RAW Troublemaker Again

Started Aug 30, 2013 | Discussions thread
RichV Veteran Member • Posts: 6,179
Re: Do you really have to RAW??

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

RichV wrote:

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

RichV wrote:

As an exercise I downloaded the full-size JPEG Gary posted of the building and the traffic light. But it was already "JPEG'd" so there wasn't a lot I could do with it. Gary's comment was about sharpness, and at a 100% view (which is a minimum you'd use when sharpening) it's smeared; once you've lost detail you can't get it back.

Now I am going to have to take exception. No, nothing is "smeared" in that picture. It was taken on a tripod, SSS turned off, manually focused to perfection with double magnification, and fired with a 2 sec timer. I have already posted a sharp as a tack crop of the street lights with every little red LED visible at that great distance - about a block and a half - well, you can see how small they are in the original. Every brick is countable, every sign readable, a perfectly sharp image.

I hope my statement doesn't offend but ... well, shoot a JPEG and you GET a JPEG (just kidding!).

Don't even use your PP software, just look at the original view of the large one you posted; move toward the back of the building and also look at the sky. I only saw this because I downloaded it and cropped it similarly to your traffic light clip - and then easily saw what was there. Since I haven't seen your RAW yet I can't tell if it was just the camera's JPEG, the lens or something else. Would this show up on most prints? No. But now you could perform a test against a well-converted and processed RAW to see if there's a difference. In a way, it's not that it wouldn't normally be noticed in a print; it just happens to be in the much-less-noticeable area it's in just because you did such a good job of taking it. In some ways the RAW vs. JPEG issue is about the lattitude you have when editing, but you could also get one of those "not quite perfect" JPEG shots where the issues are more easily noticed - and I think they'd be much less so in the RAW version.

You haven't said what you saw, so I can't comment much. But remember that I can't upload even the full JPG shot in dpreview because of all of the limits they put on the format. So the first thing I have to do is reduce the resolution from 6000 x 4000 to 5000 x 3333 or so. Then I re-JPG that so that it will go thru the system and end up as you see it on this site.

If anyone is still interested I can try Google Docs or something to upload or link the full JPG and RAW files.

Gary: first statement (above) = "smeared;' next (above) = "move toward the back of the building and also look at the sky." (I could also say that absent any distance information it might also have something to do with the aperture used, but I just don't know; it's still smeared/blotchy.) The LED lights certainly are visible, which means the RAW would provide at least as much (and you'd have the ability to decrease any blooming there).

I think that a good number of posts have asked for the RAW - we know what the JPEG looks like, so let members have a shot at the RAW file. As I wrote, it might just be that the lens has hit its limit, but you won't find out without looking at the RAW. If you're not posting the RAW, then I'd guess most are tired with the circular nature of this thread; maybe you should just let it die out.

-- hide signature --


 RichV's gear list:RichV's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony SLT-A77 Sony Alpha a99 Sony 70-200mm F2.8 G +7 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow