The aptly named Mr. Bottomsworth gets the snark of the thread award!
-Framus
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Who needs Photoshop & RAW when you've got an X Pro 1!
- Thread starter Fenwoodian
- Start date
-
- Tags
- canon eos 5d nikon d300
-Framus
So, let me get this straight: first you say "who needs RAW?", while you state that you, under a very narrow set of circumstances, are happy with ooc-JPEGs. Then, you say that you haven't actually done any XP1 RAW processing and that you don't know what the result would be. Then you say you "hope" (perhaps even expect?) that RAW processing will yield better results. So, are you still asking "Who needs RAW"?
Finally, it all boils down to your saying that the XP1 ooc-JPEGs are better than you expected compared to those from some completely different cameras when printed on a particular printer.
If you had from the beginning posted only your last statement, which seems to be the important one here, one could have taken this as a "this is my experience" piece, for whatever it is worth. As it stands now, you (inadvertently) started a 'stuff'-flinging contest.
Gotta be careful these days
Rupert Bottomsworth
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 272
- Reaction score
- 1,589
:-D
JonB1975
Forum Enthusiast
I never said I was "anti-raw" - I said it's horses for courses. When I need to batch process, colour correct and print 4,000 photos from 9 photographers in one evening to have them ready for display the following morning (in an industry with strict controls on how many hours are worked) - I'll take JPEGs over raws any time. And the image quality is more than good enough, in fact too good really which is why all the photos are batch-processed through Imagenomic.
There's also the issue of hard-drive space. Off-site or Cloud storage is not an option on cruise ships, so storage is an issue as photos do need archiving for some time (weddings especially - which are shot raw+JPEG).
I also only mentioned not using raws (other than insurance) from my X100 - as the in camera processing is excellent. To the point where I'll probably only shoot raw through my Canon DSLRs so I can process them to match my X100 as much as possible when shooting for a job (who wants to hear a 1Ds camera shutter in the middle of their marriage vows?).
As for the word "raw" - that's it, it's just a word, not an acronym - so why capitalise it?
There's also the issue of hard-drive space. Off-site or Cloud storage is not an option on cruise ships, so storage is an issue as photos do need archiving for some time (weddings especially - which are shot raw+JPEG).
I also only mentioned not using raws (other than insurance) from my X100 - as the in camera processing is excellent. To the point where I'll probably only shoot raw through my Canon DSLRs so I can process them to match my X100 as much as possible when shooting for a job (who wants to hear a 1Ds camera shutter in the middle of their marriage vows?).
As for the word "raw" - that's it, it's just a word, not an acronym - so why capitalise it?
Kung Pao Panda
Veteran Member
Just curious then why Canon refers to the file types as:
Loading…
cpn.canon-europe.com
The reason I ask is it is definitely not an acronym. So what is it?
Regards.
MrFlash
Leading Member
I ALWAYS shoot RAW with my Canon or Nikon cameras. I have to. The processed RAW files are just WAY better than the OOC Jpegs.
Not so with the XP1. Sometimes, no matter how much I work on a RAW file, I can't improve on or even match the quality of the OOC Jpeg.
But there are still times when the OOC Jpeg could be better if I processed the RAW file. (Needed improvements in Color, Exposure, DR, HDR bracketing, etc.)
It has been suggested (and I completely agree) that the very best RAW converter available for XP1 files is built into the camera. The in-camera RAW processing is fantastic. With none of the drawbacks or shortcomings of Silkypix or Adobe.
So, I shoot Jpeg+RAW. I download the images into separate RAW/Jpeg files. I sort the Jpegs as always. During the sorting process I determine which files could benefit from RAW processing. I erase the images off the card and copy the identified RAW files back onto the card. I process these files in-camera and then copy the 'developed' Jpegs back on the computer.
This may sound convoluted, but it's really very quick and easy. If, after a day's shooting and sorting, I end up with say 70 'keepers', probably only 6~8 files will be identified as needing RAW processing. I can put those RAW files back into the camera and process them in just a matter of a couple of minutes.
This workflow is quick, easy and I believe gives me the 'best of both worlds'.
Not so with the XP1. Sometimes, no matter how much I work on a RAW file, I can't improve on or even match the quality of the OOC Jpeg.
But there are still times when the OOC Jpeg could be better if I processed the RAW file. (Needed improvements in Color, Exposure, DR, HDR bracketing, etc.)
It has been suggested (and I completely agree) that the very best RAW converter available for XP1 files is built into the camera. The in-camera RAW processing is fantastic. With none of the drawbacks or shortcomings of Silkypix or Adobe.
So, I shoot Jpeg+RAW. I download the images into separate RAW/Jpeg files. I sort the Jpegs as always. During the sorting process I determine which files could benefit from RAW processing. I erase the images off the card and copy the identified RAW files back onto the card. I process these files in-camera and then copy the 'developed' Jpegs back on the computer.
This may sound convoluted, but it's really very quick and easy. If, after a day's shooting and sorting, I end up with say 70 'keepers', probably only 6~8 files will be identified as needing RAW processing. I can put those RAW files back into the camera and process them in just a matter of a couple of minutes.
This workflow is quick, easy and I believe gives me the 'best of both worlds'.
Photozopia
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,209
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 431
RAW is RAW simply to differentiate it from raw ... as in pure raw data.
Despite Canon's hyperbole, a RAW file is not raw, untouched, data (or why else RAW, sRAW & mRAW variants). All RAW files undergo some form of raw data (hardware) processing in camera - or the format would be identical from manufacturer to manufacturer - which is clearly not so.
RAW, as a term, made some sense in the early days of digital when few users understood the gulf between raw capture, processed RAW and other converted image formats. Now ... when it's use is often mistakenly used to refer to any untouched, un-processed, data - it simply confuses the issue.
Far too many DPR users falsely consider RAW to be a form of wholly untouched raw data - hence the many ongoing RAW v JPEG debates within it's threads.
Note - Canon itself refers to RAW as a 'compressed' format - it is simply not possible to access the original, unprocessed, sensor capture data.
I'm all in favour of RAW capitalised ... more to differentiate arguments between it and any instances when only use of any true, raw, data is discussed!
Last edited:
Kung Pao Panda
Veteran Member
What 'claryfying'??
1. Canon does not claim a RAW file contains untouched data
2. No RAW shooter I know of assumes RAW files contain 'wholly untouched' and 'un-processed' data, and it's never really referred to as 'wholly untouched' in discussions about RAW vs. JPEG. Everyone is aware that sensor signals have to be 'processed' and converted into numbers, but the resulting data are otherwise un-processed, in terms of important photographic parameters (white balance, color space, etc.).
3. I have yet to see Canon refer to RAW as 'compressed'; even if it was (e.g., in its other RAW flavors), the important distinction is lossless compression vs. lossy compression. As long as it's lossless, it fulfills one of the key criteria of 'RAW'.
All red herrings
For me it is important to see pictures of a person who is telling something new, in this case something that I hear first time in my life. So far I have understod there is no camera that make picture ready, every picture needs afterwork. I have experiences from Canon 5D, 5DMark2, Canon 60D and Sony Nex 7.
Now you tell us pics almost ready from camera, it is intresting and hard to believe, so if I can see what kind of pictures you do and how looks a picture of a print, should give much better idea about what you are saying. Everybody here understand picture of a print is not as good as print in reality. Picture od a print helps us to see and understand, maybe you are right, just show it to us. Or if you let us see your pics in digital form, also gives us an idea how good are Fuji pics without hard work in PS. This intrests me, because I am very intrested of X - E1.
There are some of my pics in my challence and gallery in Dpreview, hope that give you little idea om my photography.
How does this sound for you. Jouni
Now you tell us pics almost ready from camera, it is intresting and hard to believe, so if I can see what kind of pictures you do and how looks a picture of a print, should give much better idea about what you are saying. Everybody here understand picture of a print is not as good as print in reality. Picture od a print helps us to see and understand, maybe you are right, just show it to us. Or if you let us see your pics in digital form, also gives us an idea how good are Fuji pics without hard work in PS. This intrests me, because I am very intrested of X - E1.
There are some of my pics in my challence and gallery in Dpreview, hope that give you little idea om my photography.
How does this sound for you. Jouni
For your kind of photography Fuji Jpeg Engine would prove more than enough and certainly give less distortion than seen in your images. I realise some of the images have HD look. You can just add that to OOC in silkypix and have the images ready for Dpreview challenges.
Photozopia
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,209
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 431
No - but plenty of RAW afficianados on DPR do.
Do you read any of the DPR threads? The ones where all the RAW jockeys continually call JPEG 'processed' and RAW untouched.
If 'unprocessed' images ... how are they visible to users at all?
You can see the matrix Neo ...?
RAW files are processed data just like JPEG - the camera algorithms, based on user settings, simply give a 'best estimate' starting image for you to play with. You already told the camera which ISO, shutter speed, aperture, etc. and specified other parameters like colour temperature, sharpness levels etc. (Or do you think your camera's menu settings are unrelated to any sensor output?)
