Reading mode: Light Dark

Raw vs. Jpeg opinion (C-8080)

Go to last post
Your vigourous reluctance to illustrate your position with examples only serves to weaken you position. A long-winded essay can never make up for concrete visual examples. Anyways, some interesting points raised in this article:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

Note that I came to my conclusions about 8080 RAW prior to coming across this article. Just by chance, a collegue brought this to my attention today.
fishcatcher said:
Jared Hunter said:
(snip) It would
have been nice to have a RAW proponent with enough conviction to
demonstrate for us the clear advantage of RAW using examples...
nothing elaborate required..just some small crops would do. It
would then be up to individuals to decide whether the incremental
increase in image quality would be worth the effort. Now if such
benefits are not visible when presented in the web medium or in
printouts, one really has to ponder, why bother, other than as an
academic exercise.
Click to expand...
Nice try. No one labors producing an artistic image from RAW data
just to bludgen them down with JPEG to stick them on the web or run
them through a narrow gamut printer where you couldn't see the
difference. That would be a colossal waste of time. I have no
quarrel with you there. It is your narrow assumption that
'benefits that are not visible in the web medium or in printouts'
constitute a valid test of photographic usefulness that I have
taken issue with.

You so little understand the use of RAW that you fail to see that
it is a process that starts with the maximum digital data the
camera offers, from which a viewable image is made in POST. The
value in RAW is the lattitude that it gives you to work with in
adjusting major image parameters. Working at a higher bitrate, for
example, gives you more to work with BEFORE you decide to JPEG it
(or put it in another format).

You can't show the RAW process in a couple of clips. You might in
four dozen clips which made parameter comparisons of the same image
derived from RAW and a camera saved JPEG at each stage of Post.
(another very nice touch in the 8080 is that you can save both
simultaneously--darn, I forgot just how dumb those Oly engineers
were providing that, since it too is useless since they came up
with that groundbreaking JPEG breakthrough that is so pristine that
there is no photographic context where any other format is better).
I digressed. Sorry. Your suggestion is simplistic. Posting a
couple of clips is simply a psuedo procedure for establishing
anything. The best way for someone to decide whether there are or
are not benefits for their photographic workflow in given shooting
contexts is to work with it themselves and decide based on their
own use with their images. If they find there is no advantage,
then there isn't for them. That's the way it should be.

Remember , it is you who are trying to convince them it is a waste
of time in advance. I am not, and have not, argued that they will
be better off using RAW. I am merely taking issue with your
simplistic approach that rules out viable possibilities for
workflow because you have concluded that it isn't for you.

Again, you made the claim that here is no advantage to it. I
already have discovered long ago that there was for my landscape
work. Whether you like it or not the burden of proof is on you.

You can get a good start on your proof by explaining why RAW is
widely used but shouldn't be? Why it is in all high end prosumer
and DSLRs and shouldn't be. Why all those users from professional
landscape artists to Sports Illustrated( an example given in this
thread by someone else) and thousands of others--let's just limit
to professionals for the sake of argument-- are wasting their time?

Like I said before, it is your chance at fifteen minutes of fame.
Show them with convincing proof why they are wrongheaded and they
will laud you from one end of the digital photography world to the
other for showing them precisely the error of their ways and
consequently saving them so much time and money. In fact, my
suggestion is to approach SI and inform them that you can save them
a pile of money in their image acquisition workflow, for just a
little cut, say 10%. ( Hopefully you will share just a bit of that
with me for suggesting it)
Click to expand...
 
Jared Hunter said:
Your vigourous reluctance to illustrate your position with examples
only serves to weaken you position. A long-winded essay can never
make up for concrete visual examples. Anyways, some interesting
points raised in this article:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

Note that I came to my conclusions about 8080 RAW prior to coming
across this article. Just by chance, a collegue brought this to my
attention today.
Click to expand...
Summing up the information in this site, JPEG is convientient, RAW is high quality - that's what most of us have been saying all along. And as the author says "If you intend to spend hours twiddling with individual shots or have enough time to waste piddling in chat rooms like this then go ahead and shoot RAW".

And BTW, I don't mind spending so-much time piddling in chat rooms, but I do mind having to spend money and time up-loading photos for no other reason than to prove an obvious point.

You want to see what Olympus does to your images? - take a shot of a distant tree in JPEG and RAW at 400 iso. Convert the RAW without any noise-reduction or smoothing. Have a look at the detail in the tree at 100%. The difference is obvious . It's my opinion that the aspect of photos from digital cameras that causes the 'digital look' most is noise reduction.

-Kiran
 
Hi,

Well, interesting, but maybe it got a little, um, raw, towards the end.

I use a Minolta A1. Phil has pointed out the problems with the jpeg algorithm in the camera. On the other hand, it is fairly easy to use raw. Generally, I just convert to jpg, batch processing.

I would rather shoot jpg. There was an interesting thread a few months back, not sure which forum, about raw, from one of the Adobe CS guys. He said it was a white balance/exposure thing, mostly. The bit depth is somewhat theoretical, as far as I can tell.

It seems to me most of 'us' are not pros. You have to give up that dream or illusion. (Life is an illusion, and illusions are illusions/ de Barca). So, you probably want to enjoy what you are doing. If you enjoy using raw, what's the problem. But, if the 'fun' is taking pictures, jpg is a lot simpler. So I really wonder which camera does implement jpg 'best'. I'm not so worried about getting exposure and wb right.

The point about landscapes and digital is a little silly. I mean, if people take landscapes with a digital camera, and they like what they get, who cares? Yeah, a view camera or a 6x7 would be better... It is possible to learn the limits of digital and make photographs that reflect the limitations.

My problem is that most of what I produce becomes a 7 by 9. Even my $150 Casio 4MP does OK at that size. The Minolta A1 does great. If I make an A3, it's on the wall. Yes, I look at it closely when I make it. But then it is quite far away, at least a few feet, so what difference does perfect detail make.

Most photographs are better if you don't deconstruct them. There's a 'whole' there that is missed if you look at one piece. They either work or they don't. People don't always want fine detail, like in portraits. I think that's the point about landscapes. Usually, you want more detail. But the somewhat soft look of inkjets on matte paper is a little like a watercolor. You can go in different directions. You can suggest detail with sharpening. Much of what we see is an illusion. An 8MP softened with noise reduction is different from a 'quieter' 5MP with less resolution. Which is best? Raw will do different things to different camera/sensor combos, I suppose.

The 8080 is an interesting camera. My first impression of the pix was quite negative. They seemed to be too processed. When I printed some samples, it seemed like Oly had done a good job of processing for an inkjet print. The firmware in cameras these days is very sophisticated. It varies from company to company. I don't know how people decide what camera to buy. They have very distinct personalities. But, the 8080 isn't a camera I would want to use in raw mode.

George Sears
http://www.pbase.com/gsears3025/root
 
Hi Kiran,
Kiran L. said:
Brian G. said:
Kiran L. said:
you can't get rid of it without getting rid of fine detail,
which is present in almost all photographs.
Click to expand...
Well, that depends. One of the best methods for geting rid of
noise and leaving fine detail untouched is to take multiple images
and stack/average them. Since both luminance and chrominance noise
are random phenomena, whereas image detail is not, this does a
beautiful job of removing noise. The downside is that the
technique requires a tripod (a good idea anyway) and is useless
when shooting anything that moves.
Click to expand...
Wow, I hadn't heard of that one before, it makes a lot of sense.
You just never stop learning at these forums :)

-Kiran
Click to expand...
If I'm not confusing you with someone else, you had mentioned an interest in landscapes. This is perhaps the best application of the technique, as you should be using a tripod anyway, and generally, things aren't moving. You should really experiment with this.

I would do it this way- set your in-camera sharpening to as low as it gets, and turn down the contrast if need be to capture the maximum amount of detail (so shadow detail doesn't go to black as quickly, for example). Set the camera to hi-speed continuous mode and take a burst of 3-5 shots (or more if you'd like- the more you take, the better the noise reduction, although there are diminishing returns) using the remote. These you'll stack later. You may find that it is much quicker to do this than to use RAW, and your images may, in fact, look better this way, if your primary reason for RAW is the noise issue. (As we discussed earlier, if you're really going to be tweaking curves, etc, working with the higher-bit raw files will give you more latitude there. )

Kind Regards,
Brian

--
Brian (el picador)



Digital Image Gallery:

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/spiritmist/Brian_Geldziler_Digital_Image_Gallery/index.htm
 
Kiran L. said:
You want to see what Olympus does to your images? - take a shot of
a distant tree in JPEG and RAW at 400 iso. Convert the RAW without
any noise-reduction or smoothing. Have a look at the detail in the
tree at 100%. The difference is obvious . It's my opinion that the
aspect of photos from digital cameras that causes the 'digital
look' most is noise reduction.
Click to expand...
Err,, kept out of the discussion until now.. (",)

I would add that to avoid using Camedia to convert the raw files though, as the same noise reduction routine would be applied to the converted image as well, as in in-camera conversion.. Use adobe CS raw convertor (latest version supports 8080), the difference is obvious..

One more difference i noticed, orf converted with adobe CS raw convertors have much more highlight and shadow exposure latitude (ie headroom) then with Camedia..

Also, shadow and highlight recovery should be done in the raw convertor rather then after importing to photosohp and using the shadow/highlight adjustment; seems like even if I imported in 16 bit TIFF, clipped shadow and highlight details are not recovered to the same extent as when I do it in before RAW conversion..

For difficult high contrast situation, from the single RAW file convert it twice, once for maximum highlight detail, once for maximum shadow detail. and combine them in photoshop..

Lastly, 8080 jpegs sharpens the specular highlights too much, CS raw convertors avoids that if u turn the sharpening low..

BUT it takes ages to shoot in RAW so I will only use it when necessary, or when I envisage printing large..

Thanks for reading (',)

cjeng
 
That one has been linked in previous RAW vs JPEG threads here. Read it long ago. I like Ken Rockwell's images. His article, much like your contentions, is mostly polemic.

What surprises me is why he ever tried RAW in the first place. JPEG at even HQ would make little or no difference in his delightfully manipulated stuff. Obviously he will be a big proponent of JPEG in general. He does reluctantly have to admit to some RAW qualities, but, like you, he is more interested in trying to convince his readers that they are wasting their time rather than giving them a balanced resonably objective discussion of the two photographic options..

However, it too would seem that his message hasn't converted pros shooting high end stuff, photographic artists doing land and cityscapes, digital engineers, or camera manufacturers. Looks like the folks at SI haven't been impressed yet either. I hope you are in contact with them by now.

And judging from the thread, there still seem to be other shooters here who, like myself, use RAW where its qualities will be useful. I just shot 400 images of mostly kids at an aquatic playground. Guess what I did that shoot in. SHQ, of course. Those were pics intended for family albums and promo material. Later in the day I did some very high contrast landscapes for my own artistic puposes. All RAW. And, it will take me twice the time to process them to finished (well, for the time being, anyway) Tiffs, some of which (I hope) will end up on a high end bureau printer at 12 x16 or better. RAW when it is called for. JPEG when it is called for.

I note that you have not responded to any of the questions I posed to you. Ignoring them won't make them go away. And, as you say, I have not uploaed any clips for two reasons. As I explained and you may have missed in the last message, a couple of clips wouldn't prove anything. And, it is a red herring to distract from your burden of proof--and I'm sure you know that.

By the way, I don't do web images of any kind. I seldom email an image unless the recipient has the bandwidth to take a tiff full res. Even the best shots I see on this forum disappoint me--not because of weak photographic values--but because I can literally only imagine how great some of them would be at full res. If I send a JPEG it is at 100 % JPEG2 quality or it doesn't go. No need for rebuttal here. I concede that you are vastly more practical.

Since everyone else on this thread will have to endure our pi* ing contest, I too will offer a link that should be useful to those interested but without much expreience in RAW to compensate them for their patience. It, in part, addresses the 'arrogance' of pretending that all you have to do is know how to expose and you will never need RAW. The news is that pros and amateurs alike make exposure mistakes, and often have to shoot scenes that have luminance or other values that trick even the most careful exposure in a short lattitude DC. So, image 'virtual reshooting' through is not as you earlier suggested just a newbie crutch. All the pros I know continually cry over blown shots and tricky exposure errors. That is to take away nothing from what I am sure are your superb JPEG exposure control skills.

http://www.hoothollow.com/Question-April%202004.html

This article is not definitive. Just straightforward and basic. And it does show examples of the salvation of an important shot through Raw. If you feel the need to raise the discussion to ever greater heights--which would really test the patience of forum members I suspect, I can load up links that are heavier in weight.
Jared Hunter said:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

Note that I came to my conclusions about 8080 RAW prior to coming
across this article. Just by chance, a collegue brought this to my
attention today.
fishcatcher said:
Jared Hunter said:
(snip)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I should have attached this to the previous thread. It should prove fully instructive to anyone interested in understading, using or wishing to discover what RAW processing is all about.

http://www.outbackphoto.com/handbook/rawfileprocessing.html
fishcatcher said:
What surprises me is why he ever tried RAW in the first place.
JPEG at even HQ would make little or no difference in his
delightfully manipulated stuff. Obviously he will be a big
proponent of JPEG in general. He does reluctantly have to admit to
some RAW qualities, but, like you, he is more interested in trying
to convince his readers that they are wasting their time rather
than giving them a balanced resonably objective discussion of the
two photographic options..

However, it too would seem that his message hasn't converted pros
shooting high end stuff, photographic artists doing land and
cityscapes, digital engineers, or camera manufacturers. Looks like
the folks at SI haven't been impressed yet either. I hope you are
in contact with them by now.

And judging from the thread, there still seem to be other shooters
here who, like myself, use RAW where its qualities will be useful.
I just shot 400 images of mostly kids at an aquatic playground.
Guess what I did that shoot in. SHQ, of course. Those were pics
intended for family albums and promo material. Later in the day I
did some very high contrast landscapes for my own artistic puposes.
All RAW. And, it will take me twice the time to process them to
finished (well, for the time being, anyway) Tiffs, some of which (I
hope) will end up on a high end bureau printer at 12 x16 or better.
RAW when it is called for. JPEG when it is called for.

I note that you have not responded to any of the questions I posed
to you. Ignoring them won't make them go away. And, as you say, I
have not uploaed any clips for two reasons. As I explained and you
may have missed in the last message, a couple of clips wouldn't
prove anything. And, it is a red herring to distract from your
burden of proof--and I'm sure you know that.

By the way, I don't do web images of any kind. I seldom email an
image unless the recipient has the bandwidth to take a tiff full
res. Even the best shots I see on this forum disappoint me--not
because of weak photographic values--but because I can literally
only imagine how great some of them would be at full res. If I
send a JPEG it is at 100 % JPEG2 quality or it doesn't go. No need
for rebuttal here. I concede that you are vastly more practical.

Since everyone else on this thread will have to endure our pi* ing
contest, I too will offer a link that should be useful to those
interested but without much expreience in RAW to compensate them
for their patience. It, in part, addresses the 'arrogance' of
pretending that all you have to do is know how to expose and you
will never need RAW. The news is that pros and amateurs alike make
exposure mistakes, and often have to shoot scenes that have
luminance or other values that trick even the most careful exposure
in a short lattitude DC. So, image 'virtual reshooting' through is
not as you earlier suggested just a newbie crutch. All the pros I
know continually cry over blown shots and tricky exposure errors.
That is to take away nothing from what I am sure are your superb
JPEG exposure control skills.

http://www.hoothollow.com/Question-April%202004.html

This article is not definitive. Just straightforward and basic.
And it does show examples of the salvation of an important shot
through Raw. If you feel the need to raise the discussion to ever
greater heights--which would really test the patience of forum
members I suspect, I can load up links that are heavier in weight.
Jared Hunter said:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

Note that I came to my conclusions about 8080 RAW prior to coming
across this article. Just by chance, a collegue brought this to my
attention today.
fishcatcher said:
Jared Hunter said:
(snip)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
if you pick one up in your hands, you are toast. Ask Ben Hermann who now owns one and the countless others.

Heres an E-1 pic I took with the 50-200 and 1.4 TC:

 
Well, like I said before, long-winded essays are no substitute for examples. Your unwillingness and/or inability to defend your position with actual samples only means that the claimed merits of 8080 RAW are inconclusive.

It is interesting that you took issue with my not responding directly to some of your questions. Well, I don't recall seeing your response when I asked:

"Are we merely talking about a theoretical advantage that's completely moot by the time the image is output on comparatively low color-gamut inkjet printers or half-tone processes used for typical fine art or coffee table books that have no where near the dynamic range to represent what's contained in the image?"

Anyways, I see no value in continuing further with this thread as there is nothing new to be learned if one side decides not to contribute.
 
George Sears said:
Most photographs are better if you don't deconstruct them. There's
a 'whole' there that is missed if you look at one piece. They
either work or they don't.
Click to expand...
Stop making sense, George, you'll scare the youngsters. :)

If you ever find a forum that caters to that viewpoint, please let me know. Not that I'm complaining about dpreview, mind you. Just that I enjoy a more holistic approach. I gave up worrying about test photos, noise, CA, and all that cr@p. If you have a decent digicam, you can learn the settings that allow you to get very good photos.

If I ever start making prints above 8 x 10, I might have to start worrying again.
:)

-Don
 
Jared Hunter said:
Well, like I said before, long-winded essays are no substitute for
examples. Your unwillingness and/or inability to defend your
position with actual samples only means that the claimed merits of
8080 RAW are inconclusive.
Click to expand...
The problem is that you dont read my answers very carefully. On the above and the following point, I already said in an earlier response up higher in the thread,

"Nice try. No one labors producing an artistic image from RAW data just to bludgen them down with JPEG to stick them on the web or run them through a narrow gamut printer where you couldn't see the difference. That would be a colossal waste of time. I have no quarrel with you there. It is your narrow assumption that 'benefits that are not visible in the web medium or in printouts' constitute a valid test of photographic usefulness that I have taken issue with.
Jared Hunter said:
It is interesting that you took issue with my not responding
directly to some of your questions. Well, I don't recall seeing
your response when I asked:

"Are we merely talking about a theoretical advantage that's
completely moot by the time the image is output on comparatively
low color-gamut inkjet printers or half-tone processes used for
typical fine art or coffee table books that have no where near the
dynamic range to represent what's contained in the image?"
Click to expand...
See the above quote from me for a repeat of the answer to your question. I don't discount the value of JPEG. Our disagreement arose because I just didn't buy your assertion that there was no need to use RAW as determined from what you narrowly defined as a test of the value of RAW. Your test is neither complete nor adequate as a test. The technical term for your tactic is reductionism.

As you see from my quote, I have no disagreement that RAW is not much use for lower end processess. If your work never sees anything but a $200 narrow gamut low res printer, the web, or lower end line printing processess, then the only real use of Raw will be as a tactic to deal with very difficcult lighting , or for saving images that you might otherwise lose, or preparing images that some day you may want to put to exhibition print use but can't presently afford to do--who knows what great breathroughs in both technology and price may bring in a few years to desktop printing.

I might add that using and experimenting with RAW is an excellent way to learn digital photograhic basics--a much overlooked aspect of its use.

Three years ago the software and workflows for RAW were primitive compared to today--inexpensive printers likewise. Both have come a long way. PSCS's RAW plugin and Capture One are superb appplications for maimizing image quality from a RAW enabled camera. JPEG has narrower potential for doing that--but what it does may in fact be PERFECTLY satisfactroy to an given shooter. Fine. I use it myselffor certain kinds of shooting.

Tomorrow will bring even better technology--maybe even truly non destructive JPEG!( or another format) that replaces RAW. Then we will both be completely happy.
Jared Hunter said:
Anyways, I see no value in continuing further with this thread as
there is nothing new to be learned if one side decides not to
contribute.
Click to expand...
I agree. But maybe now that you see that I in fact provided an answer to your question long ago, perhaps you will decide to reverse your decision to not contribute and answer the specific questions I have put to you on several ocassions. I understand your reluctance to attempt answers to them though. :))
 
I took up the challenge.

I took three pics, HQ, SHQ and RAW. I used a tripod and self-timer and all pictures taken within 1 minute. The RAW did work out and, unfortunately, I had to re-shoot. The RAW was opened in Camedia 4.0 scaled to 100% (40 inch wide image), cropped and saved as jpg. The HQ and SHQ are also 100% crops.

SHQ seems a little noisier than HQ but has a tad more detail at 100%. For normal displays or prints I've never seen a visible difference between the two and generally shoot HQ. I seldom shoot RAW.

The RAW image was comparatively bland overall which may reflect sharpening (set at 0, firmware version 77) and saturation (+2) for the jpegs. The RAW image was cleaner and seemed to have better resolution. The full image jpgs had more “POP”. The RAW could probably have been adjusted to create similar “POP” but noise and sharpness may then suffer, perhaps destroying its advantage.

For my purposes HQ is more than adequate.

http://humphrey.smugmug.com/gallery/27796/1/4990702/Large

http://humphrey.smugmug.com/gallery/27796/1/5002542/Large
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.
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.
Click to expand...
 
fishcatcher said:
Jared Hunter said:
Anyways, I see no value in continuing further with this thread as
there is nothing new to be learned if one side decides not to
contribute.
Click to expand...
I agree. But maybe now that you see that I in fact provided an
answer to your question long ago, perhaps you will decide to
reverse your decision to not contribute
Click to expand...
You know I wasn't referring to myself. Nice try anyways.

Did you answer my question? Maybe, maybe not...but answering a question with a question surely doesn't count. If there's anything to be learned, perhaps it's the importance of being concise in one's responses.
 
The point of using RAW and any test of it lies in the potential of the adjustments to the image through parameter changes as compared to changes that can be similarly made to the same image in JPEG in Post. That is why your senseless as shot comparisons go nowhere and prove nothing. RAW as shot opened in a RAW reader is not a finished usable image even by itself standing alone. If you are going to judge shots straight out of camera with no adjustments, then that is a no brainer! Jpegs out of the camera are in an immediately usable format. RAW is not. No one would waste their time simply converting what their RAW reader showed on first opening to a final format--usually Tiff. You don't even need to prove that. It is a given.

Once again, the point of using RAW lies in what you have to work with initially and what you can do with that tp produce a final image, which of course depends on your Post skills, just as it would with JPEG post manipulations. That is a principal reason why the only true test of RAW or JPEG usefulness has to be made by an individual going through the process his or her self to see which format offers them greater photographic potential in a given pair of identical images that they are attempting to improve for a specific purpose.

Also, your comparison shots are both artifacted and thus more noisy than they would be by JPEGing for web posting. All one can really see is that both need work at parameters other than noise and sharpness before either would be a photograph that had its potential fully realized regardless of whether done in Raw or JPEG. Another reason why as shot comparisons posted as these without any explanations and the simplistic statement 'draw your own conclusions' is useless in proving your point or anyone else's.
Jared Hunter said:
Shot on a tripod, one immediately after another:

http://www.pbase.com/image/29986177/original

Draw your own conclusions.
Humphrey Nash said:
I took up the challenge.

I took three pics, HQ, SHQ and RAW.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Snowman9000 said:
George Sears said:
Most photographs are better if you don't deconstruct them. There's
a 'whole' there that is missed if you look at one piece. They
either work or they don't.
Click to expand...
Stop making sense, George, you'll scare the youngsters. :)

If you ever find a forum that caters to that viewpoint, please let
me know. Not that I'm complaining about dpreview, mind you. Just
that I enjoy a more holistic approach. I gave up worrying about
test photos, noise, CA, and all that cr@p. If you have a decent
digicam, you can learn the settings that allow you to get very good
photos.

If I ever start making prints above 8 x 10, I might have to start
worrying again.
:)

-Don
Click to expand...
 
I shoot with an A1 and the jpg processing in-camera is not very good. It loses some detail. Phil points this out in the review. When I use the Minolta RAW processor, it takes 10 seconds with a P4 processor. There's a lot more they are doing, and the result is much better. So, it IS worth it, with an A1, just doing a 'straight' conversion. The A1 has some very nice features, like anti-shake.

I think this is a valid comparison because it shows the quality of the jpg conversion. You simply would not get this good a result with an A1 (sadly). Certainly some cameras make a better jpg than others.

The 8MP cameras are extremely complex. They are all compromises. Since none of them are all that great shooting raw, this kind of thing is interesting, to me. This thread goes far beyond any of the reviews.

I assume the trick with any 'all in one' is to improve the EVF, increase the speed and responsiveness, and give people the best picture file they can. I think they need to implement the raw processing so it doesn't get in the way, or make jpg work so well people don't want raw. That might not be possible, but we'll see. That's one thing Sony, with the 828, did not work very hard to do. I wonder what Sony will do in the next model, in terms of raw. (Or Oly or Canon, or Nikon, or Minolta)

George Sears
fishcatcher said:
Once again, the point of using RAW lies in what you have to work
with initially and what you can do with that tp produce a final
image, which of course depends on your Post skills, just as it
would with JPEG post manipulations. That is a principal reason why
the only true test of RAW or JPEG usefulness has to be made by an
individual going through the process his or her self to see which
format offers them greater photographic potential in a given pair
of identical images that they are attempting to improve for a
specific purpose.

Also, your comparison shots are both artifacted and thus more noisy
than they would be by JPEGing for web posting. All one can really
see is that both need work at parameters other than noise and
sharpness before either would be a photograph that had its
potential fully realized regardless of whether done in Raw or JPEG.
Another reason why as shot comparisons posted as these without any
explanations and the simplistic statement 'draw your own
conclusions' is useless in proving your point or anyone else's.
Jared Hunter said:
Shot on a tripod, one immediately after another:

http://www.pbase.com/image/29986177/original

Draw your own conclusions.
Humphrey Nash said:
I took up the challenge.

I took three pics, HQ, SHQ and RAW.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
George Sears wrote:
(snip)
George Sears said:
I think this is a valid comparison because it shows the quality of
the jpg conversion. You simply would not get this good a result
with an A1 (sadly). Certainly some cameras make a better jpg than
others.
Click to expand...
There are two JPEG conversions shown. The JPEG out of the camera. And the JPEG conversion from the unadjusted RAW done in PS.

Certainly no argument with whether the JPEG looks good to you or not, and I would be the first to admit that the 8080 SHQ JPEG deserves its good reputation. But since the RAW is presumably 'as is' in the example shown, the point I am making is that the high quality of the image that is possible with RAW after adjustments is not being shown. So as a test of formats, it isn't valid. As a comparison of the achievable quality of formats, it isn't valid.

I am not saying that two images posted by Jared may not be useful to anyone. You discovered an A1 comparison that was useful. It is just to say that you could not make a judgement as to whether RAW in the 8080 was good quality, useful, etc. based on the unadjusted RAW conversion to JPEG for web viewing that is presented. You can't represent what the RAW process will produce by showing what it looks like at the starting point of what is a process with a beginning and an end result.

Straight conversions from RAW might be justifiably necessary where the JPEG implementaion in a camera was just plain poor quality. As in the case you offer concerning the poor quality JPEG from an A1. That is not what RAW is designed for, just a tactic for you dictated by a weakness in your camera. RAW is really a starting point to develop a final image after the requisate adjustments in images where unprocessed (raw) data from the camera will give you more to work with in establishing the final image you want. That is why a straight conversion to JPEG from RAW is essentially meaningless in a comparison with a JPEG straight from the camera.

I own a D7 UG which I shoot RAW in quite a lot. The jpeg in that camera is not as low compression as the 8080 and there is where one of the differences lies. However, even my D7 jpegs are fine for snapshots of kids and people that I don't intend to print over 5x7. Running snapshots through RAW would be a waste of time.

All this discussion about format and quality in the end has to be determined by your intended photographic use of the image.

I have seen some great shots on here from UZIs , for example, and I would give my right arm to have one that behaved exactly the same photograpically, but only IF it were offered at 5 mp or greater. I print big most of the time, and 2 mp is just not sufficient for me. My photographic requirements are what determine which camera I buy and which format I use in a given context. Evryrone has to make their own choices. I have no desire to impose that on anyone. Each to his or her needs. The UZI is a great camera no matter what my preferences are.

By the way, a RAW image from a D7 processed in PSCS RAW plugin (certainly a cut above the Minolta Raw Converter), fully adjusted, and then saved to JPEG in PS at very low compression produces very good quality. I assume that Jared's conversion of the RAW he shows was done in PSCS. The variable for you in this is pehaps the difference in quality between converters. Have you tried Dalibors PS RAW Plugin. I would be the last to recommend the Minolta one for RAW work. That is why Dalibor designed his, to get around the poor implementation of RAW in the Minolta Converter. Much the same has to be said about RAW in the Camedia software that comes with the 8080.
George Sears said:
The 8MP cameras are extremely complex. They are all compromises.
Since none of them are all that great shooting raw, this kind of
thing is interesting, to me. This thread goes far beyond any of the
reviews.
Click to expand...
True, but the main difference is in time consumed capturing RAW and that relies on processor speed and buffer size. The ORF RAW implementation is in fact excellent, as are the CAnon, Minolta, Nikon, and Sony. None of them have any serious flaws and all will allow you much greater lattitude than their JPEG counterparts. But they are slow capturing. That doesn't bother me. I have the time. And I never shoot any action in RAW.
George Sears said:
I assume the trick with any 'all in one' is to improve the EVF,
increase the speed and responsiveness, and give people the best
picture file they can. I think they need to implement the raw
processing so it doesn't get in the way, or make jpg work so well
people don't want raw. That might not be possible, but we'll see.
Click to expand...
My sentiments exactly. RAW is time consuming and each user has to choose whether what they are doing with their images is worth the added effort or whether they are perfectly satisfied with what the JPEG implementation gives them. Fortunately, the SHQ in the 8080 is somewhat better than some of the others--Minolta for sure.
George Sears said:
That's one thing Sony, with the 828, did not work very hard to do.
I wonder what Sony will do in the next model, in terms of raw. (Or
Oly or Canon, or Nikon, or Minolta)
Click to expand...
I may be wrong but my suspicion is that the future of Fixed lens Prosumer high mp count DCs lies in larger processors and lens redesign if it is to continue as a viable camera form factor. After all, the growth area is likely to be in DSLR designs that appeal more to prosumers--reports are that Pentax is going to announce an Entry Level DSLR body this fall. If it is as small as the I*st and they design more small DA lenses to go with it and the prices are right, then that might be very attractive because its size and wight would be comparaple to the present 8mps ( most of them anyway). Size is one of the present complaints about the first round of Prosumer DSLRs. I would expect the other major brands to do the same--amaller, lighter bodies. Just speculation, of course.
 
Would have liked to see some cropped examples.

I've never shot in RAW because of the hated Camedia software, but I did do resolution comparsions using TIFF - which should be similar as far as lack of compression and resolution went. Not much difference - you'd really have to use a microscope to tell them apart, and even then you'd be lucky.

I think the JPEG compression in the Oly is pretty good. Again, I'd like to see your examples.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top