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

Llinwood Naksh said:

Thank you all for your input ...

Sorry, but in all practicality I do not have the time to read through all the replies especially when they all share the same headline.

Click to expand...

Sal Baker said:

57even said:

Sal Baker said:

57even said:

Sal Baker said:

57even said:

stevo23 said:

57even said:

stevo23 said:

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...

Meaning straight out of camera, no tweaking? Yea, that would be a great time saver. But I think you're missing out on some image quality, although maybe it's plenty good enough most of the time for you. I've never been able to get along with jpgs - not enough adjustment latitude.

Click to expand...

This is true at low ISO. At higher ISO, there is not much more latitude to have, and some of the in-camera noise reduction techniques are quite good (better than Photoshop without a plugin anyway).

Click to expand...

At ALL ISOs, there is more to be had with Raw simply because jpeg cuts out information by default. Whatever you had with Raw, you have less with the jpeg.

Click to expand...

But there is less information and more noise at high ISO, so less useful information is being removed.

Sal Baker said:

And no, I dislike all in-camera noise reduction that I've used, never been better than Lightroom and certainly not better than Nik Define or some others.

Sal Baker said:

When you really do only have 8 EV of dynamic range, its much more like shooting slide film. Its all about the exposure, not the processing.

Click to expand...

Who only has 8 EV of dynamic range these days?

Click to expand...

You lose 1 stop of DR for each ISO level (once you eliminate quantisation). And there is too much noise to risk banding when adjusting the contrast in post.

Click to expand...

The reduced tonality in 8-bit jpegs will reveal banding MUCH more quickly than the RAW version of the file when pushing-pulling in post.

Click to expand...

Not at high ISO. Noise dithering more or less eliminates it. Far worse banding at low ISO if you push the contrast, which is why I use 16-bit for editing.

Click to expand...

I have found that areas of quick graduations in high ISO shots (like the glow around a streetlight at night) are much more prone to processing banding in jpegs than in RAW files of the same image.

Click to expand...

Probably because they have a lot of noise reduction applied in the default JPEG. It's not in the data, just the processing.

Click to expand...

Also, the substantial difference in bit depth plays into it.

Sal

Click to expand...

57even said:

Sal Baker said:

57even said:

Sal Baker said:

57even said:

Sal Baker said:

57even said:

stevo23 said:

57even said:

stevo23 said:

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...

Meaning straight out of camera, no tweaking? Yea, that would be a great time saver. But I think you're missing out on some image quality, although maybe it's plenty good enough most of the time for you. I've never been able to get along with jpgs - not enough adjustment latitude.

Click to expand...

This is true at low ISO. At higher ISO, there is not much more latitude to have, and some of the in-camera noise reduction techniques are quite good (better than Photoshop without a plugin anyway).

Click to expand...

At ALL ISOs, there is more to be had with Raw simply because jpeg cuts out information by default. Whatever you had with Raw, you have less with the jpeg.

Click to expand...

But there is less information and more noise at high ISO, so less useful information is being removed.

Member said:

And no, I dislike all in-camera noise reduction that I've used, never been better than Lightroom and certainly not better than Nik Define or some others.

Member said:

When you really do only have 8 EV of dynamic range, its much more like shooting slide film. Its all about the exposure, not the processing.

Click to expand...

Who only has 8 EV of dynamic range these days?

Click to expand...

You lose 1 stop of DR for each ISO level (once you eliminate quantisation). And there is too much noise to risk banding when adjusting the contrast in post.

Click to expand...

The reduced tonality in 8-bit jpegs will reveal banding MUCH more quickly than the RAW version of the file when pushing-pulling in post.

Click to expand...

Not at high ISO. Noise dithering more or less eliminates it. Far worse banding at low ISO if you push the contrast, which is why I use 16-bit for editing.

Click to expand...

I have found that areas of quick graduations in high ISO shots (like the glow around a streetlight at night) are much more prone to processing banding in jpegs than in RAW files of the same image.

Click to expand...

Probably because they have a lot of noise reduction applied in the default JPEG. It's not in the data, just the processing.

Click to expand...

Also, the substantial difference in bit depth plays into it.

Sal

Click to expand...

Not really - your display is only 8-bit. At ISO 1600 the noise is higher than the quantisation step, so its less of a factor. At ISO 100, it matters a lot more.

If you use highly compressed JPEGS, then yes. When you open them, a lot of the 'noise' turns into low frequency patches of different colours because of the de-compression. I have seen this created banding patterns, but not when using high quality JPEGs.

Noise reduction also reduces the dithering effect. But like I said, I have yet to see any serious banding in high ISO JPEGs, though I am sure it can be induced if you try. I have far more issues with low ISO images and 8-bit displays when converting to black and white.

And if you get banding over a small high contrast area, that isn't likely to be a quantisation issue. The banding would be too narrow to see. It's more likely a compression or NR issue.

My only point is that I don't really want to spend a lot of time on images that I am unlikely to print on paper. When you downsize to post images online, you can mask almost anything, but the difference between JPEG and RAW in that instance is not as great.

The reason I shoot raw is to control DR, tonality and sharpening, but there isn't much DR at high ISO - most of the bottom stops are buried in colour noise - and if you downsize an image, it looks sharp already.

The one exception to this rule is gig shots, when I shoot raw to control WB, and because I am doing them for other people's publicity material. They do get printed, but only in magazines. The 56 f/1.2 comes in handy.

Click to expand...

JNR said:

JNR said:

Can you take a high ISO image, for example one of the cat photos in DPreview's X-T2 or X-T20 galleries, and convert it from Raw to have less noise than the out-of-camera JPEG? Then tell us how much time it took.

Click to expand...

Seems like you have a lot caveats based on your preferences that might not align with what others might find optimal. I certainly never spend a half hour on a single image, but devote about as much time as the significance of the image demands. So, a great image might have my attention for 15-20 minutes because I want to get the most out of that shot. It is worth it to me to get the exact look I want (especially if the image will be printed).

Click to expand...

JNR said:

I agree that Fuji does a great job of knocking noise out of high ISO images, but it comes at tremendous cost in lost detail. Unfortunately, the Fuji NR and sharpness controls (at least on the X-T20) are not nearly precise enough to get just-right output acceptable to my preferences. That's before taking into account any masking efforts that most top-notch images require to achieve their very best quality.

Click to expand...

CAcreeks said:

I'd like to make this more empirical, because there are a lot of hand-waving arguments above.

Can you take a high ISO image, for example one of the cat photos in DPreview's X-T2 or X-T20 galleries, and convert it from Raw to have less noise than the out-of-camera JPEG?

Then tell us how much time it took. I tried it with RawTherapee, and it took about half an hour. That is more time than it's worth, IMO. Probably Topaz or some other plug-in would be faster. The ACR conversions in the gallery have really horrible high ISO noise, perhaps because they use defaults.

With a Bayer pattern camera, DxO OpticsPro with Prime noise reduction would be mostly automatic, though slow. Other noise reduction techniques seem to require a lot of tweaking.

Click to expand...

57even said:

stevo23 said:

57even said:

stevo23 said:

57even said:

stevo23 said:

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...

Meaning straight out of camera, no tweaking? Yea, that would be a great time saver. But I think you're missing out on some image quality, although maybe it's plenty good enough most of the time for you. I've never been able to get along with jpgs - not enough adjustment latitude.

Click to expand...

This is true at low ISO. At higher ISO, there is not much more latitude to have, and some of the in-camera noise reduction techniques are quite good (better than Photoshop without a plugin anyway).

Click to expand...

At ALL ISOs, there is more to be had with Raw simply because jpeg cuts out information by default. Whatever you had with Raw, you have less with the jpeg.

Click to expand...

But there is less information and more noise at high ISO, so less useful information is being removed.

Click to expand...

It removes the same proportion. So it just makes it even worse to work with. I really appreciate having raw when I do work with higher ISO Images:

Click to expand...

Not so. In an ISO 100 image, once the JPEG tone curve has been applied, all the lower stops are compressed, so you lose several DR stops. At high ISO, those DR stops are already buried in noise. You can add NR, but the results are ugly, and you lose a huge amount of detail.

Click to expand...

Member said:

Member said:

Guess the ISO and you get an award.

Click to expand...

Not sure I get the point. I can't see the JPEG for comparison, and there is so much detail loss considering it's small size that I would not have printed it anyway.

Click to expand...

Member said:

I would have used a tripod and a longer exposure.

Click to expand...

Member said:

Member said:

I disagree. No camera matches your own post processing power. I can get the same colors, but I don't necessarily want them or find them particularly appealing.

Click to expand...

Actually, its not you or me but the algorithms used in the software. C1 has totally different colour to LR, for instance. And I can adjust the colour in JPEGs pretty easily.

Click to expand...

Member said:

Member said:

Member said:

Member said:

But all this being said, jpeg can land right in your wheelhouse if you know what you need and how to get it. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just highlighting the facts surrounding the debate.

Click to expand...

And I'm just pointing out that, like with all things, there is a law of diminishing returns. I edit raw images for anything I print big, but I don't print ISO1600 images that big. Issues like sharpness, noise etc. don't matter as much.

Click to expand...

ISO1600 comes out pretty swell actually, especially if you get enough exposure and process it well. And it depends on what you mean by big. 13x19 looks really good.

Click to expand...

13X19 is medium size IMO and I don't personally think they look 'really good'.

Click to expand...

Member said:

It depends on the subject matter, but that wouldn't work for me. ISO800 max (on Xpro2) at that size, or maybe 400.

Click to expand...

Member said:

But I still use raw up to that point. Above ISO 1600 I don't usually bother as I wouldn't shoot anything that required a large print at that ISO.

Click to expand...

stevo23 said:

Yikes. I'm not sure what it is that you like about the out-of-camera noise reduction in the cat image (I'm looking at the single cat, shot at 12500). It obliterates all the detail in the cat's left eye - no reflection at all. And the grain across the nose is splotchy with larger grain than the untouched one. So I'll take the raw with full noise please!

Click to expand...

stevo23 said:

I also passed it through Define's default setting and the results are so much more even. How long did it take? all of 10 seconds? 15 seconds?

Click to expand...

CAcreeks said:

stevo23 said:

Yikes. I'm not sure what it is that you like about the out-of-camera noise reduction in the cat image (I'm looking at the single cat, shot at 12500). It obliterates all the detail in the cat's left eye - no reflection at all. And the grain across the nose is splotchy with larger grain than the untouched one. So I'll take the raw with full noise please!

Click to expand...

True, but the ACR conversion is worse.

Click to expand...

CAcreeks said:

CAcreeks said:

I also passed it through Define's default setting and the results are so much more even. How long did it take? all of 10 seconds? 15 seconds?

Click to expand...

What software is this?

Yes, 10-15 seconds is certainly acceptable.

Click to expand...

stevo23 said:

CAcreeks said:

stevo23 said:

Yikes. I'm not sure what it is that you like about the out-of-camera noise reduction in the cat image (I'm looking at the single cat, shot at 12500). It obliterates all the detail in the cat's left eye - no reflection at all. And the grain across the nose is splotchy with larger grain than the untouched one. So I'll take the raw with full noise please!

Click to expand...

True, but the ACR conversion is worse.

Click to expand...

I didn't spend much time comparing, but it didn't look like they applied much reduction to it. The out-of-camera result was dreadful.

stevo23 said:

stevo23 said:

I also passed it through Define's default setting and the results are so much more even. How long did it take? all of 10 seconds? 15 seconds?

Click to expand...

What software is this?

Yes, 10-15 seconds is certainly acceptable.

Click to expand...

Nik - DxO owns it now. It can be funny with high ISO images and you sometimes have to go into manual mode. Still, not much more than a minute, two if you're real picky.

Click to expand...

Sal Baker said:

57even said:

Sal Baker said:

57even said:

Sal Baker said:

57even said:

Sal Baker said:

57even said:

stevo23 said:

57even said:

stevo23 said:

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...

Meaning straight out of camera, no tweaking? Yea, that would be a great time saver. But I think you're missing out on some image quality, although maybe it's plenty good enough most of the time for you. I've never been able to get along with jpgs - not enough adjustment latitude.

Click to expand...

This is true at low ISO. At higher ISO, there is not much more latitude to have, and some of the in-camera noise reduction techniques are quite good (better than Photoshop without a plugin anyway).

Click to expand...

At ALL ISOs, there is more to be had with Raw simply because jpeg cuts out information by default. Whatever you had with Raw, you have less with the jpeg.

Click to expand...

But there is less information and more noise at high ISO, so less useful information is being removed.

Sal Baker said:

And no, I dislike all in-camera noise reduction that I've used, never been better than Lightroom and certainly not better than Nik Define or some others.

Sal Baker said:

When you really do only have 8 EV of dynamic range, its much more like shooting slide film. Its all about the exposure, not the processing.

Click to expand...

Who only has 8 EV of dynamic range these days?

Click to expand...

You lose 1 stop of DR for each ISO level (once you eliminate quantisation). And there is too much noise to risk banding when adjusting the contrast in post.

Click to expand...

The reduced tonality in 8-bit jpegs will reveal banding MUCH more quickly than the RAW version of the file when pushing-pulling in post.

Click to expand...

Not at high ISO. Noise dithering more or less eliminates it. Far worse banding at low ISO if you push the contrast, which is why I use 16-bit for editing.

Click to expand...

I have found that areas of quick graduations in high ISO shots (like the glow around a streetlight at night) are much more prone to processing banding in jpegs than in RAW files of the same image.

Click to expand...

Probably because they have a lot of noise reduction applied in the default JPEG. It's not in the data, just the processing.

Click to expand...

Also, the substantial difference in bit depth plays into it.

Sal

Click to expand...

Not really - your display is only 8-bit. At ISO 1600 the noise is higher than the quantisation step, so its less of a factor. At ISO 100, it matters a lot more.

If you use highly compressed JPEGS, then yes. When you open them, a lot of the 'noise' turns into low frequency patches of different colours because of the de-compression. I have seen this created banding patterns, but not when using high quality JPEGs.

Noise reduction also reduces the dithering effect. But like I said, I have yet to see any serious banding in high ISO JPEGs, though I am sure it can be induced if you try. I have far more issues with low ISO images and 8-bit displays when converting to black and white.

And if you get banding over a small high contrast area, that isn't likely to be a quantisation issue. The banding would be too narrow to see. It's more likely a compression or NR issue.

My only point is that I don't really want to spend a lot of time on images that I am unlikely to print on paper. When you downsize to post images online, you can mask almost anything, but the difference between JPEG and RAW in that instance is not as great.

The reason I shoot raw is to control DR, tonality and sharpening, but there isn't much DR at high ISO - most of the bottom stops are buried in colour noise - and if you downsize an image, it looks sharp already.

The one exception to this rule is gig shots, when I shoot raw to control WB, and because I am doing them for other people's publicity material. They do get printed, but only in magazines. The 56 f/1.2 comes in handy.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

stevo23 said:

57even said:

stevo23 said:

57even said:

stevo23 said:

57even said:

stevo23 said:

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...

Meaning straight out of camera, no tweaking? Yea, that would be a great time saver. But I think you're missing out on some image quality, although maybe it's plenty good enough most of the time for you. I've never been able to get along with jpgs - not enough adjustment latitude.

Click to expand...

This is true at low ISO. At higher ISO, there is not much more latitude to have, and some of the in-camera noise reduction techniques are quite good (better than Photoshop without a plugin anyway).

Click to expand...

At ALL ISOs, there is more to be had with Raw simply because jpeg cuts out information by default. Whatever you had with Raw, you have less with the jpeg.

Click to expand...

But there is less information and more noise at high ISO, so less useful information is being removed.

Click to expand...

It removes the same proportion. So it just makes it even worse to work with. I really appreciate having raw when I do work with higher ISO Images:

Click to expand...

Not so. In an ISO 100 image, once the JPEG tone curve has been applied, all the lower stops are compressed, so you lose several DR stops. At high ISO, those DR stops are already buried in noise. You can add NR, but the results are ugly, and you lose a huge amount of detail.

Click to expand...

Huh? Why would I apply a jpeg tone curve? How does this comment fit?

Click to expand...

stevo23 said:

stevo23 said:

stevo23 said:

Guess the ISO and you get an award.

Click to expand...

Not sure I get the point. I can't see the JPEG for comparison, and there is so much detail loss considering it's small size that I would not have printed it anyway.

Click to expand...

Huh? This is a jpg. What's the ISO?

stevo23 said:

I would have used a tripod and a longer exposure.

Click to expand...

So would I except that I decided to leave it in my car because I thought the trail was heading to a vista. Instead, we saw this area and thought it was pretty charming but neither of use felt like hiking to the car and back. That's when it counts to have decent high ISO performance.

Click to expand...

stevo23 said:

stevo23 said:

stevo23 said:

I disagree. No camera matches your own post processing power. I can get the same colors, but I don't necessarily want them or find them particularly appealing.

Click to expand...

Actually, its not you or me but the algorithms used in the software. C1 has totally different colour to LR, for instance. And I can adjust the colour in JPEGs pretty easily.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're after then.

stevo23 said:

stevo23 said:

stevo23 said:

stevo23 said:

But all this being said, jpeg can land right in your wheelhouse if you know what you need and how to get it. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just highlighting the facts surrounding the debate.

Click to expand...

And I'm just pointing out that, like with all things, there is a law of diminishing returns. I edit raw images for anything I print big, but I don't print ISO1600 images that big. Issues like sharpness, noise etc. don't matter as much.

Click to expand...

ISO1600 comes out pretty swell actually, especially if you get enough exposure and process it well. And it depends on what you mean by big. 13x19 looks really good.

Click to expand...

13X19 is medium size IMO and I don't personally think they look 'really good'.

Click to expand...

Then you've never printed them then.

Click to expand...

stevo23 said:

stevo23 said:

It depends on the subject matter, but that wouldn't work for me. ISO800 max (on Xpro2) at that size, or maybe 400.

Click to expand...

ISO400? You're better off going to ISO800 on the XP2.

stevo23 said:

But I still use raw up to that point. Above ISO 1600 I don't usually bother as I wouldn't shoot anything that required a large print at that ISO.

Click to expand...

I always shoot raw. Again, not sure what you're trying to say here.

Click to expand...

JNR said:

stevo23 said:

CAcreeks said:

stevo23 said:

Yikes. I'm not sure what it is that you like about the out-of-camera noise reduction in the cat image (I'm looking at the single cat, shot at 12500). It obliterates all the detail in the cat's left eye - no reflection at all. And the grain across the nose is splotchy with larger grain than the untouched one. So I'll take the raw with full noise please!

Click to expand...

True, but the ACR conversion is worse.

Click to expand...

I didn't spend much time comparing, but it didn't look like they applied much reduction to it. The out-of-camera result was dreadful.

JNR said:

JNR said:

I also passed it through Define's default setting and the results are so much more even. How long did it take? all of 10 seconds? 15 seconds?

Click to expand...

What software is this?

Yes, 10-15 seconds is certainly acceptable.

Click to expand...

Nik - DxO owns it now. It can be funny with high ISO images and you sometimes have to go into manual mode. Still, not much more than a minute, two if you're real picky.

Click to expand...

If you shoot OOC JPEG and the settings for the shot aren't good, no RAW converter or plug-in is going to yield any help at all - the damage is done.

Click to expand...

JNR said:

I suppose with tons of practice I would have some confidence in the JPEG settings getting good results. And I am sure that those who left RAW conversion at the wayside, also feel that it would take a lot of practice to achieve excellent results quickly. So, I get it. Just like to have a safety net with RAW that does not exist with JPEG.

Click to expand...

57even said:

stevo23 said:

57even said:

stevo23 said:

57even said:

stevo23 said:

57even said:

stevo23 said:

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...

Meaning straight out of camera, no tweaking? Yea, that would be a great time saver. But I think you're missing out on some image quality, although maybe it's plenty good enough most of the time for you. I've never been able to get along with jpgs - not enough adjustment latitude.

Click to expand...

This is true at low ISO. At higher ISO, there is not much more latitude to have, and some of the in-camera noise reduction techniques are quite good (better than Photoshop without a plugin anyway).

Click to expand...

At ALL ISOs, there is more to be had with Raw simply because jpeg cuts out information by default. Whatever you had with Raw, you have less with the jpeg.

Click to expand...

But there is less information and more noise at high ISO, so less useful information is being removed.

Click to expand...

It removes the same proportion. So it just makes it even worse to work with. I really appreciate having raw when I do work with higher ISO Images:

Click to expand...

Not so. In an ISO 100 image, once the JPEG tone curve has been applied, all the lower stops are compressed, so you lose several DR stops. At high ISO, those DR stops are already buried in noise. You can add NR, but the results are ugly, and you lose a huge amount of detail.

Click to expand...

Huh? Why would I apply a jpeg tone curve? How does this comment fit?

Click to expand...

It's applied by the in-camera conversion prior to compression.

Click to expand...

Member said:

Member said:

Member said:

Member said:

Guess the ISO and you get an award.

Click to expand...

Not sure I get the point. I can't see the JPEG for comparison, and there is so much detail loss considering it's small size that I would not have printed it anyway.

Click to expand...

Huh? This is a jpg. What's the ISO?

Member said:

I would have used a tripod and a longer exposure.

Click to expand...

So would I except that I decided to leave it in my car because I thought the trail was heading to a vista. Instead, we saw this area and thought it was pretty charming but neither of use felt like hiking to the car and back. That's when it counts to have decent high ISO performance.

Click to expand...

Sure, but I'm not sure I would print it. That's all.

Click to expand...

Member said:

Member said:

Member said:

Member said:

I disagree. No camera matches your own post processing power. I can get the same colors, but I don't necessarily want them or find them particularly appealing.

Click to expand...

Actually, its not you or me but the algorithms used in the software. C1 has totally different colour to LR, for instance. And I can adjust the colour in JPEGs pretty easily.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're after then.

Member said:

Member said:

Member said:

Member said:

But all this being said, jpeg can land right in your wheelhouse if you know what you need and how to get it. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just highlighting the facts surrounding the debate.

Click to expand...

And I'm just pointing out that, like with all things, there is a law of diminishing returns. I edit raw images for anything I print big, but I don't print ISO1600 images that big. Issues like sharpness, noise etc. don't matter as much.

Click to expand...

ISO1600 comes out pretty swell actually, especially if you get enough exposure and process it well. And it depends on what you mean by big. 13x19 looks really good.

Click to expand...

13X19 is medium size IMO and I don't personally think they look 'really good'.

Click to expand...

Then you've never printed them then.

Click to expand...

I have been printing images for a long time, so I know what I find acceptable.

Click to expand...

Member said:

Member said:

Member said:

It depends on the subject matter, but that wouldn't work for me. ISO800 max (on Xpro2) at that size, or maybe 400.

Click to expand...

ISO400? You're better off going to ISO800 on the XP2.

Member said:

But I still use raw up to that point. Above ISO 1600 I don't usually bother as I wouldn't shoot anything that required a large print at that ISO.

Click to expand...

I always shoot raw. Again, not sure what you're trying to say here.

Click to expand...

Just that raw/jpeg doesn't always make that much difference when the image is already degraded by noise.

Click to expand...

Member said:

It makes a lot more difference in a low ISO image with lots of noise free detail, which is when I always use the raw conversion.

I don't take high ISO images for my larger prints, only for documentary stuff. I have made a few A3 prints of some of them and they look OK, but a bit of noise doesn't matter in some types of image. In fact it can add character. Still a lot better on my Fuji than my Nikon D90 though.

Click to expand...

stevo23 said:

JNR said:

stevo23 said:

CAcreeks said:

stevo23 said:

Yikes. I'm not sure what it is that you like about the out-of-camera noise reduction in the cat image (I'm looking at the single cat, shot at 12500). It obliterates all the detail in the cat's left eye - no reflection at all. And the grain across the nose is splotchy with larger grain than the untouched one. So I'll take the raw with full noise please!

Click to expand...

True, but the ACR conversion is worse.

Click to expand...

I didn't spend much time comparing, but it didn't look like they applied much reduction to it. The out-of-camera result was dreadful.

stevo23 said:

stevo23 said:

I also passed it through Define's default setting and the results are so much more even. How long did it take? all of 10 seconds? 15 seconds?

Click to expand...

What software is this?

Yes, 10-15 seconds is certainly acceptable.

Click to expand...

Nik - DxO owns it now. It can be funny with high ISO images and you sometimes have to go into manual mode. Still, not much more than a minute, two if you're real picky.

Click to expand...

If you shoot OOC JPEG and the settings for the shot aren't good, no RAW converter or plug-in is going to yield any help at all - the damage is done.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're saying.

stevo23 said:

I suppose with tons of practice I would have some confidence in the JPEG settings getting good results. And I am sure that those who left RAW conversion at the wayside, also feel that it would take a lot of practice to achieve excellent results quickly. So, I get it. Just like to have a safety net with RAW that does not exist with JPEG.

Click to expand...

I see it slightly differently. It's not a safety net because I don't shoot for the jpeg settings to be just right, I shoot for the raw for maximum exposure. I don't have a safety net from jpeg+raw. I guess my only safety net is bracketing raw.

Click to expand...

JNR said:

stevo23 said:

JNR said:

stevo23 said:

CAcreeks said:

stevo23 said:

Yikes. I'm not sure what it is that you like about the out-of-camera noise reduction in the cat image (I'm looking at the single cat, shot at 12500). It obliterates all the detail in the cat's left eye - no reflection at all. And the grain across the nose is splotchy with larger grain than the untouched one. So I'll take the raw with full noise please!

Click to expand...

True, but the ACR conversion is worse.

Click to expand...

I didn't spend much time comparing, but it didn't look like they applied much reduction to it. The out-of-camera result was dreadful.

JNR said:

JNR said:

I also passed it through Define's default setting and the results are so much more even. How long did it take? all of 10 seconds? 15 seconds?

Click to expand...

What software is this?

Yes, 10-15 seconds is certainly acceptable.

Click to expand...

Nik - DxO owns it now. It can be funny with high ISO images and you sometimes have to go into manual mode. Still, not much more than a minute, two if you're real picky.

Click to expand...

If you shoot OOC JPEG and the settings for the shot aren't good, no RAW converter or plug-in is going to yield any help at all - the damage is done.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're saying.

JNR said:

I suppose with tons of practice I would have some confidence in the JPEG settings getting good results. And I am sure that those who left RAW conversion at the wayside, also feel that it would take a lot of practice to achieve excellent results quickly. So, I get it. Just like to have a safety net with RAW that does not exist with JPEG.

Click to expand...

I see it slightly differently. It's not a safety net because I don't shoot for the jpeg settings to be just right, I shoot for the raw for maximum exposure. I don't have a safety net from jpeg+raw. I guess my only safety net is bracketing raw.

Click to expand...

Well, no one has a problem if they are shooting Raw+(Jpeg); you always then have fallback leeway if the JPEG is off somewhat. I'm commenting based on OP's premise of JPEG only. Essentially, I was just adding in agreement with you.

Click to expand...

57even said:

Sal Baker said:

57even said:

Sal Baker said:

57even said:

Sal Baker said:

57even said:

Sal Baker said:

57even said:

stevo23 said:

57even said:

stevo23 said:

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...

Meaning straight out of camera, no tweaking? Yea, that would be a great time saver. But I think you're missing out on some image quality, although maybe it's plenty good enough most of the time for you. I've never been able to get along with jpgs - not enough adjustment latitude.

Click to expand...

This is true at low ISO. At higher ISO, there is not much more latitude to have, and some of the in-camera noise reduction techniques are quite good (better than Photoshop without a plugin anyway).

Click to expand...

At ALL ISOs, there is more to be had with Raw simply because jpeg cuts out information by default. Whatever you had with Raw, you have less with the jpeg.

Click to expand...

But there is less information and more noise at high ISO, so less useful information is being removed.

Member said:

And no, I dislike all in-camera noise reduction that I've used, never been better than Lightroom and certainly not better than Nik Define or some others.

Member said:

When you really do only have 8 EV of dynamic range, its much more like shooting slide film. Its all about the exposure, not the processing.

Click to expand...

Who only has 8 EV of dynamic range these days?

Click to expand...

You lose 1 stop of DR for each ISO level (once you eliminate quantisation). And there is too much noise to risk banding when adjusting the contrast in post.

Click to expand...

The reduced tonality in 8-bit jpegs will reveal banding MUCH more quickly than the RAW version of the file when pushing-pulling in post.

Click to expand...

Not at high ISO. Noise dithering more or less eliminates it. Far worse banding at low ISO if you push the contrast, which is why I use 16-bit for editing.

Click to expand...

I have found that areas of quick graduations in high ISO shots (like the glow around a streetlight at night) are much more prone to processing banding in jpegs than in RAW files of the same image.

Click to expand...

Probably because they have a lot of noise reduction applied in the default JPEG. It's not in the data, just the processing.

Click to expand...

Also, the substantial difference in bit depth plays into it.

Sal

Click to expand...

Not really - your display is only 8-bit. At ISO 1600 the noise is higher than the quantisation step, so its less of a factor. At ISO 100, it matters a lot more.

If you use highly compressed JPEGS, then yes. When you open them, a lot of the 'noise' turns into low frequency patches of different colours because of the de-compression. I have seen this created banding patterns, but not when using high quality JPEGs.

Noise reduction also reduces the dithering effect. But like I said, I have yet to see any serious banding in high ISO JPEGs, though I am sure it can be induced if you try. I have far more issues with low ISO images and 8-bit displays when converting to black and white.

And if you get banding over a small high contrast area, that isn't likely to be a quantisation issue. The banding would be too narrow to see. It's more likely a compression or NR issue.

My only point is that I don't really want to spend a lot of time on images that I am unlikely to print on paper. When you downsize to post images online, you can mask almost anything, but the difference between JPEG and RAW in that instance is not as great.

The reason I shoot raw is to control DR, tonality and sharpening, but there isn't much DR at high ISO - most of the bottom stops are buried in colour noise - and if you downsize an image, it looks sharp already.

The one exception to this rule is gig shots, when I shoot raw to control WB, and because I am doing them for other people's publicity material. They do get printed, but only in magazines. The 56 f/1.2 comes in handy.

--
Reporter: "Mr Gandhi, what do you think of Western Civilisation?"
Mahatma Gandhi: "I think it would be a very good idea!"

Click to expand...

I'm not concerned with the display bit depth, my concerns center around selectively dodging and burning parts of the image using a file (jpeg) that has such limited tones/shades available. It doesn't take very much pushing and pulling in programs like NIK Viveza or Silver Effex to see banding that isn't revealed in RAW files.

I try to never compress or use digital NR on my files that are destined for print. I convert to 16-bit files and average 6 to 10 of them to reduce high ISO noise. When shot correctly, the result is a very "solid" file that can take a lot of PP. I have tried noise averaging across the same number of jpeg layers and found the finished image to be much more fragile, in several ways.

Click to expand...

Well OK, that is a fairly belt and braces technique. But you are effectively just simulating a low ISO image.

Click to expand...

Member said:

BTW I was referring to the NR added to the JPEG by default. Turning it off doesn't really turn it off. So yes, your technique wouldn't work in that case because the noise is not longer gaussian when decompressed - hence the banding.

--
Reporter: "Mr Gandhi, what do you think of Western Civilisation?"
Mahatma Gandhi: "I think it would be a very good idea!"

Click to expand...

JNR said:

JNR said:

JNR said:

I suppose with tons of practice I would have some confidence in the JPEG settings getting good results. And I am sure that those who left RAW conversion at the wayside, also feel that it would take a lot of practice to achieve excellent results quickly. So, I get it. Just like to have a safety net with RAW that does not exist with JPEG.

Click to expand...

I see it slightly differently. It's not a safety net because I don't shoot for the jpeg settings to be just right, I shoot for the raw for maximum exposure. I don't have a safety net from jpeg+raw. I guess my only safety net is bracketing raw.

Click to expand...

Well, no one has a problem if they are shooting Raw+(Jpeg); you always then have fallback leeway if the JPEG is off somewhat. I'm commenting based on OP's premise of JPEG only. Essentially, I was just adding in agreement with you.

Click to expand...

CAcreeks said:

JNR said:

CAcreeks said:

CAcreeks said:

I suppose with tons of practice I would have some confidence in the JPEG settings getting good results. And I am sure that those who left RAW conversion at the wayside, also feel that it would take a lot of practice to achieve excellent results quickly. So, I get it. Just like to have a safety net with RAW that does not exist with JPEG.

Click to expand...

I see it slightly differently. It's not a safety net because I don't shoot for the jpeg settings to be just right, I shoot for the raw for maximum exposure. I don't have a safety net from jpeg+raw. I guess my only safety net is bracketing raw.

Click to expand...

Well, no one has a problem if they are shooting Raw+(Jpeg); you always then have fallback leeway if the JPEG is off somewhat. I'm commenting based on OP's premise of JPEG only. Essentially, I was just adding in agreement with you.

Click to expand...

My interpretation of what the original poster wrote is that shooting Raw at high ISO is rather a waste of time. I don't think he was saying JPEG only, just that the RAF element of Raw+JPEG at high ISO is too much trouble for commercial printing.

Click to expand...

CAcreeks said:

On my cameras that can do it, I shoot Raw+JPEG because it's handy to have the full-size JPEG for quick access. The Raw can be useful if the JPEG needs significant editing.

If you shoot RAF only, all you have is a 1920x1280 preview, and if the JPEG is better than the results you get from Raw conversion, you'll have to waste time doing in-camera conversion.

Click to expand...

stevo23 said:

stevo23 said:

My interpretation of what the original poster wrote is that shooting Raw at high ISO is rather a waste of time. I don't think he was saying JPEG only, just that the RAF element of Raw+JPEG at high ISO is too much trouble for commercial printing.

Click to expand...

Either High ISO on these cameras is useful or it is not. If it's useful, then the Raw is a better choice. In-camera NR and jpeg rendering isn't that great on high ISO images. I get much better results and quickly using Nik in LR on my RAFs than my camera can ever aspire to.

Click to expand...

CAcreeks said:

stevo23 said:

CAcreeks said:

My interpretation of what the original poster wrote is that shooting Raw at high ISO is rather a waste of time. I don't think he was saying JPEG only, just that the RAF element of Raw+JPEG at high ISO is too much trouble for commercial printing.

Click to expand...

Either High ISO on these cameras is useful or it is not. If it's useful, then the Raw is a better choice. In-camera NR and jpeg rendering isn't that great on high ISO images. I get much better results and quickly using Nik in LR on my RAFs than my camera can ever aspire to.

Click to expand...

Is this the same Nik "define" as in the Google Nik collection? I don't have Lightroom.

https://www.google.com/nikcollection/

Click to expand...

CAcreeks said:

Anyhow, the low-light orange tabby JPEG in the X-T20 sample gallery, when downsampled, looks good to me. Even on a UHD monitor. The ACR conversion is too dark, and at 100% noise looks much worse, especially on a UHD monitor. ISO 12800.

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/7251932144/fujifilm-x-t20-sample-gallery/7308778292

Click to expand...