallery!!!
 
We can all learn from each other and I for one would like to hear
more about the comparison of bibble with the plug-in. What are your
experiences?
Dr Bob
I have used on occasion over seven and have worked extensively with three different RAW conversion programs, and have settled on one program which gives me great results.

Please remember that this whole RAW controversy was ignited when I noticed a comment from gagefx praising SHQ JPEG and his announcing that " I think anyone that shoots as a hobby is crazy to shoot RAW " .... this is a direct quote from gagefx, one which I objected to and the rest is as they say history.

Now suddenly you and a couple of other people here are thanking him for his testing and on being the grandfather of RAW on this site, and wish to pick my pocket on RAW software conversion alternatives ???

Get your buddy gagefx to do it.

--
E10
http://www3.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=3757
 
Do you remember that debate?

No one ever won it. But a lot of photographers decided to use both - depending on the job in hand.
Of course, they had to go out and buy two seperate camera systems.
Hey, we have Raw and jpeg in the same camera.
Aren't we lucky?
cheers
--
Glenn
 
Speakly rawly, to complicate things a bit— SilverFast is about to release DC Pro software that opens and manipulates ORF files, and Adobe is about to release an optional PS 7 plug-in that opens many brands of raw, although I haven't heard if ORF is included. Sorry if you've already mentioned these things here.... I haven't been around in a long time...

Looking forward to seeing your results— I've always been interested in exploring RAW!

-r
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
--
http://www.richardpetersonphoto.com
 
I have used on occasion over seven and have worked extensively with
three different RAW conversion programs, and have settled on one
program which gives me great results.
But have you ever offered to share those results, and then compare them with others?
Please remember that this whole RAW controversy was ignited when I
noticed a comment from gagefx praising SHQ JPEG and his announcing
that " I think anyone that shoots as a hobby is crazy to shoot RAW
" .... this is a direct quote from gagefx, one which I objected to
and the rest is as they say history.
Hmmm...after seeing what you guys have to go through, I also "THINK" anybody that shoots as a hobby is crazy to shoot RAW. Now you can use a second direct quote.
Now suddenly you and a couple of other people here are thanking him
for his testing and on being the grandfather of RAW on this site,
and wish to pick my pocket on RAW software conversion alternatives
???
Yes, I'm thanking GageFX and Trent for their work AND posting their results. If you have some of your own, why weren't they ever posted?

--
Cheers,
markE
  • Oly E-20, LiPo, TCON300, TCON-14B, WCON, FL-40 Wacom Graphire II tablet, Epson PS 820
-Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/marke

 
Mike,

I come to this site for 3 reasons. 1 - to learn, 2- to pass my experience on to others, 3 - to have a laugh (now and again)

I do not think Gage and Trent are the Grandfathers of the RAW and JPG discussion. This was going on long before these threads. BartP and I certainly were looking at this a while back. What Gage and Trent have done is put some effort into solving a problem and shared their experiences. I thank them both for that. They are guys who have an opinion and take the trouble to help find the answer.

I will listen to anyone who has an opinion and can help me learn. I find it quite strange that you consider sharing info on this camera is 'picking your pocket'. Do you really mean that? Are you saying you wont share information? If this is true then perhaps this forum is not the place for you.

Please understand, I am not trying to bait you! I want to learn. You say bibble is best. Great. Lets hear why. Seems like you are the only one who knows this info and hence this has to be of real use to us. If it's not the best, then no problem but at least you have tried to help.

Life is too short to argue. This has been a great site for friends to meet. Sharing is everything. Lets get back to normality and see if we cant all move forward and learn.
and wish to pick my pocket on RAW software conversion alternatives
???

Get your buddy gagefx to do it.
--
Dr Bob

Gallery: http://www.gm0eco.com
!!!Scottish Castles now in the Gallery!!!
 
Mike,
I will listen to anyone who has an opinion and can help me learn. I
find it quite strange that you consider sharing info on this camera
is 'picking your pocket'. Do you really mean that? Are you saying
you wont share information? If this is true then perhaps this forum
is not the place for you.
I don't think that Mike isn't willing to share his knowledge. I think you're misinterpreting his indignation. The way I saw it, he was quite willing to share his experience with RAW conversion but was called an idiot and told to shut up because he hadn't owned his E-10 long enough or been a participant here for the required time. In other postings he's done, he's shared info but he's not well received now that he's "the bad guy". What I think is needed is a fresh start. Let's all take our Etch-a-Sketches, turn 'em over, shake 'em REALLY hard, and then start drawing new conclusions. :-)
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top