Try a box of paints and some brushes - an example of a true unprocessed image data paradigm ...
Err. If no RAW images are compressed why is the Canon URL entitled:
Loading…
cpn.canon-europe.com
The only red herrings is in claims of 'mystical' powers for RAW - and claims it is raw unprocessed data. Even your own reply here calls RAW unprocessed data.
The guy simply asked why RAW is RAW - not raw - and thanked me for my clarification. Unlike yourself, and others, who seem to want to further obfuscate the issue by rambling on about the RAW v JPEG debate rather than answer the query.
RAW simply allows access to a few extra image parameters - but it's not some secret voodoo file that requires specialist skills. Like the menu slider bars on my TV or monitor screens - **** around with them until they suit your personal taste .... yeah, doing your own PP ... that's really sticking it to the corporate suits - consumers 1, the 'man' and his corporate imposed parameters, nil.
AD 2000-2004 ... 2008 for some manufacturers - RAW PP probably had some relevance - modern processing engines/algorithms make most PP unnecessary ... certainly if you use Fuji X cameras.
Like the OP said - the issue asked is: Who needs Photoshop & RAW when you've got an X Pro 1!
Last edited:
So, your assertion that Canon did claim that was wrong, and you admitted it. Accepted.
See below.
They are 'visible' because the RAW files contain a (JPEG) preview to have something to show on the camera's LCD. Some external software may create such a preview on the fly to provide a starting point for further image processing.
Read out sensor data as captured -> RAW ('negative', not visible) -> add/adjust camera settings -> JPEG/TIFF/etc. ('positive', visible and printable)
The RAW data are not processed the way you describe. The RAW data are not 'visible'. They are 'negative'. To make them visible, one has to combine the RAW data with what you mentioned (ISO, shutter speed, aperture, etc, and specified other parameters like colour temperature, sharpness levels etc.), which then gives a visible ('positive') image - one possible image. If you change the white balance etc. you end up with a different image, just as valid, because the underlying RW data are agnostic of white balance, color space, etc.
(BTW, I think most cameras take ISO into account when generating the RAW data as ISO essentially is sensor gain and thus reflects the readout directly.)
Where precisely do they say that in that text?
As I said, if you cared to read my reply carefully, 'unprocessed' regarding certain photographic parameters (as I have now again repeated just a little bit up in this post).
The 'guy' thanked you, because either he is sarcastic, or he believed what you wrote and is polite.
So why then does the camera give you the option of creating several, quite different, JPEGs from one underlying RAW file? Are they all perfect renditions of the captured data? What if I am not happy with Velvia or Provia, or the Fuji noise reduction but would want one of the 100 other film emulations? Does that give you the impression that Fuji found the holy grail of RAW processing? Fuji might have managed to provide results out of the camera that please more users than ever before, but they can't satisfy everyone. In addition, even the Fuji engine can't create perfect images from RAW data taken under challenging situations (challenging for the sensor, that is, and I am not talking about 'user error').
Photozopia
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,209
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 431
The guy asked why RAW is RAW - not 'raw'. I told him - his intent or mood in thanking me is of no concern of yours ... or can you now read minds, as well as raw data?
The camera (more accurately PP software) also gives the option of saving several differing forms of RAW - as indicated in saved meta-data files - many of which are also 'not perfect renditions of the captured data' either. You seem to be under the impression that a RAW image contains ALL image possibilities when it is nothing of the kind - just an option. OOC TIFFs would offer similar options.
Like a JPEG from the same machine, it is only an interpretation of the scene based upon limited user selected parameters and the hardware/algorithms of the internal camera processing system.
Nobody is stopping use of RAW - merely objecting to false claims that a RAW file is some form of raw, unprocessed, data. Or that using a JPEG OOC is any less accurate than one created from RAW (by unmatched third party software conversion) by 'elitist' claimants.
Quite why the RAW monkeys think there is something skilled in sliding a few sliders in PP software is baffling. The current trend for workshops 'teaching' this methodology defeats me. Same processes as in colour balancing/gamma correction, etc. of monitors - but no-one would pay good money to be shown how to adjust their TV or monitor ...
I occasionally use RAW on my older cameras as their basic processing engines of ten years ago are more limited in creating spot-on JPEGs in all conditions. But the need, a 'compulsory' use of RAW - as outlined by RAW adherents - I find virtually redundant on most cameras of recent years.
RAW PP is - I'm sorry to inform you so bluntly - is not the dark art of creativity you envisage. Just a simple tool ... and one that the dedicated processing systems of certain cameras can easily match or exceed.
