RX10/100v1 .. worthwhile to shoot RAW?

Started Mar 11, 2014 | Discussions thread
Digital Nigel Veteran Member • Posts: 6,671
Re: RX10/100v1 .. worthwhile to shoot RAW?

Claudio Galli wrote:

Digital Nigel wrote:

Claudio Galli wrote:

Digital Nigel wrote:

Claudio Galli wrote:

Here is your JPG image corrected in Photoshop.

Of course it could have been done in hundred different ways, but just to have an example of what can be recovered from a JPG image.


Looks good at a small scale, but at full size, it looks very noisy and over-sharpened.

I hope not to be misunderstood. Far from me to enter the endless RAW vs JPG debate. I just want to stress that, contrary to what many times is written in these forums, not only a RAW but also a JPG image can be improved in post processing. That's all. Then, if the final RAW image is better than the final JPG, that's another story.

Oh, definitely, JPEGs can certainly be improved in post-processing, and that works well when the original JPEG is fairly good. I think you've done a very good job with poor quality underexposed original JPEGs, and turned unusable images into something quite good. But good as your efforts were, it's clear that starting from the RAW image would be much better. For example, the noise in the shadows in the train pic would be much easier to get rid of in the RAW image, and the washed out colours in the cave pic don't happen with the RAW image.

But as I've said upthread, I deliberately picked "difficult" images to show in this thread (all shot last month). With more typical images, post-processing the JPEGs can work pretty well, though I think there's always an advantage, albeit sometimes small, in starting with the RAW image.

So as Ron has said, if you plan to post-process every image anyway, you might as well shoot RAW. If you don't intend to post-process, make sure you capture the best possible JPEG from your camera, knowing that modest adjustments are still possible in post-processing if needed. You're obviously very skilled at it; most people wouldn't have achieved so much from these under-exposed JPEGs. It was much easier for me to process the RAW images than for you to post-process those difficult JPEGs. So I had to do much less work to get a better result.

Thanks for your comments, I agree.

Just a last thought.

Almost always nobody says that the lens distortions (all of them have at least a small degree of it) is corrected in the camera if you shoot JPEG but, if you shoot RAW, you must use a software to correct them and not all the raw converters can. I have DxO (which I think is the best because it can take care of a wide range of camera/lens combinations) so for me it is not a problem, but other raw converters have a more limited number of combinations and, finally, some do not have this possibility at all so you have to use an additional software (e.g. PTLens). Obviously, for the RX100/RX10 the different camera/lens combinations does not apply, in these cases it is only a matter to have or not to have this possibility in the raw converter.

Yes, very true. I use DxO too, and it does a particularly nice job with the RX100, giving the option of wider angle shots, and unlike LR, it lets you see the effect with and without distortion correction. Using PRIME, it also makes very high ISO shots usable. I wouldn't buy a new camera/lens combination until it was supported by DxO.

You mention PTLens, but ironically, I don't think it supports the RX100 (it certainly didn't last time I looked). Another popular RAW processor is Photo Ninja, and it doesn't include any automatic lens correction, so even if it's very good in other ways, I wouldn't use it. Neither does PSP, which is a nice image editor, but poor with RAWs.

 Digital Nigel's gear list:Digital Nigel's gear list
Sony RX100 Panasonic FZ1000 Canon PowerShot G7 X Nikon Coolpix P900 Panasonic ZS100 +15 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow