RAW vs JPEG (PIC)

[Tony SD]

the HD space! RAW files are killing my 80G HD. I do archive to DVD and a second external, but even so the disk which I thought a year ago would last years is going to last months at this rate!
--
TonySD

 

[Glenn W.]

I'm not sure you ever mentioned how much sharpening you used in those test shots... DPP does a very unique method of sharpening... If you choose NO sharpening, you won't likely see that stuff your calling 'noise'.

Meanwhile, what you see in your high ISO photo of the original demonstration photo, is NOT noise, at least not in the clasic sense
of the word. I'd describe it more like extraneous detail. Ok, so maybe
there is a fine line between my deffintion and yours... but there is a
differance...

Look at the wood grain in the wood veritcal peice of wood/simulated wood in the original photo... now look at the reflection of that grain in the matalic object bellow that... In the ISO 1600 DPP interperted section of your demo image, it has way more detail then do the others... What ever little blobs or blips that are in the photo also seem to be accentuated as well... I beleive that extra detail (sometimes where you may not expect it to be) is what you are calling 'noise', however I think calling it 'noise' is indded not the correct term...

Also, look at the majorly well defined perferated/ridges in the case or what ever it is that has the reflective surface... In the DPP ISO 1600 image, those perfferations/ridges are the clearest most well defined of all the images you've shown, even the RSE ones...

I'm not entirely sure what the correct term is... but it's not noise as I think of it, and quite honestly I wouldn't nessasarly assume it's bad... In some sitations you might actualy appreate DPP if you give it a chance and understand that it is 'differnt' then any other RAW processor, perticularly when it comes to sharpening...

The thing is... your test is majorly flawed... in that your not starting with the exact same images... at least it appears that your not... and I bleive you've actualy said that your not... If you want to compare RAW interpeters, you need to at least start with the exact same image, and try to duplicate your settings as closely as possible, or... just forget it... choose the one you like and work with it... I will however say... I don't think there is any one "Perfect" interpeter... some do some things better then others... some will work better in some situations then others... none are truely bad, and non are truely great. DPP is not as bad as some people make it out to be, and it's actualy one of my favorites.

comparing a RAW DPP) file and the imbedded JPEG (see the first
post), you can see a lot of what I would call "noise" -- maybe the
correct term is artefacts from the sharpening, but the end effect
is an image which seems to have more noise
RSE doesn't add this amount of "noise" but does add a more
pixel-like noise, esp. to the edges ... EVU adds very little, as
does RIT (just as a comparison)
I want to do a RAW converter comparison with some shots, so I will
have a look into that
--
AJ
http://www.pbase.com/manjade

 

[LeeBase]

the HD space! RAW files are killing my 80G HD. I do archive to
DVD and a second external, but even so the disk which I thought a
year ago would last years is going to last months at this rate!

Shooting raw has REALLY increased my HD space needs. There's the 10mg for the raw file, and I still usually create the jpg's, then when I do larger than 4x6 prints there's the 25-50mg Tiff or photoshop file.

This year's images so far take up 50gig -- that's what all of last years needed. Multiply that by 2 because I keep a second copy on an external drive. It starts to add up fast.

I just purchased an internal 300gig hd for $150.

Lee

 

[indulis]

unless the camera you are using has a very poor jpg output,which
some have, and this has been mentioned in reviews. As we know, the
Canon shoots jpeg and raw together,I don't see too much difference
when comparing. The ones who love us using raw the most are the
memory manufactorers.

...Like to emphasise something in the shadows, or change from the poor auto white balance (can you afford the time to do a white balance test shot for each shot or set of shots), or if you want to get a richer print using Adobe colourspace when you had shot in sRGB, or if you want to do a digital blend by creating 2 JPEGs from one raw shot, or....

Anyway, if you can't afford another $100 for a 1GB memory card, why are you spending thousands on a high quality SLR camera and lenses. Sorta like putting the cheapest film you can buy into a film camera. JPEG is like the "generic brand" digital film.

Still, if you're happy getting what you can out of JPEG, and haven't ever noticed the fringing lines in a blue sky after playing with the contrast on your JPEGs, then you don't value it, and don't care. Sorta like me trying to convince my wife that the sound from the home theatre is better than from the TV- she thinks it is but doesn't care enough to spend money/time on it (I do

Indulis

 

[Glenn W.]

There is no reason to keep the origingals all on your HD. Back them up to DVD-R and/or CD-R. The only large photo files you need on your HD are the ones your currently working on. Once your finished, keep the resulting photo on your HD if you like, but I ussualy off load even those to DVD-R/CD-R, unless I'm plannin on showing them to someone sometime soon...

In my opinion HD should not be thought of or used for longterm archival storage.

the HD space! RAW files are killing my 80G HD. I do archive to
DVD and a second external, but even so the disk which I thought a
year ago would last years is going to last months at this rate!

Shooting raw has REALLY increased my HD space needs. There's the
10mg for the raw file, and I still usually create the jpg's, then
when I do larger than 4x6 prints there's the 25-50mg Tiff or
photoshop file.

This year's images so far take up 50gig -- that's what all of last
years needed. Multiply that by 2 because I keep a second copy on
an external drive. It starts to add up fast.

I just purchased an internal 300gig hd for $150.

Lee

 

[Glenn W.]

To some degree I agree with you LeeBase... Danellia clearly can do wonders with her camera and her 'jpeg' post processing... Apparently she's not quite mastered or found the magical uses of RAW...

My only quibble is... shooting RAW would leave her the option of possible making even better use of her original shots, if someday she does find some use and/or the skills nessasary to make full use of the original RAW data.... By not shooting RAW, or keeping that original full detail that's 'hidden' in the RAW, she's insuring that it will NEVER be used, even if it were desireable at some point...

It might not matter too much... but I've been lead to beleive that some really high end photo professionals like at magazines, etc... may not be too keen on getting a JPEG image, if someoene ever wanted to hire you and/or pay money for your work, etc... I think somoene of Danellia's tallent would be best served by shooting and keeping the RAW files, even if she chooses not to use anything but the ebeded JPEG for now.

I think I suck at RAW conversion.

I would conclude that as well. Only from seeing how
breathtakingly beautiful your jpg photos are. The only conclusion
I can come to is that "you suck" at converting raw.



I tried and rejected raw several times before finally getting to
where I could really get better photos from the raw. But frankly,
when I see your work I'd say "why bother"?

Lee

 

[Manjade]

not only you but many others have stated that if you are converting RAW to JPEG, you lose all (or many) of the advantages of RAW (which makes sense to a point, of course)
BUT

does this mean that RAW is only really useful for those who do not convert to JPEG --- I thought most people did this, apart from pros who need to do print jobs etc
--
AJ
http://www.pbase.com/manjade

 

[Manjade]

thanks for that Lee,
I see your point
so if I convert to JPEG, RAW loses its advantages
and if I don't "hand carve" the image, RAW isn't serving its purpose
one more Q

if I have a shot which has the correct exposure and white balance etc, then why would I change anything in the RAW converter (it looks fine)
in essence I am using the in-camera settings, but shooting RAW
is it only advantages if I actually start changing things?
that doesn't quite add up
--
AJ
http://www.pbase.com/manjade

 

[Manjade]

ok we are talking about the same thing but seeing it differently! ;-)

I see the advanced details, but have had results where DPP has added "detail/noise" in areas of flat colour (like black curtains at the back of a play, which suddenly become "noisy")

I do prefer DPP to RSE, as I find it easier to use and the results easier to attain.
maybe I do need to change the sharpening (I think i had it at 2)
is it worth putting the value to ZERO and doing USM later in PS?
--
AJ
http://www.pbase.com/manjade

 

[LeeBase]

does this mean that RAW is only really useful for those who do not
convert to JPEG --- I thought most people did this, apart from pros
who need to do print jobs etc

Nope. With the raw file, you still have access to all the information that was available at the point of capture. You can change WB, and exposure, contrast and saturation. But it begs the question "if you set these all up the way you wanted at point of capture, what advantage is raw".

And there is none if in post you'd choose exactly the same settings as jpg, and output to jpg.

With the RAW file itself, though, you CAN make changes based on having all the info at hand. You can even output more than one version.

With the jpg you can make adjustments as well. But you are starting with a file that's alfeady is an 8bit instead of 16bitt file, and which has been compressed in a lossy manner.

Is this theoretical -- or can you SEE the difference? That's the tough thing to PROVE beyond all reasonable doubt. Trying to set up a demonstration that elimanates all the variables is practially impossible. You can get great photos with jpg -- I'm not one that disputes that.

Is RAW "worth it" -- to me, for most occasions, yes. For all occassions? No. Every now and again I shoot jpg and so many times I regret my choice. With raw I spend a few seconds on each photo tweaking it to best effect, which I prefer to doing the same tweaks in jpg.

My thoughts are open to change when they come out with jpg tools that are as easy as ACR.

Lee

 

[LeeBase]

There is no reason to keep the origingals all on your HD. Back them
up to DVD-R and/or CD-R.

CD's and DVD's do not last forever. Some fail after less than a year. I've looked for and can't even find a brand of DVD that is sold as "archival quality".

My back up dvd's are purly "if my house burns down, at least I have my photos on dvd at work".

In my opinion HD should not be thought of or used for longterm
archival storage.

We disagree. My hard drive and hard drive backups are my long term storage solution. Not that any one drive will last forever, but that I'll always be buying and upgrading computers and hard drives and moving my files forward to the latest.

Lee

 

[Daniella68313]

Also, every photo I could show you would have to be done using a
jpg file. The biggest problem with "shooting jpg" is the jpg
format. So if I shoot RAW and convert to jpg in order to show how
much better raw is -- then I'd lose the very advantage I'm trying
to show.

if converting to .jpg is enough to loose that advantage, then it is not really a big one for me. The simple fact that I also cannot see a difference with the psd file...not only the jpg drive it to the other level that you need to keep it to 16 bits and print it to see the difference..now will that difference be enough for me to rave about raw? not sure. I alwasy printed RAW in 8 bits and found it to be faithfull to life and so was the .jpg.

what I need to know now is if there is a difference in prints between the 16 bit (if my lab can print that) and 8 bit.

You know me...you've seen my posting for a couple years. You
probably saw me struggling with my "soft" soccer photos. I
wouldn't be going through shooting raw and converting a couple
hundred photos Sat. in and out, if I could get as good a results
with jpg....in the same amount of time.

I'm certainly open to the same conclusion about my "jpg processing
skills" that you are with your "raw processing skills" -- mabye "I
just suck at processing jpg".

Do your "shoot to the right"?

no I don'T. I shoot for the center to protect highlights. it also give me richer colours.

You know, checking the histogram

and aiming for your exposures to snug up agains, but not touch the
right side...as so many sites suggest? I do. The reason given is
that there is far more data captured at that end of the signal.
But I hadn't been adjusting down later. So I had all of these
photos that were over exposed...not blown out, mind you, just over
exposed.

problem is that I do have some that are on the right on the histogram sometimes and see no difference either.

I learned this with camera RAW because I could see the 3 color
histogram and found out that even the the "total sum" of colors was
not over exposed, I frequently blew out the red channel. As I back
to the left with the exposure slider "pop" goes my skin tones that
I'd been struggling for so long.

AND -- I learned that I could change color spaces and watch those
"blown out reds" all of a sudden NOT be blown out -- with no
changing of the exposure slider.

like what color space?

I can't prove it to you. I can't look at your photos and say "wow,
if only you shot that in RAW, it really could have been good" --
because your photos are excellent. I can say that I have been
convinced, not because people told me so -- but because I can see
it myself.

I wish I could.

But really -- a well done jpg photo can produce a great print and I
don't debate that. Just as I understand that "L glass" is better,
but the kit lens CAN produce excellent photos as well.

Lee

--



Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.

 

[photoguynorth]

...Like to emphasise something in the shadows,

If I did I'd expose for it.

or change from the
poor auto white balance (can you afford the time to do a white
balance test shot for each shot or set of shots),

Actually auto WB does a pretty good job mostly. When it is a bit off, then I touch it up in the JPG. As long as it's a minor adjustment, I have no problem.

or if you want to
get a richer print using Adobe colourspace when you had shot in
sRGB,

Since none of the printing methods I use take advantage of it, I don't bother.

or if you want to do a digital blend by creating 2 JPEGs from
one raw shot, or....

Ahhh - sometimes I will do this. In fact, there are other situations where RAW can be a benefit too. Then I look at the camera, wish 3 times that it had RAW capability, and it seems to be able to support RAW after that. So I select it from the menu - for those shots that require or benefit from RAW. Then I change it back. I still shoot JPG almost all the time.

Anyway, if you can't afford another $100 for a 1GB memory card, why
are you spending thousands on a high quality SLR camera and lenses.

I have a 1 GB card - but even if I chose not to, I'd hardly feel I had to justify my spending to you or anyone else.

Sorta like putting the cheapest film you can buy into a film
camera. JPEG is like the "generic brand" digital film.

I loved this - that's actually why I replied. Making up a lame analogy, then using it as proof does not do anything.
*********

Special notice - the below analogy is NOT intended to deride RAW shooters - just to illustrate the fact that making up comparisons proves nothing. I do not really claim (by implication) that RAW shooters are stupid.

RAW is like commuting in a dump truck. Just because occasionally you might want to carry something heavy does not mean you should drive a truck! People that commute in dump trucks are stupid.

Special notice again - the above analogy is NOT intended to deride RAW shooters - just to illustrate the fact that making up comparisons proves nothing
.

Still, if you're happy getting what you can out of JPEG,

Yes I am. If you are happy with RAW, that's good too.

haven't ever noticed the fringing lines in a blue sky after playing
with the contrast on your JPEGs,

I'm not sure how you process JPGs, but I don't have problems with fringing. If you feel better somehow saying they are there, but I can't see them - well that's OK.

then you don't value it, and don't
care.

I guess I don't.

Sorta like me trying to convince my wife that the sound from
the home theatre is better than from the TV- she thinks it is but
doesn't care enough to spend money/time on it (I do

Maybe you don't understand that everyone has their own priorities. If I were you, I'd stop trying to convince everyone they were wrong.

Indulis

--
Come and look at my ego site (I mean website)
http://www.outnumbered.ca

 

[Glenn W.]

I burn both DVD and CD. I've been doing it for 3 or 4 years now. Never had any problems... I don't expect them to last forever... just untill something better come along...

If your keeping all your stuff on HD, I trust you have at least two copies and the original... one copy stored off site and/or in a fireproof climate controled enviornment...

I've been working with computers and electronics for 20 years now... I'm fully aware of the pros and cons of most types of afordable storage.

There is no reason to keep the origingals all on your HD. Back them
up to DVD-R and/or CD-R.

CD's and DVD's do not last forever. Some fail after less than a
year. I've looked for and can't even find a brand of DVD that is
sold as "archival quality".

My back up dvd's are purly "if my house burns down, at least I have
my photos on dvd at work".

In my opinion HD should not be thought of or used for longterm
archival storage.

We disagree. My hard drive and hard drive backups are my long term
storage solution. Not that any one drive will last forever, but
that I'll always be buying and upgrading computers and hard drives
and moving my files forward to the latest.

Lee

 

[Daniella68313]

Exactly. If you "let the camera do it" -- you lose the ability to
control 'which bits'. If you let the "raw converter" and don't
actually take control of "which bits" -- then you've lost that
advantage.

that'S a 2 sharp-sided knive though. if you don't let the camera do it, then you loose the ability to use the DIGI II fine conversion.

Plus if you convert to jpg at all, then you have the limitations of
jpg -- whether you did it "in camera" or in your convertign
software.

correct me if I am wrong, but you can't use RAW without changing it
-- is that right?

Settings have to be applied. Whether you go with "as shot"
settings, or whether you hand tweak the settings. But if you don't
"hand tweak" the settings, why would you expect a superior result?

what I don't understand is why the "as shot" with all different programs give a totaly different output than the "as shot" with the in-camera conversion?

Lee

--



Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.

 

[Daniella68313]

Look more carefully and you will see that RAW does have more detail.

no, all I see is a difference in focusing point because the photos were not taken at the same time. so one could have shake, one could have this ot that problem..they were not taken from the same data so cannot really be compared.

Who argues that there is some superiority to a raw file that is
processed with "no settings changed"?

Lee, many people argue that you get more resolution and better
detail with the raw..problem is, they failed to prove it.

I think we all agree that when there is a problem in exposure, then
the RAW would give better latitude to save it. We all know that
too.

I guess what I and a few other people are trying to find out is, is
there a real advantage to shoot raw for a well exposed
pics..meaning is there a read advantages for each photos that we
shoot, not only the bad ones?

it is still interesting test to also compare RAW converter
program..see how different they are.

It's when you DO need to adjust wb, or exposure that you see the
advantages.

Lee

--



Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send
them to me via email instead! thanks.

--
http://aphoto.smugmug.com/

--



Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.

 

[Glenn W.]

Yes... if you don't like that 'noise' then try it with sharpening at ZERO... I think you find that most, if not all of it goes away.

Do your sharpening in PS if you don't like DPP's sharpening. Most sharpening should be done as a last step anyway...

DPP's sharpening doesn't produce halos... like some other sharpening does.... I really wish DPP had a preview of the sharpening... Lack of preview for sharpening is probably my biggest complaint about DPP.

On the other hand... from what I've been told... DPP is the only Canon software that has the ablity to do ZERO sharpening... That is, I've been lead to belive that EVU FVU, in camera, etc... all do some minimal level of sharpening, even at -2... (that too may complicate any JPEG/RAW comparisons that folks might try to do)

ok we are talking about the same thing but seeing it differently! ;-)
I see the advanced details, but have had results where DPP has
added "detail/noise" in areas of flat colour (like black curtains
at the back of a play, which suddenly become "noisy")
I do prefer DPP to RSE, as I find it easier to use and the results
easier to attain.
maybe I do need to change the sharpening (I think i had it at 2)
is it worth putting the value to ZERO and doing USM later in PS?
--
AJ
http://www.pbase.com/manjade

 

[Daniella68313]

Anyway, if you can't afford another $100 for a 1GB memory card, why
are you spending thousands on a high quality SLR camera and lenses.
Sorta like putting the cheapest film you can buy into a film
camera. JPEG is like the "generic brand" digital film.

why spend hundred of $ on CF cards? if you need to shoot raw because the exposure is off or WB is off, then maybe it make more sense to put your money on photography lessons instead of buying more cards to shoot raw..

see it the other way around. If you want analogies I can bring some to your disadvantage just as you did.

Still, if you're happy getting what you can out of JPEG, and
haven't ever noticed the fringing lines in a blue sky after playing
with the contrast on your JPEGs, then you don't value it, and don't
care.

fringing on a blue sky? I never had that problem, not even in prints. what fringing at you talking about?

Sorta like me trying to convince my wife that the sound from

the home theatre is better than from the TV- she thinks it is but
doesn't care enough to spend money/time on it (I do

Indulis

--



Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.

 

[chrisinthesun]

What am I doing wrong with RAW PP?

Try as I might, using PS, RSE or any other program, I cannot get my RAW images to look as good as the JPEG, especially in terms of colours. The RAW images just seem "flatter". Sure, I can boost the contrast/saturation etc, but for some reason the colours STILL look "different" to the JPEG - its hard to explain....

this is the main thing that is stopping me from routinely shooting RAW.

 

[Daniella68313]

comparing a RAW DPP) file and the imbedded JPEG (see the first
post), you can see a lot of what I would call "noise" -- maybe the
correct term is artefacts from the sharpening, but the end effect
is an image which seems to have more noise
RSE doesn't add this amount of "noise" but does add a more
pixel-like noise, esp. to the edges ... EVU adds very little, as
does RIT (just as a comparison)
I want to do a RAW converter comparison with some shots, so I will
have a look into that

in deed..look at the eye of that insect? the raw conversion made the highlight in the eye very harsh..it is smooth in the .jpg and will remain smooth in printing:

--
AJ
http://www.pbase.com/manjade

--



Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.