RAW Troublemaker Again

Started Aug 30, 2013 | Discussions
VirtualMirage
VirtualMirage Veteran Member • Posts: 3,956
Re: RAW Troublemaker Again
1

saschamagus wrote:

Point is, learning to process raw with e.g. lightroon takes a ton of effort, which will hopefully be rewarded with superior results...

If you're not willing to put in the hours, then there is no doubt jpg is the better option.

Since you mentioned wedding photographers, you might consider Jared Platt, an extremely efficient lightroom guru who recently taught a course on Ultimate Lightroom workflow (on Creative Live)... That's a 3 day course where ideally you already have a base knowledge of lightroom...

As I said, there are no shortcuts

Yes, learning the process can take some time.  But once understood you can then breeze through your photos pretty quickly, spending no more than a few minutes or less on most photos if you are not using presets or batch processing.

-- hide signature --

Paul

 VirtualMirage's gear list:VirtualMirage's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony a77 II Tokina AT-X Pro 11-16mm f/2.8 DX Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD +18 more
RichV Veteran Member • Posts: 6,178
Re: RAW Troublemaker Again
1

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Some of these wedding shooters shoot 2000 images that they then have to go through and process afterwards. Think about it.

As with most of us who can have a heavy day of shooting, you start with weeding out and rating the images so that you end up with fewer that you actually edit; if you take some time batching the basics, it gets easier still.

-- hide signature --

Rich

 RichV's gear list:RichV's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony SLT-A77 Sony Alpha a99 Sony 70-200mm F2.8 G +7 more
OP Gary Eickmeier Veteran Member • Posts: 3,479
Re: So the next time,

Thanks Rich, and I will try harder. But look at another example (couldn't resist - you guys told me that IDC does the same job as the camera processing, so I opened up a random shot that I had in both JPG and RAW, did the RAW in IDC with sharpening and - well, it didn't need anything else - but look at the RAW sharpening results vs the camera's JPG with a little Unsharp Mask applied):

Of course (as if you couldn't tell) the bottom one is the JPG. I could not get the RAW one as sharp within the IDC program. I could have applied Unsharp Mask after importing it into Photoshop, but wanted to show what each program can do by itself. These are 100% crops of a much larger image that I was shooting to test resolution.

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

saschamagus Regular Member • Posts: 196
Re: So the next time,
4

so to prove your point, you are comparing a raw processed with Sony's programme and compare it to a jpg that you have additionally sharpened to make a valid comparison??

You are really disqualifying yourself, sorry to say...

splashy
splashy Senior Member • Posts: 2,610
Do you really have to RAW??

I didn't read the whole thread, but in the A99 book Gary Friedman writes about the Raw question,

only use Raw when you need a backup or if something goes wrong (lighting)

A photographer of Nat Geog. got complains of the people processing his RAW images, they had a hard time producing the same quality of jpg's out of a Raw, the camera makes in seconds.

 splashy's gear list:splashy's gear list
Sony a7R III Sony FE 28mm F2 Sony FE 24-240mm F3.5-6.3 OSS Sony FE 50mm F1.8 Sony FE 24-105mm F4 +1 more
RichV Veteran Member • Posts: 6,178
Re: So the next time,
6

If you think about it, there's no detail you can show in a JPEG that isn't also in the RAW (but it's very telling that companies who make high-end plug-ins for PS, etc. have "de-JPEG" routines) - do you actually think the down-conversion to JPEG is adding detail the sensor didn't pick up?  So logically the difference is in the processing.

I think it's just better to quit this line of pursuit, as it's pretty clear you don't yet have the skills (or maybe the correct software) to know how to deal with RAW files; in this case JPEG's the best for you based on your current capabilities as well as your preference (as an aside, I'm much like other RAW shooters in that I don't spend more than 2-3 minutes on a RAW file (often less) unless the image warrants a "special project").

-- hide signature --

Rich

 RichV's gear list:RichV's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony SLT-A77 Sony Alpha a99 Sony 70-200mm F2.8 G +7 more
Chet Meyerson
Chet Meyerson Regular Member • Posts: 211
Re: Do you really have to RAW??

splashy wrote:

I didn't read the whole thread, but in the A99 book Gary Friedman writes about the Raw question,

only use Raw when you need a backup or if something goes wrong (lighting)

A photographer of Nat Geog. got complains of the people processing his RAW images, they had a hard time producing the same quality of jpg's out of a Raw, the camera makes in seconds.

Indeed he does! But no one who is so in love the RAW files and THINK they are god answer to bad photography (we can save anything in raw...this group) will read that and even begin to understand it. They will argue forever and ever about the ills of JPEG and how in camera processing is not destroying the photographic image!

This is more amusing that watching monkeys at the zoo....reading the comments here!

 Chet Meyerson's gear list:Chet Meyerson's gear list
Sony Alpha a99 Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D +5 more
Chet Meyerson
Chet Meyerson Regular Member • Posts: 211
Re: So the next time,

RichV wrote:yet have the skills (or maybe the correct software)
Rich

That's a pretty brazen assumption. And how do you know the skills or the software available to any given person who posts on this board that doesn't agree with your assessment of RAW?

 Chet Meyerson's gear list:Chet Meyerson's gear list
Sony Alpha a99 Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D +5 more
TrojMacReady
TrojMacReady Veteran Member • Posts: 8,729
Rarely.. if ever....
3

...do we get to play with the original RAW file ourselves, to show what a high quality conversion can do, relative to the out of camera jpegs.

Words can only do so much in these heated discussions.

OP Gary Eickmeier Veteran Member • Posts: 3,479
Re: So the next time,

saschamagus wrote:

so to prove your point, you are comparing a raw processed with Sony's programme and compare it to a jpg that you have additionally sharpened to make a valid comparison??

Not quite. I explained in the actual post you are talking about, but here goes again: I opened the image in IDC because someone said that it does the same initial processing that the camera does, hence we start out with the lens correction and a pretty good job of everything else - right? But there are some additional controls that might improve it even more, so I took a look. It had some sharpening, so I sharpened. Had to go to 100% to see much difference. Took a look at the noise reduction, in case that was interfering. It was at 50% in the default, so I took it back down to zero to see how it interracted with sharpening, but not much difference except I could see some luma noise in the sky, so I put it back again.

Then I opened up the JPG from the camera in Photoshop, did my usual sharpening to compare that with the RAW (IDC) sharpening program, and was gobsmacked by the improvement! The JPG was so much better on this already good image, I just had to post it for you to see.

So, again, we are comparing an image sharpened in IDC to one sharpened in Photoshop. The point was that I couldn't get it any better in IDC. I may try LR 3.6 next, but here is the full image:

Full JPG Image

I wish I could post the full RAW image for you experts to show me how it is done.

You are really disqualifying yourself, sorry to say...

So be it. Wasn't trying to start a fight, just relate a recent adventure with my processing. Maybe I have a lot to learn, and I did learn something in this thread, if it is true that IDC does most of the same processing that the camera does. But then that leaves Lightroom out, doesn't it? And I couldn't see what the bit depth was in IDC. Does it keep it at 16?

Just tried the RAW processing in PS Elements 11 and got much better results on the sharpness, but I see some noise that I still need to work on:

100% crop of RAW processed image

Well, better, but still not as good as the camera processed JPG.

I know, I need to learn all these RAW programs, but why do they all need to have different esoteric controls, all named differently? You go into any of the Photoshop or Elements and you know what they are talking about, even if the controls are in different positions.

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

OP Gary Eickmeier Veteran Member • Posts: 3,479
Re: Rarely.. if ever....

TrojMacReady wrote:

...do we get to play with the original RAW file ourselves, to show what a high quality conversion can do, relative to the out of camera jpegs.

Words can only do so much in these heated discussions.

So I ask, what would be the best way to send you my RAW file? I wonder if I can post it on another site and then post a link.

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

RichV Veteran Member • Posts: 6,178
Re: So the next time,
2

Chet Meyerson wrote:

RichV wrote:yet have the skills (or maybe the correct software)
Rich

That's a pretty brazen assumption. And how do you know the skills or the software available to any given person who posts on this board that doesn't agree with your assessment of RAW?

I'm sorry it looks this way to you; if you read all of his earlier posts, he alludes to a low skill level in processing RAW files - but thanks for policing this.

-- hide signature --

Rich

 RichV's gear list:RichV's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony SLT-A77 Sony Alpha a99 Sony 70-200mm F2.8 G +7 more
OP Gary Eickmeier Veteran Member • Posts: 3,479
Re: Rarely.. if ever....

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

TrojMacReady wrote:

...do we get to play with the original RAW file ourselves, to show what a high quality conversion can do, relative to the out of camera jpegs.

Words can only do so much in these heated discussions.

So I ask, what would be the best way to send you my RAW file? I wonder if I can post it on another site and then post a link.

Just tried Vimeo, sorry no stills, pbase, won't work with a RAW file

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

OP Gary Eickmeier Veteran Member • Posts: 3,479
Re: RAW Troublemaker Again

New social rule: Never discuss religion, politics, or RAW vs JPG.

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

RichV Veteran Member • Posts: 6,178
Re: Do you really have to RAW??
3

Chet Meyerson wrote:

Indeed he does! But no one who is so in love the RAW files and THINK they are god answer to bad photography (we can save anything in raw...this group) will read that and even begin to understand it. They will argue forever and ever about the ills of JPEG and how in camera processing is not destroying the photographic image!

This is more amusing that watching monkeys at the zoo....reading the comments here!

"Ills" exist only in the mind of the viewer. A fine art photographer is probably going to shoot RAW and work from there - and I hope that in your eyes this makes sense. Personally I've got no issues with JPEG's as long as they fit the application. If someone's paying me for a portrait I'll use RAW; if I want to take creative license with a scene I'll shoot RAW. If I'm just doing snapshots I'll most likely use RAW+JPEG.

I don't think the upset, here, is about shooting JPEG - it's more about the statement that JPEG produces a better quality output than RAW can ("gee - I can't make this RAW look nearly as good as the OOC JPEG, so JPEG MUST be superior").  The community would respond to any similar photographic misconceptions (e.g. regarding aperture, ISO, etc.) as well.

As an exercise I downloaded the full-size JPEG Gary posted of the building and the traffic light. But it was already "JPEG'd" so there wasn't a lot I could do with it. Gary's comment was about sharpness, and at a 100% view (which is a minimum you'd use when sharpening) it's smeared; once you've lost detail you can't get it back.

-- hide signature --

Rich

 RichV's gear list:RichV's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony SLT-A77 Sony Alpha a99 Sony 70-200mm F2.8 G +7 more
(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 3,992
Re: So the next time,
2

Chet Meyerson wrote:

That's a pretty brazen assumption. And how do you know the skills or the software available to any given person who posts on this board that doesn't agree with your assessment of RAW?

That's simple really: The proof is in the pudding

The truth is, based on the nature of RAW, there is no questioning the inherent superiority of RAW over OOC images. To which I'd add, when this isn't the case, then the issue is never with RAW, but rather; the processor or the editor.

That is of course, overlooking the benefits of OOC JPG insofar as convenience and/or other convenience that may arise from it's uses from an end user perspective. ie. If JPG is sufficient to get the job done, then why would anyone shoot RAW?

In a nutshell

RichV Veteran Member • Posts: 6,178
Re: Rarely.. if ever....

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

TrojMacReady wrote:

...do we get to play with the original RAW file ourselves, to show what a high quality conversion can do, relative to the out of camera jpegs.

Words can only do so much in these heated discussions.

So I ask, what would be the best way to send you my RAW file? I wonder if I can post it on another site and then post a link.

Just tried Vimeo, sorry no stills, pbase, won't work with a RAW file

Gary, sites like dropbox will let you have a general public folder; you can post a link to it. Also my ISP allows me a certain amount of online space; if you've got the same you could upload and post that link.

-- hide signature --

Rich

 RichV's gear list:RichV's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony SLT-A77 Sony Alpha a99 Sony 70-200mm F2.8 G +7 more
Chet Meyerson
Chet Meyerson Regular Member • Posts: 211
Good rule!

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

New social rule: Never discuss religion, politics, or RAW vs JPG.

I already knew that but never hurts to say it again!!

 Chet Meyerson's gear list:Chet Meyerson's gear list
Sony Alpha a99 Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D +5 more
VirtualMirage
VirtualMirage Veteran Member • Posts: 3,956
Re: So the next time,
3

I agree with Saschamagus, how again is it a fair comparison if you are taking the RAW through IDC and then take the out of camera JPEG and add even more sharpening via PS?

The point you were trying to prove originally was how JPEG looks straight out of camera.  If you are going to add more sharpening, you do so to both.

You seem to not quite understand the full capabilities of sharpening, both when it comes to RAW and JPEG.  JPEG already have some amount of sharpening applied in camera, and more or less can be added in camera.  RAW files have no sharpening applied at all coming out of camera, that has to be applied by the converter.  The +1/-1 approach in camera is very generic and doesn't explain much whereas the converters and editors, as you have seen, go into far more detail and complexity.

The RAW image still could use more sharpening.  What settings are you using?

The JPEG has too much sharpening as evidence of the halos around everything.  What unsharp mask settings did you use for this?  And why did you feel it needed even more sharpening than how it appeared out of camera?

-- hide signature --

Paul

 VirtualMirage's gear list:VirtualMirage's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony a77 II Tokina AT-X Pro 11-16mm f/2.8 DX Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD +18 more
VirtualMirage
VirtualMirage Veteran Member • Posts: 3,956
Re: So the next time,

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

100% crop of RAW processed image

Well, better, but still not as good as the camera processed JPG.

I know, I need to learn all these RAW programs, but why do they all need to have different esoteric controls, all named differently? You go into any of the Photoshop or Elements and you know what they are talking about, even if the controls are in different positions.

While it could still use a little tweaking and some practice, this is an improvement over the previous two examples.  Still some haloing is evident, but I find the sharpening in this image much more pleasing than the JPEG and it is an improvement over what you got in IDC.

The image is a tad flat, but RAW images untouched or very little processing can come across that way.  Adding a little more contrast and/or clarity should resolve that.

-- hide signature --

Paul

 VirtualMirage's gear list:VirtualMirage's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony a77 II Tokina AT-X Pro 11-16mm f/2.8 DX Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD +18 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads