Raw vs. Jpeg opinion (C-8080)

photogeek · May 28, 2004

So I decided to compare RAW vs. JPEG today. I took my brand new shiny C-8080 and went to the balcony. My test shot contained parts of the building, the grass lawn 3 stories below and some trees. The picture was taken at 28mm f/2.4 (wide open). The conversion was done in Photoshop CS, JPEG file was taken in SHQ mode.

My observations:

1. C-8080 slightly overexposed the picture. I could correct this in RAW by doing -0.5ev exposure compensation.

2. Picture converted from RAW is noticeably sharper, especially in areas of fine detail (grass). I can see some grass blades on raw capture, I can see nothing on JPEG, it's just a green goo there. Looks like Oly uses the interpolation algorithm optimized for speed, not quality, which is a pity.

3. PS CS rendered slightly inaccurate color balance on RAW capture - there was a bit too much red.

4. The lens performance is outstanding. Makes me want to try the E-system, too.

So I guess from now on I'll only take the pictures I care about in RAW, except if constrained by memory card space.

Mike Flaherty · May 28, 2004

photogeek said:
So I decided to compare RAW vs. JPEG today. I took my brand new
shiny C-8080 and went to the balcony. My test shot contained parts
of the building, the grass lawn 3 stories below and some trees. The
picture was taken at 28mm f/2.4 (wide open). The conversion was
done in Photoshop CS, JPEG file was taken in SHQ mode.

My observations:
1. C-8080 slightly overexposed the picture. I could correct this in
RAW by doing -0.5ev exposure compensation.

If it was only off 1/2-stop, you could easily have made the adjustment on a JPG file with minimal negative effect.

photogeek said:
2. Picture converted from RAW is noticeably sharper, especially in
areas of fine detail (grass). I can see some grass blades on raw
capture, I can see nothing on JPEG, it's just a green goo there.
Looks like Oly uses the interpolation algorithm optimized for
speed, not quality, which is a pity.

Can't understand this one, unless you had the sharpness setting in PSCS' RAW converter set higher than in-camera settings for the SHQ JPG. I've examined both RAW and SHQ JPG's from my own 8080 and don't see too much, in terms of quality differences - and I've studied them closely. Go figure.

photogeek said:
3. PS CS rendered slightly inaccurate color balance on RAW capture

there was a bit too much red.

If you find this innaccuracy consistent, simply make an adjustment and save it as your default setting in PSCS's RAW converter. That covers that.

photogeek said:
4. The lens performance is outstanding. Makes me want to try the
E-system, too.

Olympus makes pretty good glass, IMHO.

photogeek said:
So I guess from now on I'll only take the pictures I care about in
RAW, except if constrained by memory card space.

RAW is fine, if you have the time to wait 15 seconds or so between shots and you need the adjustment latitude afforded RAW files. Otherwise, SHQ JPG's will serve most people quite nicely, IMHO.

--
Mike Flaherty
http://imageevent.com/mflaherty/mikesgallery

photogeek · May 28, 2004

Mike Flaherty said:
Mike Flaherty said:

My observations:
1. C-8080 slightly overexposed the picture. I could correct this in
RAW by doing -0.5ev exposure compensation.

Click to expand...

If it was only off 1/2-stop, you could easily have made the
adjustment on a JPG file with minimal negative effect.

Actually, no. With JPEG once highlights are blown, they're blown. There's no getting back the highlight detail.

Mike Flaherty said:
Mike Flaherty said:

2. Picture converted from RAW is noticeably sharper, especially in
areas of fine detail (grass). I can see some grass blades on raw
capture, I can see nothing on JPEG, it's just a green goo there.
Looks like Oly uses the interpolation algorithm optimized for
speed, not quality, which is a pity.

Click to expand...

Can't understand this one, unless you had the sharpness setting in
PSCS' RAW converter set higher than in-camera settings for the SHQ
JPG. I've examined both RAW and SHQ JPG's from my own 8080 and
don't see too much, in terms of quality differences - and I've
studied them closely. Go figure.

Sharpness was set to zero in RAW conversion. I have later run a USM (200/0.6/0) on the converted image file. No amount of USM was able to restore the grass blade detail from the green mud JPEG conversion turned it into.

Mike Flaherty said:
Mike Flaherty said:

3. PS CS rendered slightly inaccurate color balance on RAW capture

there was a bit too much red.

Click to expand...

If you find this innaccuracy consistent, simply make an adjustment
and save it as your default setting in PSCS's RAW converter. That
covers that.

This is not possible, because if I'm shooting with custom WB (which I was), the setting would have to be different every time.

Mike Flaherty · May 28, 2004

photogeek said:
photogeek said:

photogeek said:

My observations:
1. C-8080 slightly overexposed the picture. I could correct this in
RAW by doing -0.5ev exposure compensation.

Click to expand...

If it was only off 1/2-stop, you could easily have made the
adjustment on a JPG file with minimal negative effect.

Click to expand...

Actually, no. With JPEG once highlights are blown, they're blown.
There's no getting back the highlight detail.

Agreed, IF blown. But "slightly" overexposed doesn't sound like blown to me.

photogeek said:
photogeek said:

photogeek said:

2. Picture converted from RAW is noticeably sharper, especially in
areas of fine detail (grass). I can see some grass blades on raw
capture, I can see nothing on JPEG, it's just a green goo there.
Looks like Oly uses the interpolation algorithm optimized for
speed, not quality, which is a pity.

Click to expand...

Can't understand this one, unless you had the sharpness setting in
PSCS' RAW converter set higher than in-camera settings for the SHQ
JPG. I've examined both RAW and SHQ JPG's from my own 8080 and
don't see too much, in terms of quality differences - and I've
studied them closely. Go figure.

Click to expand...

Sharpness was set to zero in RAW conversion. I have later run a USM
(200/0.6/0) on the converted image file. No amount of USM was able
to restore the grass blade detail from the green mud JPEG
conversion turned it into.

photogeek said:

photogeek said:

3. PS CS rendered slightly inaccurate color balance on RAW capture

there was a bit too much red.

Click to expand...

If you find this innaccuracy consistent, simply make an adjustment
and save it as your default setting in PSCS's RAW converter. That
covers that.

Click to expand...

This is not possible, because if I'm shooting with custom WB (which
I was), the setting would have to be different every time.

Correct. Personally, I only shoot AWB and use a gray card in a test shot to color correct in PSCS. Easier for me than custom white balance and also permits me to keep a custom default setting for each of my cameras. Works for me.

--
Mike Flaherty
http://imageevent.com/mflaherty/mikesgallery

Jared Hunter · May 28, 2004

photogeek said:
photogeek said:

photogeek said:

My observations:
1. C-8080 slightly overexposed the picture. I could correct this in
RAW by doing -0.5ev exposure compensation.

Click to expand...

If it was only off 1/2-stop, you could easily have made the
adjustment on a JPG file with minimal negative effect.

Click to expand...

Actually, no. With JPEG once highlights are blown, they're blown.
There's no getting back the highlight detail.

With the 8080's real-time histograms, there's really no excuse to blow out highlights. I've used them and they are very effective. It's better to get it right at capture time than to rely on post processing to correct.

The contradiction is that if one is so fussy to resort to RAW, why not be just as fussy in getting the exposure correct to begin with?

photogeek said:
photogeek said:

photogeek said:

2. Picture converted from RAW is noticeably sharper, especially in
areas of fine detail (grass). I can see some grass blades on raw
capture, I can see nothing on JPEG, it's just a green goo there.
Looks like Oly uses the interpolation algorithm optimized for
speed, not quality, which is a pity.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I'm not convinced. Did you use autofocus in each shot or lock the focus down manually so it didn't change between shots?

photogeek said:
photogeek said:

Can't understand this one, unless you had the sharpness setting in
PSCS' RAW converter set higher than in-camera settings for the SHQ
JPG. I've examined both RAW and SHQ JPG's from my own 8080 and
don't see too much, in terms of quality differences - and I've
studied them closely. Go figure.

Click to expand...

Sharpness was set to zero in RAW conversion. I have later run a USM
(200/0.6/0) on the converted image file. No amount of USM was able
to restore the grass blade detail from the green mud JPEG
conversion turned it into.

photogeek said:

photogeek said:

3. PS CS rendered slightly inaccurate color balance on RAW capture

there was a bit too much red.

Click to expand...

If you find this innaccuracy consistent, simply make an adjustment
and save it as your default setting in PSCS's RAW converter. That
covers that.

Click to expand...

This is not possible, because if I'm shooting with custom WB (which
I was), the setting would have to be different every time.

Kiran L. · May 29, 2004

photogeek said:
So I decided to compare RAW vs. JPEG today. I took my brand new
shiny C-8080 and went to the balcony. My test shot contained parts
of the building, the grass lawn 3 stories below and some trees. The
picture was taken at 28mm f/2.4 (wide open). The conversion was
done in Photoshop CS, JPEG file was taken in SHQ mode.

My observations:
2. Picture converted from RAW is noticeably sharper, especially in
areas of fine detail (grass). I can see some grass blades on raw
capture, I can see nothing on JPEG, it's just a green goo there.
Looks like Oly uses the interpolation algorithm optimized for
speed, not quality, which is a pity.

I think what you are seeing here is the loss of detail from noise reduction, which from Phils review seems to occur at all iso's. Avoiding noise reduction is one of the main advantages of RAW for me.

-Kiran

photogeek · May 29, 2004

Kiran L. said:
I think what you are seeing here is the loss of detail from noise
reduction, which from Phils review seems to occur at all iso's.
Avoiding noise reduction is one of the main advantages of RAW for
me.

The shots were taken at ISO64. And I have specifically disabled noise reduction. I think it's the interpolation algorithm.

I'll have to repeat the test with a tripod, fixed focus and remote release to be truly confident in what I see. I'll also try to publish the pics (or at least full-size crops).

Kiran L. · Jun 5, 2004

photogeek said:
photogeek said:

I think what you are seeing here is the loss of detail from noise
reduction, which from Phils review seems to occur at all iso's.
Avoiding noise reduction is one of the main advantages of RAW for
me.

Click to expand...

The shots were taken at ISO64. And I have specifically disabled
noise reduction. I think it's the interpolation algorithm.

Unfortunately there's a lot of confusion regarding noise reduction because there's two types. The noise reduction that you disabled was long exposure noise reduction, in which a pixel gets 'stuck' during a long exposure.

The noise reduction I'm talking about gets rid of random image noise, which is the grain that increases with ISO. Any detail as fine as the grain is also reduced.

-Kiran

Jared Hunter · Jun 5, 2004

I've done some analysis on 8080 RAW vs SHQ JPEG. My conclusion is that RAW retains more noise resulting in a grainier image that is misinterpreted as having more detail. Upon close inspection, the RAW image does not contain more actual DETAIL than JPEG. The difference is mainly due to how details are rendered, not whether RAW has more detail.

Therefore, the only advantage of RAW is to help out those that are a little sloppy with exposure. Once you learn to nail exposure on the 8080, RAW has no advantage and lots of disadvantages.

Kiran L. said:
photogeek said:

Kiran L. said:

I think what you are seeing here is the loss of detail from noise
reduction, which from Phils review seems to occur at all iso's.
Avoiding noise reduction is one of the main advantages of RAW for
me.

Click to expand...

The shots were taken at ISO64. And I have specifically disabled
noise reduction. I think it's the interpolation algorithm.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately there's a lot of confusion regarding noise reduction
because there's two types. The noise reduction that you disabled
was long exposure noise reduction, in which a pixel gets 'stuck'
during a long exposure.

The noise reduction I'm talking about gets rid of random image
noise, which is the grain that increases with ISO. Any detail as
fine as the grain is also reduced.

-Kiran

Jay Jervey · Jun 5, 2004

Jared Hunter said:
I've done some analysis on 8080 RAW vs SHQ JPEG. My conclusion is
that RAW retains more noise resulting in a grainier image that is
misinterpreted as having more detail. Upon close inspection, the
RAW image does not contain more actual DETAIL than JPEG. The
difference is mainly due to how details are rendered, not whether
RAW has more detail.

Jared --

Not sure what you mean by "retains more noise". I presume you mean that RAW is not doing any noise reduction (which it shouldn't and which is good). That would argue for RAW being superior, leaving any noise reduction up to you in post-processing.

The aggressive noise reduction at ISO 100+ is one of my beefs with the 8080 -- I shoot everything at ISO 50 to avoid losing image detail. I can experiment myself but I was wondering if you've tried ISO 100+ with RAW. It would be a good thing if noise reduction was not applied. That way we could convert to 16-bit TIFF and then process ISO 100+ with Neat Image or Noise Ninja.

Regards --

Jay

Jared Hunter · Jun 5, 2004

Jay Jervey said:
Jared Hunter said:

I've done some analysis on 8080 RAW vs SHQ JPEG. My conclusion is
that RAW retains more noise resulting in a grainier image that is
misinterpreted as having more detail. Upon close inspection, the
RAW image does not contain more actual DETAIL than JPEG. The
difference is mainly due to how details are rendered, not whether
RAW has more detail.

Click to expand...

Jared --

Not sure what you mean by "retains more noise". I presume you mean
that RAW is not doing any noise reduction (which it shouldn't and
which is good). That would argue for RAW being superior, leaving
any noise reduction up to you in post-processing.

Yes, I'm aware of this.

Jay Jervey said:
The aggressive noise reduction at ISO 100+ is one of my beefs with
the 8080 -- I shoot everything at ISO 50 to avoid losing image
detail. I can experiment myself but I was wondering if you've tried
ISO 100+ with RAW. It would be a good thing if noise reduction was
not applied. That way we could convert to 16-bit TIFF and then
process ISO 100+ with Neat Image or Noise Ninja.

I only tested at ISO 50 and found no advantage in RAW + NeatImage or NNinja over SHQ JPEG. Olympus really has optimized their NR algorithm (a good thing since RAW is so slow). I may try comparisons at higher ISOs..

Kiran L. · Jun 6, 2004

Jared Hunter said:
I've done some analysis on 8080 RAW vs SHQ JPEG. My conclusion is
that RAW retains more noise resulting in a grainier image that is
misinterpreted as having more detail. Upon close inspection, the
RAW image does not contain more actual DETAIL than JPEG. The
difference is mainly due to how details are rendered, not whether
RAW has more detail.

Noise reduction algorithms cannot differentiate between noise and detail as fine as noise. Any detail that is as fine as noise will be reduced.

Jared Hunter said:
Therefore, the only advantage of RAW is to help out those that are
a little sloppy with exposure. Once you learn to nail exposure on
the 8080, RAW has no advantage and lots of disadvantages.

Why do all the pro's use RAW? There are a lot of advantages.

-Kiran

Jared Hunter · Jun 6, 2004

Kiran L. said:
Jared Hunter said:

I've done some analysis on 8080 RAW vs SHQ JPEG. My conclusion is
that RAW retains more noise resulting in a grainier image that is
misinterpreted as having more detail. Upon close inspection, the
RAW image does not contain more actual DETAIL than JPEG. The
difference is mainly due to how details are rendered, not whether
RAW has more detail.

Click to expand...

Noise reduction algorithms cannot differentiate between noise and
detail as fine as noise. Any detail that is as fine as noise will
be reduced.

Correct. By the time you apply NeatImage or Noise Ninja to a RAW, it comes out no better than SHQ in terms of details.

Kiran L. said:
Kiran L. said:

Therefore, the only advantage of RAW is to help out those that are
a little sloppy with exposure. Once you learn to nail exposure on
the 8080, RAW has no advantage and lots of disadvantages.

Click to expand...

Why do all the pro's use RAW? There are a lot of advantages.

There are practical realities relating to implementation on the particular camera when it comes to RAW. Some models render much more details and less artifacts in their RAW format than JPEG. Fortunately, Olympus has really optimized their internal RAW to JPEG conversion so that there is no practical difference in image quality between the two. Secondly, the slow write times of 8080 RAW seriously cripple shooting style in non-landscape type shots. Finally, at over 11M per RAW, it makes more sense from a speed and storage point of view to bracket 3 SHQ exposures rather than to take one RAW, if all you're after is getting the exposure correct.

IMO, lots of users use RAW because they hear 'pros do it' but many would be at a loss to explain the pros and cons if pressed, especially in regards to the implementation on their specific camera rather than to talk in generalities.

I wonder how many that are so earnestly pushing 8080 RAW have actually tried some controlled comparison tests between RAW and SHQ jpeg?

Brian G. · Jun 6, 2004

Kiran L. said:
Why do all the pro's use RAW? There are a lot of advantages.

I just wanted to point out that all pros do not use RAW. There are more than a couple professional photographers in my circle of family and friends, and I can tell you that on a day-to-day basis, most do NOT use RAW. And in the case of sports/spot news/photojournalists, none use RAW (every photojournalist I've ever spoken to shoots jpeg, and these are people with super-fast cameras like the Canon 1D, etc where RAW write times are not an issue).

Personally, for shots I really care about, I like the idea of RAW+jpg. But for many professionals, RAW adds more to the workflow than it returns in benefits to the photographer. Many pros I know also believe that relying on RAW often (although not necessarily) leads to laziness and sloppy technique, and that people should rather spend more time getting the shot right at the time it is taken than spending time later correcting it. This I am inclined to agree with (that it's better to get it as "right" as possible while you're taking the shot).
Just another pespective on the matter.

Kind Regards,
Brian
--
~~Brian (el picador)~~

Digital Image Gallery:

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/spiritmist/Brian_Geldziler_Digital_Image_Gallery/index.htm

Kiran L. · Jun 7, 2004

Jared Hunter said:
Jared Hunter said:

Noise reduction algorithms cannot differentiate between noise and
detail as fine as noise. Any detail that is as fine as noise will
be reduced.

Click to expand...

Correct. By the time you apply NeatImage or Noise Ninja to a RAW,
it comes out no better than SHQ in terms of details.

I agree that if you are going to apply noise reduction anyway, then SHQ or HQ will produce just as good a print as RAW in terms of detail. But what if you don't want to use any noise reduction? I reduce the noise on very few of my pictures.

Jared Hunter said:
IMO, lots of users use RAW because they hear 'pros do it' but many
would be at a loss to explain the pros and cons if pressed,
especially in regards to the implementation on their specific
camera rather than to talk in generalities.

I can tell you why I use RAW - mostly to have complete control over the tonal curve. With many pictures I've taken, I've ended up using tonal curves that are very different from the default ones my camera uses. It would have been very difficult to get the same results from a JPEG that's already been converted. The extent to which this is beneficial depends on how often you shoot in difficult lighting conditions.

It is also convenient to not have to worry about setting WB in the field, and as I've been saying, I don't like to have noise reduction for most of my pics.

I feel that most of the time these benefits outweigh the disadvantages such as large file size, processing time etc.

-Kiran

fishface123 · Jun 7, 2004

What about the advantages in terms of WB and colour balance etc? This is where I believed the advantage to lie of RAW. I may be wrong (am fairly new to digi, and the 808o is the first cam I have had with RAW), but I thought that once the Camera settings had been applied to a JPEG file it is extremly difficult to pots process them out later without JPEG compression artifacts.

Therefore, the advantage with RAW lies in being able to process things exactly how you want in terms of contrast, levels, tonal range, colour balance, saturation without EXTRA noise creeping in?

Jared Hunter said:
Kiran L. said:

Jared Hunter said:

I've done some analysis on 8080 RAW vs SHQ JPEG. My conclusion is
that RAW retains more noise resulting in a grainier image that is
misinterpreted as having more detail. Upon close inspection, the
RAW image does not contain more actual DETAIL than JPEG. The
difference is mainly due to how details are rendered, not whether
RAW has more detail.

Click to expand...

Noise reduction algorithms cannot differentiate between noise and
detail as fine as noise. Any detail that is as fine as noise will
be reduced.

Click to expand...

Correct. By the time you apply NeatImage or Noise Ninja to a RAW,
it comes out no better than SHQ in terms of details.

Jared Hunter said:

Jared Hunter said:

Therefore, the only advantage of RAW is to help out those that are
a little sloppy with exposure. Once you learn to nail exposure on
the 8080, RAW has no advantage and lots of disadvantages.

Click to expand...

Why do all the pro's use RAW? There are a lot of advantages.

Click to expand...

There are practical realities relating to implementation on the
particular camera when it comes to RAW. Some models render much
more details and less artifacts in their RAW format than JPEG.
Fortunately, Olympus has really optimized their internal RAW to
JPEG conversion so that there is no practical difference in image
quality between the two. Secondly, the slow write times of 8080 RAW
seriously cripple shooting style in non-landscape type shots.
Finally, at over 11M per RAW, it makes more sense from a speed and
storage point of view to bracket 3 SHQ exposures rather than to
take one RAW, if all you're after is getting the exposure correct.

IMO, lots of users use RAW because they hear 'pros do it' but many
would be at a loss to explain the pros and cons if pressed,
especially in regards to the implementation on their specific
camera rather than to talk in generalities.

I wonder how many that are so earnestly pushing 8080 RAW have
actually tried some controlled comparison tests between RAW and SHQ
jpeg?

Jared Hunter · Jun 7, 2004

fishface123 said:
What about the advantages in terms of WB and colour balance etc?

These are easy to correct if you know how to use programs like Photoshop.

fishface123 said:
This is where I believed the advantage to lie of RAW. I may be
wrong (am fairly new to digi, and the 808o is the first cam I have
had with RAW), but I thought that once the Camera settings had been
applied to a JPEG file it is extremly difficult to pots process
them out later without JPEG compression artifacts.

JPEG compression artifacts result when you save an image to disk...it has nothing to do with making adjustments to color or white balance. Before you rely too much on hearsay, I'd strongly recommend that you try a controlled comparison between 8080 RAW and JPEG yourself.

fishface123 said:
Therefore, the advantage with RAW lies in being able to process
things exactly how you want in terms of contrast, levels, tonal
range, colour balance, saturation without EXTRA noise creeping in?

There is a mis-perception that jpegs are somehow less tweakable. Let's put it this way, if you're taking pictures such that they are outside the realm of what's correctable with jpeg, perhaps you should brush up on technique rather than using RAW as a crutch.

fishface123 said:
Jared Hunter said:

Kiran L. said:

Jared Hunter said:

I've done some analysis on 8080 RAW vs SHQ JPEG. My conclusion is
that RAW retains more noise resulting in a grainier image that is
misinterpreted as having more detail. Upon close inspection, the
RAW image does not contain more actual DETAIL than JPEG. The
difference is mainly due to how details are rendered, not whether
RAW has more detail.

Click to expand...

Noise reduction algorithms cannot differentiate between noise and
detail as fine as noise. Any detail that is as fine as noise will
be reduced.

Click to expand...

Correct. By the time you apply NeatImage or Noise Ninja to a RAW,
it comes out no better than SHQ in terms of details.

fishface123 said:

fishface123 said:

Therefore, the only advantage of RAW is to help out those that are
a little sloppy with exposure. Once you learn to nail exposure on
the 8080, RAW has no advantage and lots of disadvantages.

Click to expand...

Why do all the pro's use RAW? There are a lot of advantages.

Click to expand...

There are practical realities relating to implementation on the
particular camera when it comes to RAW. Some models render much
more details and less artifacts in their RAW format than JPEG.
Fortunately, Olympus has really optimized their internal RAW to
JPEG conversion so that there is no practical difference in image
quality between the two. Secondly, the slow write times of 8080 RAW
seriously cripple shooting style in non-landscape type shots.
Finally, at over 11M per RAW, it makes more sense from a speed and
storage point of view to bracket 3 SHQ exposures rather than to
take one RAW, if all you're after is getting the exposure correct.

IMO, lots of users use RAW because they hear 'pros do it' but many
would be at a loss to explain the pros and cons if pressed,
especially in regards to the implementation on their specific
camera rather than to talk in generalities.

I wonder how many that are so earnestly pushing 8080 RAW have
actually tried some controlled comparison tests between RAW and SHQ
jpeg?

Click to expand...

Jared Hunter · Jun 7, 2004

Kiran L. said:
Jared Hunter said:

Kiran L. said:

Noise reduction algorithms cannot differentiate between noise and
detail as fine as noise. Any detail that is as fine as noise will
be reduced.

Click to expand...

Correct. By the time you apply NeatImage or Noise Ninja to a RAW,
it comes out no better than SHQ in terms of details.

Click to expand...

I agree that if you are going to apply noise reduction anyway, then
SHQ or HQ will produce just as good a print as RAW in terms of
detail. But what if you don't want to use any noise reduction? I
reduce the noise on very few of my pictures.

Well, grain for the sake of grain is no problem - there are lots of methods to add grain. But I thought the objective was to preserve actual detail. I'm all for minimal noise reduction to preserve detail, but I see no point in preserving grain if it adds no actual detail to the image.

Kiran L. said:
Kiran L. said:

IMO, lots of users use RAW because they hear 'pros do it' but many
would be at a loss to explain the pros and cons if pressed,
especially in regards to the implementation on their specific
camera rather than to talk in generalities.

Click to expand...

I can tell you why I use RAW - mostly to have complete control over
the tonal curve. With many pictures I've taken, I've ended up
using tonal curves that are very different from the default ones my
camera uses. It would have been very difficult to get the same
results from a JPEG that's already been converted. The extent to
which this is beneficial depends on how often you shoot in
difficult lighting conditions.

Sounds more like correcting exposure to me. The 8080's direct histogram protects from blown highlights at capture time. Photoshop CS's shadow recovery makes brightening up the darker areas easy.

Kiran L. said:
It is also convenient to not have to worry about setting WB in the
field,

This is just delaying the inevitable so that WB decisions have to be made in post processing.

While your points may be valid for some cameras, after testing the 8080 for several weeks now having taken over 1,500 shots, I've found that the dynamic range and WB/color accuracy of the 8080 is such that it requires the least post processing (if any on most shots) than any other digicam I've used, the 8080 being my 8th one. I really don't think one can generalize the merits of RAW for all cameras. Although I enjoy working in Photoshop, I'm also delighted that the 8080's images require so little, if any tweaking.

fishface123 · Jun 7, 2004

Jared Hunter said:
fishface123 said:

What about the advantages in terms of WB and colour balance etc?

Click to expand...

These are easy to correct if you know how to use programs like
Photoshop.

Jared Hunter said:

This is where I believed the advantage to lie of RAW. I may be
wrong (am fairly new to digi, and the 808o is the first cam I have
had with RAW), but I thought that once the Camera settings had been
applied to a JPEG file it is extremly difficult to pots process
them out later without JPEG compression artifacts.

Click to expand...

JPEG compression artifacts result when you save an image to
disk...it has nothing to do with making adjustments to color or
white balance. Before you rely too much on hearsay, I'd strongly
recommend that you try a controlled comparison between 8080 RAW and
JPEG yourself.

Jared Hunter said:

Therefore, the advantage with RAW lies in being able to process
things exactly how you want in terms of contrast, levels, tonal
range, colour balance, saturation without EXTRA noise creeping in?

Click to expand...

There is a mis-perception that jpegs are somehow less tweakable.
Let's put it this way, if you're taking pictures such that they are
outside the realm of what's correctable with jpeg, perhaps you
should brush up on technique rather than using RAW as a crutch.

Jared Hunter said:

Jared Hunter said:

Kiran L. said:

Jared Hunter said:

I've done some analysis on 8080 RAW vs SHQ JPEG. My conclusion is
that RAW retains more noise resulting in a grainier image that is
misinterpreted as having more detail. Upon close inspection, the
RAW image does not contain more actual DETAIL than JPEG. The
difference is mainly due to how details are rendered, not whether
RAW has more detail.

Click to expand...

Noise reduction algorithms cannot differentiate between noise and
detail as fine as noise. Any detail that is as fine as noise will
be reduced.

Click to expand...

Correct. By the time you apply NeatImage or Noise Ninja to a RAW,
it comes out no better than SHQ in terms of details.

Jared Hunter said:

Jared Hunter said:

Therefore, the only advantage of RAW is to help out those that are
a little sloppy with exposure. Once you learn to nail exposure on
the 8080, RAW has no advantage and lots of disadvantages.

Click to expand...

Why do all the pro's use RAW? There are a lot of advantages.

Click to expand...

There are practical realities relating to implementation on the
particular camera when it comes to RAW. Some models render much
more details and less artifacts in their RAW format than JPEG.
Fortunately, Olympus has really optimized their internal RAW to
JPEG conversion so that there is no practical difference in image
quality between the two. Secondly, the slow write times of 8080 RAW
seriously cripple shooting style in non-landscape type shots.
Finally, at over 11M per RAW, it makes more sense from a speed and
storage point of view to bracket 3 SHQ exposures rather than to
take one RAW, if all you're after is getting the exposure correct.

IMO, lots of users use RAW because they hear 'pros do it' but many
would be at a loss to explain the pros and cons if pressed,
especially in regards to the implementation on their specific
camera rather than to talk in generalities.

I wonder how many that are so earnestly pushing 8080 RAW have
actually tried some controlled comparison tests between RAW and SHQ
jpeg?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I agree broadly with what you say re getting it right in camera and PS tweaking. I haven't had the chance to fully experiment with my 8080 yet, and am unlikely to find the time in thye immediate future for comprehensive comparative tests. The only comparsion I have was when I was processing colour images with my old 4mp compact (JPEG) in the Channel mixer to make them black and white, significant noise crept in.

Brian G. · Jun 7, 2004

Hi Jared,

Jared Hunter said:
There is a mis-perception that jpegs are somehow less tweakable.
Let's put it this way, if you're taking pictures such that they are
outside the realm of what's correctable with jpeg, perhaps you
should brush up on technique rather than using RAW as a crutch.

I just wanted to point out that in some ways, jpegs are less tweakable. Higher-bit RAW images will allow more manipulation (more in both degree and amount) before getting nasty things like posterization in your images. If you really are going to tweak the heck out of your images, I'd suggest sticking to RAW and working in 16-bit with your converted file.

I also just wanted to metion that people often adjust images in Photoshop that in ways that have nothing to do with "corrections". Again, RAW will allow more to be done.

Kind Regards,

--
~~Brian (el picador)~~

Digital Image Gallery:

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/spiritmist/Brian_Geldziler_Digital_Image_Gallery/index.htm

Raw vs. Jpeg opinion (C-8080)

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts