High ISO RAF : RAW converters vs in camera JPG ... pointless?

1 year into testing RAF files professionally for a printing outfit

shooting JPG seems a much more practical approach in High ISO

especially when you output on Epson LFP.

_______________________________________

Or so it seems after testing LR, Iridient, Capture Pro, SP RAW file converter, DXO

From all RAW converters I "feel" COP handles NR best when pixel peeping,

but then when you output to paper the extra time and effort

seems just unjustified.

_______________________________________

Or,

am I missing something ?

Llinwood Naksh said:

1 year into testing RAF files professionally for a printing outfit

shooting JPG seems a much more practical approach in High ISO

especially when you output on Epson LFP.

_______________________________________

Or so it seems after testing LR, Iridient, Capture Pro, SP RAW file converter, DXO

From all RAW converters I "feel" COP handles NR best when pixel peeping,

but then when you output to paper the extra time and effort

seems just unjustified.

_______________________________________

Or,

am I missing something ?

Click to expand...

I don't know. What resolution are you printing at? The smaller the print the harder it is to see any difference.

Fuji do optimise their JPEGs for print rather than screen, IMO. But not very large prints.

Excuse the ignorance but you need to spell out what your acroynms mean--Epson LFP (is that their ink cost calcultor?) . What is COP? Capture Pro--

Having said that I think you are wrong about native raw versus JPEG on high ISO images---Not sure what your process is, what printer you are using so can't comment further.

David Mintzer said:

Excuse the ignorance but you need to spell out what your acroynms mean--Epson LFP (is that their ink cost calcultor?) . What is COP? Capture Pro--

Click to expand...

I assumed it meant Large Format Printer and Capture One Pro.

David Mintzer said:

Having said that I think you are wrong about native raw versus JPEG on high ISO images---Not sure what your process is, what printer you are using so can't comment further.

Click to expand...

LFPs have lower DPI resolution (1200 DPI) compared to 2400 DPI or more on photo-printers. With 4X as many dots-per-pixel, there is much less colour dithering on photo-printers.

Dithering will look as bad as noise from a close distance, so I guess the quality of the input image file is less relevant.

Now it makes sense---LF is also some kind of ink accounting thingy on Epsons. Thanks.

sorry for the lingo

you got it 57even !

funny enough ... posted this also in Pro Digital Talk ... no takers there

Llinwood Naksh said:

sorry for the lingo

you got it 57even !

funny enough ... posted this also in Pro Digital Talk ... no takers there

Click to expand...

If the prints are designed for large spaces, they will actually look more different from a distance. Close up, you are seeing printer artefacts more than image ones.

1200 DPI at 300 PPI means that each image pixel is represented by 16 dots. 2400 DPI would give you 64 dots, etc. There are far more colour permutations with 64 dots, especially with multiple inks, so less dithering.

They are really designed to be used for large prints at something closer to 150 DPI, which on a Fuji 24MP image would be 40X27".

Also, it will depend on the colour space. I don't know if the gamut of LFPs is based on SWOP v2 CMYK, but if so it's a pretty limited space, not even as big as sRGB. Another reason you won't see much difference.

Yes, you're missing something.

thx 57even , again you're hitting all the marks .

the printing crowd is the exact opposite of the pixel peeping crowd

for them a 40x30 is just where the fun starts,

if you caution them on size they feel insulted

maybe ... but aren't you a Nikon guy

Llinwood Naksh said:

thx 57even , again you're hitting all the marks .

the printing crowd is the exact opposite of the pixel peeping crowd

for them a 40x30 is just where the fun starts,

if you caution them on size they feel insulted

Click to expand...

Of course ;-)

But then, you are not supposed to look at them from 12 inches away...

I had a look at some of Ansel Adams' huge images once, and they fell apart pretty badly when you looked at them too close. Stand back at a respectful distance and they look great.

What amazed me at a recent Gursky exhibition was that some of his later (composited digital) work look very detailed, even close up. I wonder where they were printed, or if I was simply not looking close enough... all the minders in the gallery kept pointing at the viewing line and tutting at me.

Gursky has tremendous detail in his later images. They are mesmerizing to me.

Llinwood Naksh said:

maybe ... but aren't you a Nikon guy

Click to expand...

And Fuji.

I would suggest using RAW over JPEG for printing, would be for the same reason you might want to choose processing a RAW image over using the cameras jpeg image. You want to make exposure changes, color temperature changes, work on shadows or highlights, etc. If you are fully satisfied with the jpeg, I can't see any problem in just using it.

What might be of larger concern when printing an image would be (1) the software used to print it, (2) the quality of a profile being used for the image for a the printer and paper combination (3) the paper being used and (4) the print settings chosen.

There can also be some color space issues with jpegs straight from a camera and they are usually limited to sRGB or adobeRGB. RAW processing allows for processing images with a wider color space before being converted to what ever profile is being used for printing. Take a look at this -- http://digitaldog.net/files/WideGamutPrintVideo.mov

Photography should be fun

... all top exhibition class photography is done by one single outfit.

@57even I am sure you know who that is ...

pleasure to meet someone here who knows his stuff.

Thx

I'm fairly new to Fuji mirrorless, and just getting to know the broad parameters of in-camera processing, but have enough experience with it to be fairly sure my observations below aren't likely to change considerably. However, I am open to suggestions to better inform my perspective.

Coming from Pentax, I really miss the ability to direct the kind of sharpening done in-camera. For most work, Pentax fine sharpening was significantly better than regular sharpening for in-camera. I really admire the Fuji side of film simulations, and appreciate that it can be challenging to match those in RAW, but with the finer controls in C1 (vs. LR sliders), you can come extremely close.

That said, the in-camera controls for shadow/highlight, color and sharpness are not graduations and the imprint is permanent. A full-range contrast control also would be helpful. I am surprised to find so many folks who seem to have an unvarying RAW conversion workflow, especially with XTrans at high ISO, where differing situations demand very different controls regarding sharpening and noise reduction. Certainly, Fuji in-camera (at least on the X-T20) is geared toward smoothness but sacrifices some detail and mid-range contrast. This is terrific for skin tones, but not so great for bringing out the sparkle in a dog's fur and whiskers where I tend to use somewhat higher sharpening and NR.

The other fairly obvious concern is the need for masking. Some subtle eye enhancement is almost always needed in low light situations. You also tend to have mixed indoor/outdoor light that creates imbalances in intensity and color temps.

You would almost need to be shooting in a studio lighting situation to assure that these variables are controlled, but even then it would be rare that you nail color, contrast, sharpness and noise reduction exactly where you want it. So, as long as JPEG is 8-bit, I don't see how you get around the need for RAW.

Llinwood Naksh said:

... all top exhibition class photography is done by one single outfit.

@57even I am sure you know who that is ...

pleasure to meet someone here who knows his stuff.

Click to expand...

Actually, you got me there.

Most of the print services I use offer maximum sizes of 44" in the smaller dimension using LF inkjets printers. Never looked into making prints that size for myself (usually 24X16/A2 or 36X24/A1)

And I generally upsize all my prints to 300 PPI at the given print size before sharpening etc. This generally looks better than using native settings (like 150 PPI) though that does depend on the printer resolution.

I do find that larger prints require a lot more local adjustment - both in terms of noise and sharpness. On advantage of upsizing is that you can zoom in a lot further to see what you are doing with masking etc.

I agree ... in camera Fuji controls are stone age ...

Thing is Fuji don't seem to care or want anybody in on

their proprietary looks or RAF file structure.

______________________________________________________

All raw converters are reverse engineered - even Silky Pix.

Has anybody tried to move the color noise slider in COP from zero to "1".

_______________________________________________________

Purple fringing , color moire as well as color noise is rampant

sure you can decimate things like that via IXT > DNG > LR (or other)

but then the rest of the image looks drab... so what's the point ?

popping files back into the camera and do the raw conversion in camera

to create another JPG seems just as good of an option

as anything else.

________________________________________________________

BW is another story, there I feel RAW converters provide more nuanced results.

Llinwood Naksh said:

I agree ... in camera Fuji controls are stone age ...

Thing is Fuji don't seem to care or want anybody in on

their proprietary looks or RAF file structure.

______________________________________________________

All raw converters are reverse engineered - even Silky Pix.

Has anybody tried to move the color noise slider in COP from zero to "1".

_______________________________________________________

Purple fringing , color moire as well as color noise is rampant

sure you can decimate things like that via IXT > DNG > LR (or other)

but then the rest of the image looks drab... so what's the point ?

popping files back into the camera and do the raw conversion in camera

to create another JPG seems just as good of an option

as anything else.

________________________________________________________

BW is another story, there I feel RAW converters provide more nuanced results.

Click to expand...

This is helpful. I agree that the RAW developers struggle with PF, leaving an unpleasant trail - even C1. I value lenses that minimize PF - even if it means some loss of sharpness or more distortion - which are far easier to correct.

There was a good story from an accomplished photographer (don't recall who) about the importance and usability of the JPEG files, and especially their great value as a guide to RAW settings. He also came to the conclusion that the actual JPEG can be used in some situations - recanting his earlier absolutism on the subject.

It was well done, and I am certainly valuing his perspective as I learn Fuji. My only negative is that he was complaining that it wasn't possible to get to the exact tone with the LR sliders. Much easier with full mapping though...