Last edited:
"RAW PP is - I'm sorry to inform you so bluntly - is not the dark art of creativity you envisage. Just a simple tool ... and one that the dedicated processing systems of certain cameras can easily match or exceed."
Very simple and clear answer is here: http://mikemander.blogspot.ca/2012/11/distraction-new-fujifilm-x-e1.html
Try these especially night shots do in OOC JPEG. NEVER EVER.
That's the answer: for everyday consumer pictures, good lighting conditions and every (unexperienced) shooter is JPEG good and maybe the only possible way how to get good results. But when you really want to get over the average consumer clicking population - RAW is the way and education in PP process is the way.
Very simple and clear answer is here: http://mikemander.blogspot.ca/2012/11/distraction-new-fujifilm-x-e1.html
Try these especially night shots do in OOC JPEG. NEVER EVER.
That's the answer: for everyday consumer pictures, good lighting conditions and every (unexperienced) shooter is JPEG good and maybe the only possible way how to get good results. But when you really want to get over the average consumer clicking population - RAW is the way and education in PP process is the way.
Photozopia
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,209
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 431
Give it a break - if you think a few instances in which you might want to explore some DR 'problem' is an over-arching argument for across-the-board RAW processing - then you are sadly mistaken.
The example cited may please it's user but your "NEVER, EVER' claim is crass and childish. Do you actually use any Fuji X series camera - and if so, why? Why not simply buy another camera with much poorer JPEG performance and RAW fiddle to your heart's content.
I can't believe your contempt for any non-RAW user. Despite your 'unexperienced' jibe many of us have the intelligence to let the camera do the work - stepping in only if needed.
Since you never offer your own examples - I'll posit some images against your 'RAW is best' diatribe.
OOC JPEG - Fuji X100 - resized but no further processing or work.
RAW - opened in ACR and saved directly to JPEG - resized but no further PP or work.
Both images were opened in CS5 and - apart from resizing - are OOC, totally UNTOUCHED. The raw file is default non-auto mode and (you will have to take my word for it) contains no more hidden recoverable detail than in the JPEG ... i.e as I intended in metered/exposed ... so why waste time & energy in fighting with an 'off-target' RAW file simply to get back to the optimal JPEG result?
If I'd wanted a manipulated pseudo-HDR image with odd 'milky' night skies (like Mander's images) then I'd have taken one .... or worked with RAW and/or layers to achieve it. Sadly, I'm not into your admiration of a washed-out, un-natural looking image ... if I wanted similar (but genuine) retained sky detail, I'd take an image earlier in the evening - instead of trying to 'create' a mock one.
I like my blacks (exposed as black) to be black - ditto, whites - or any other chosen point on the contrast curve. I see my image in camera, rather than thinking 'how can I jazz this one up?' at a later date in PP software.
You really couldn't have found worse images to illustrate your point - a 'creative vision', re-interpreted as 'reality' ... which is really the core of many RAW devotees rants. Washed out or over-exposed areas cited as full (but ersatz) 'Dynamic Range' with little drama or pizzazz.
Reminds me of film days - when the consumers you so deride used to ask me why their high street 'prints-from negatives' output was so bland with overall wishy-washy 'grey' tones, whilst my images (from transparency stock) were judged bright, vibrant, with true solid blacks & whites and accurate colours.
Trying to explain that commercial printers, or their machines ... looking for 'average' exposures - with little regard for intended shadow or highlight control were at fault ... was of no use. Similar bland exposures are now the norm in many proudly ' ... post-processed in X software ...' images.
Seems many RAW users now seem to be striving to achieve similar standards of image mediocrity.
Last edited:
In these different files, the RAW data are all the same. It's only the meta-data that are different. Before saying more about RAW below, a comment about ooc-TIFF first: ooc-TIFFs are like ooc-JPEGs, in that they are derived from first converting and interpreting the RAW data. TIFFs have a clear advantage over JPEGs by virtue of their not being only 8 bits (provided that the camera maker chooses to output 16-bit TIFFs, but even 8-bit TIFFs are more flexible than JPEGs). As such, TIFFs offer significantly more headroom for post-processing. Camera makers are fully aware that JPEGs are severely limited in that respect and want to give consumers more freedom to manipulate their images without having them go through RAW conversion first. If anything, when a camera maker provides the option of outputting TIFFs, it's an admission that JPEGs are insufficient in many instances.
The reason why people often refer to RAW and 'unprocessed' is because RAW data are not an interpretation of the scene based upon limited user selected parameters and the hardware/algorithms of the internal camera processing system (as you write). A RAW file contains data that haven't been demosaiced yet. Try viewing or printing that. Let alone apply the limited user selected parameters. You'll get utter garbage.
The RAW data first have to be demosaiced to convert them from the Bayer or 'Fuji 6x6' or whatever arrangement to an arrangement of pixels that is fully two-dimensional (doesn't have any gaps) and contains full color information in every pixel. As you are probably aware, third-party software manufacturers are still struggling with this step. Fuji had a five-year head start on that. Creating a (positive) image, i.e., one that can be viewed and printed from the (negative) RAW data, i.e., one that cannot be viewed or printed, is what RAW processing is all about. Here is where the user-selected parameters are applied, and here is where they can best be adjusted if so desired. The result can then be converted into a JPEG or other format suitable for printing and viewing. Thus the distinction between RAW being a 'development' format and JPEG being a 'distribution' format.
When running out of arguments it's always good to go ad hominem...
Truly, no current in-camera processing system can remotely match what is possible away from the camera. Admittedly, the in-camera processors are very fast for what they are doing, but what they are doing is very limited. Besides, in-camera software rarely, if ever, gets updated to reflect advances in the field. As you said, you yourself are occasionally re-processing ten-year old images, because of precisely such advances. I don't think Fuji has hit on the holy grail of image processing yet, so it is reasonable to expect that RAW processing will have advanced even more in 2020 to make it worthwhile to re-process some Fuji images from today.
The 'compulsory' use of RAW processing that you refer to has many reasons. For example, for practically every camera/lens combination, just correcting geometric and color distortions in lenses makes it already worthwhile to run every image through a RAW converter, even if nothing else is being adjusted. Also, it is generally accepted that every image from Canon and Nikon dSLRs can be improved by simply applying default settings in high-quality software like DxO. Likewise for other camera manufacturers. Thus, many photographers have a RAW conversion step in their workflow by default. These photographers are not 'monkeys' that are eager to push sliders.
The Fuji processing engine might have closed the gap, but it is clear that there still is a gap (and there has to be based on first principles). Accepting the ooc-JPEGs is like using the AUTO mode on the camera: the camera makes all the decisions, and in the majority of cases the result will be completely sufficient and acceptable. But often it will not, and that's where manual controls and RAW processing come in.
Your pictures are dreadful, horrible - for night photography - I think that everybody can see it from both examples - your and Mander's - it's horrible you don't see it. It is obvious that you need some education to be able NOT to do such boring average consumer shirburger photographs. Sorry to be sharply sincere. We differ in our approach to photography. Stay with your gray smeared JPEGS - it's easy just clicking .. and not to educate yourself, just rely on manufacturer's tweaks. It's your loss - not mine. That's my last word to this question. Be happy
Ryan Williams
Leading Member
- Messages
- 561
- Reaction score
- 157
Mind showing us some of your night photography so we can be educated by seeing an example of it being done properly, then?zinedi wrote:
Your pictures are dreadful, horrible - for night photography - I think that everybody can see it from both examples - your and Mander's - it's horrible you don't see it. It is obvious that you need some education to be able NOT to do such boring average consumer shirburger photographs. Sorry to be sharply sincere. We differ in our approach to photography. Stay with your gray smeared JPEGS - it's easy just clicking .. and not to educate yourself, just rely on manufacturer's tweaks. It's your loss - not mine. That's my last word to this question. Be happy
Photozopia
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,209
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 431
I didn't ask for a critique - nor do I want it. I didn't supply an image based upon aesthetic appraisal, merely to highlight that you and I are poles apart in what constitutes a viable image threshold.zinedi wrote:
Your pictures are dreadful, horrible - for night photography - I think that everybody can see it from both examples - your and Mander's - it's horrible you don't see it. It is obvious that you need some education to be able NOT to do such boring average consumer shirburger photographs. Sorry to be sharply sincere. We differ in our approach to photography. Stay with your gray smeared JPEGS - it's easy just clicking .. and not to educate yourself, just rely on manufacturer's tweaks. It's your loss - not mine. That's my last word to this question. Be happy
Where do you get the 'shitburger' or 'gray smeared' JPEG insults from?
It's 'your' Mander image that has been blended to show averaged-out tones - I've no issues with it's compositional aesthetic - but any real drama and impact are lost in it's lack of true black space. So 'proper' night time images are meant to be ...errr, 'light' ...????
Let's see some of your own anti-'shitburger' images. You seem to spend more time insulting others or venting bile on DPR than you do actually taking photos.
As ever ... lost your argument immediately when the only thing you had to offer was insults (not for the first time in these fora)
Last edited:
Similar threads
- User review
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum