RAW Troublemaker Again

Started Aug 30, 2013 | Discussions
VirtualMirage
VirtualMirage Veteran Member • Posts: 3,956
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.

Dropbox is an option.

-- 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
stevo23 Forum Pro • Posts: 21,094
There's not really a debate
5

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Just an observation, OK? Sometimes the JPG is better.

I shot some outdoor shots of people at a meeting. RAW + JPG. In editing, I notice that the JPG looks so much better! The camera processing took much better care of noise, sharpening, but most of all automatic lens correction for Chromatic Aberration! Take a look at these 100% crops:

This isn't really something that should be debated, it can only be answered and explained. But the relative answer "jpeg is sometimes better" is unfortunately misinformed. If you shoot raw + jpeg, the jpeg you have is nothing more than a derivative of the raw that you have. Out of the camera, the jpeg might look better and in many cases SHOULD. But the potential of each is very different. Better results can be had from RAW. Sometimes, maybe you only match the jpeg, but i've personally never had a case where I couldn't get better results.

If you can't get better results from RAW, then there are a couple of issues:

1) You have to shoot to take advantage of the processor's DR, color, sharpness etc. characteristics.  Use your RGB histograms! It won't always look pretty right out of the camera, but that's OK.

2) In-camera jpeg is made using a much less powerful processor than you have in your computer and software. Learn how to process RAW photos in your computer.

3) Learn to use your RAW converter - if you require a special one.

If you're not skilled in certain aspects of post processing, RAW may not help you. But you can ALWAYS match or better the jpeg if you know what you're doing. And it's not hard either.

Actually - in many cases, RAW will look like flat crap coming right out of the camera if you're shooting it correctly! But after you start working with things, it will turn out beautiful results. Raw affords you tons of latitude for adjustment that is severely lacking in jpeg. For an example of how flat RAW can look straight from the camera, see below:

RAW Capture

Processed Result

Sorry, I didn't shoot a Jpeg here. And please pardon my editorial choice of the bi-color filter. This comparison is only to show you that the RAW isn't always a pretty image straight from the camera, the jpeg would have initially looked better. This was a very deliberate capture to keep everything as far right in the histograms as possible so I had minimal noise and maximum sharpness potential, DR, tonal range and color potential. Granted, now these are both jpegs, ha ha.

Hope this helps...

 stevo23's gear list:stevo23's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +3 more
Chet Meyerson
Chet Meyerson Regular Member • Posts: 211
Re: Do you really have to RAW??

RichV wrote:

 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").

Rich

Rich, I think it's quite the opposite.

I don't think anyone said a JPEG file is BETTER than a raw file, I think the point here is that a JPEG file 'could' be as good as a raw file. Very different arguments. Like you said earlier, if someone's skill set is low processing raw files, then by all means to that person the JPEG will be superior. To someone who knows what they are doing, has the proper tools the results can and perhaps exceed the in camera JPEG. But in the end, even to pixel peepers, just how different are they? And what's the intended use? No one will notice the difference (assume processed to look basically the same- color wise, etc, not a different image look) on a print under 11x14 with today's JPEGs.

To blindly shoot raw because it's "better" and then try to convince me why (and almost insult me in the process) the mindset I find so distasteful. Makes no sense. The ultimate use should govern the type of file format to shoot. Getting paid $25,000 for an image requested by an NYC advertising firm's art director (I'm sure all the posters here are hired for this type of work) ...well you better shoot raw! Shooting an image to post on the forums, email people, put on your Facebook page, your Flickr albums etc....please - no need for RAW! (IMHO).

There is a fellow who shoot time-lapse video here on the forums and he shoots them in RAW. Thousands of frames! Claims he can edit them better. Really makes me wonder when the final resolution is at best 1080! And then post it to YouTube and watch how they compress the crap put of your best work! Really!!! That's what I call just plain not understanding compression. Shoot a time-lapse for Imax at 4K, you have a case there!

Anyway.................off to shoot some raw files of some cool cars tomorrow (but I'll use the jpeg's that will be on the other card...love my a99).

 Chet Meyerson's gear list:Chet Meyerson's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm XF 10-24mm F4 R OIS Fujifilm XF 50-140mm F2.8 Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8R LM WR +1 more
JusLookN Veteran Member • Posts: 4,296
Re: So the next time,
2

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

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.

Gary, the point to be made here is ; you added more sharpening to the jpeg which has already been cooked. Your comparison should have been with it exactly as you saw it compared to the processed raw file in IDC.  Let me make a statement here, because I have an uncle that went through the same thing.  He uses jpegs still because that's what he likes and he knows he is not proficient with Lightroom but is still learning.  At first, he thought that if he brought raw files into lightroom  with the default settings, and hit the automatic button in the basic module that everything had already been done.  You have to have the right camera profile and find the basic starting points that you use most often.  Or, start with the basic settings in Lightroom for Sony cams, then modify them to your liking and either do this all the time, or make your own profile.  What others are saying to the fact that it seems to take more time to process; is that once you have a profile tailored to the way you shoot most of the times, it only takes maybe one or two keystrokes to have your file done.  All of the other settings can be synced through the whole process if you feel you haven't changed the settings.  In other words, you kinda batch just like with jpegs. Most of us in this thread know exactly what you mean't with the thread title, and are trying to help explain the raw processing more since you are lacking.  But, let me state that you should pick one processor and stick with it, rather than try to use all of them.  Lightroom has most of the tools you need to do raw processing. And since you mentioned you have it, I would suggest you stick with that one.  It is hard for some at first.  Just don't try to convince yourself that you have a timetable to learn it.  My best suggestion is to get the Lightroom book for digital photography  written by Scott Kelby.  It does a really good job of explaining what everything does and shows you by example.  It also gives you some excercises to practice on.  Don't let anybody get you all bent out of shape in this thread.  Photography is supposed to be fun.  Learning is also supposed to be fun!  (kinda long-winded)  But have fun shooting and processing!  That's what it's all about!

-- hide signature --

Glenn
I'm kinda partial to video, but I'm hangin!

 JusLookN's gear list:JusLookN's gear list
Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 Nikon D3S Sony a77 II Nikon D810 +2 more
ovrebekk
ovrebekk Veteran Member • Posts: 4,439
Re: RAW Troublemaker Again
1

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

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

Hi Gary

The issue here is that you don't seem to know quite how the RAW format works, and you make statements about RAW vs JPG that are wrong because of it.

A RAW file can always give you equal or better image quality than a JPG file, if you process it correctly.

The reason the JPG looked better in your example was that you did absolutely no processing on the RAW file, but the JPG file had processing applied by the camera to make it look better. With the RAW file you can always repeat that processing at a later time and get equal or better results.

The RAW file is exactly what the name implies, the raw sensor data straight from the sensor with no contrast/coloring/effects applied. The JPG file is based on the raw data, but applies some effects in camera to make it look better and compresses it to reduce the file size. Because of the camera applied effects the JPG will often look better straight out of the camera, but because of the compression and the applied effects you will have a lot less flexibility in editing the image.

I hope this didn't come across as too rash. I am not trying to claim that shooting RAW is right for everyone, we all have different shooting styles and preferences, I am just trying to clarify the difference between the formats

Kindest regards

Torbjørn

JusLookN Veteran Member • Posts: 4,296
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

Why not just pm him or send it to his e-mail? the file isn't that big.

-- hide signature --

Glenn
I'm kinda partial to video, but I'm hangin!

 JusLookN's gear list:JusLookN's gear list
Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 Nikon D3S Sony a77 II Nikon D810 +2 more
stevo23 Forum Pro • Posts: 21,094
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.

RAW +  jpeg was created for that very reason. You have to realize that a journalist has a special problem by virtue of being in the field. He has to trust his work to others and service bureaus have precious little time to process RAW photos. He will shoot jpeg and send it off for publishing, knowing that a base minimum quality is being had. He will keep the RAW for cover shots and award submittals and process the crap out of it.

So keep his answer in context. Jpeg isn't better than raw, but it might find a use depending on what you're doing.

 stevo23's gear list:stevo23's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +3 more
sybersitizen Forum Pro • Posts: 12,635
Re: RAW Troublemaker Again

VirtualMirage wrote:

... Film negatives don't look print ready out of the camera, why expect RAWs to? Even the prints didn't come from the negatives untouched. Either a computer or person added saturation, contrast, etc. People forget this, choosing to ignore the "man behind the curtain".

For some of us back in the film days, negatives were irrelevant and the only man behind the curtain was a precise, consistent chemical process. That would be either 35mm transparency development (and an operator who hopefully knew what he was doing) or instant cameras. Those approaches produced a fully baked image with little if any forgiveness. Shooting JPEGs today is very similar and familiar, except that JPEGs allow infinitely more leeway with post-processing tools. It's a different philosophy from shooting RAW, but it's fully valid for those who like it.

Clayton1985 Veteran Member • Posts: 8,293
Re: Do you really have to RAW??
3

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)

Chapter 15 of my A99 book doesn't say that at all. In fact, it does a pretty good job of explaining the differences and the pros and cons of shooting raw or jpg.

There are certainly valid reasons for shooting jpg but it hasn't nothing to do with the jpg magically being better.  It has to do with time, file size, desire to PP, lack of PP skill, etc.

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.

No one is saying you have to shoot raw to get results you are happy with. And if the Nat Geog. photographer can't get people to process his raw images to equal or surpass the jpgs then either fire them and hire someone else or use the jpgs....... it's really not that complicated. Raw only gives you the potential to produce equal or better results... if you screw it up then don't blame the raw file. But the "people processing his RAW images" shouldn't be confused with any and all people.

Alan_S
Alan_S Senior Member • Posts: 1,835
Re: Do you really have to RAW??
2

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)

Splashy, this is absolutely false. I really don't want to step into this, but I respect Friedman's work too much to let you misrepresent his views here (and I've called you on this before). I challenge you to provide the above quote to support your statement (it simply doesn't exist)... you may have drawn that conclusion, based upon your needs/use, after Gary presented pros/cons for different scenarios, but to imply such a quote is a total, 100% fabrication.

Instead, what I do  find in Gary's a99 book, in Chapter 15, page 536, is:

"if my light is good and my exposure is right for that light then I sometimes will shoot only FINE or XFINE .jpg since the benefits of RAW in that scenario are not compelling."

This is total opposite of what you've represented above.

-- hide signature --

- AlanS

 Alan_S's gear list:Alan_S's gear list
Sony a99 II Sony 70-200mm F2.8 G Sony 16-35mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Sony 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Sony 70-400mm F4-5.6 G SSM II +2 more
Austinian
Austinian Veteran Member • Posts: 8,168
Re: So the next time,

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

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.

There are a number of RAW converters that I didn't care to use. Software can be excellent in function, but some users won't like it for various reasons.

I finally tried DxO Optics Pro 8; it produced pretty good RAW conversions for me with its standard defaults.  I do make adjustments to get the particular results I want, but for me that's a less painful process than starting from scratch.

If you haven't looked at it already, you might download their free trial and see if you find it more usable than the others you've tried.  The versatility of RAW images make it worth the effort to find a suitable RAW converter, IMO, especially in difficult lighting conditions.  Good luck with the search.

 Austinian's gear list:Austinian's gear list
Sony a7 II Sony a7R III Rokinon 14mm F2.8 IF ED MC Sony FE 28mm F2 Samyang 135mm F2.0 +3 more
mick232 Contributing Member • Posts: 967
Re: RAW Troublemaker Again

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

mick232 wrote:

Why don't you post the RAW file and see what people experienced in RAW processing with various RAW converter software can make out of that? If your JPEG is still better than that, you have a point.

Is there a way to post a RAW file on the dpreview site? I also subscribe to Vimeo if that might help - and, I believe, pbase.com if that would work. Anyway, I have it at the office only right now, so will have to wait until I get back there.

No, but as others have already said: Dropbox, Google Docs, http://www.filedropper.com, http://www.filehostfree.com/ etc.

 mick232's gear list:mick232's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-C3 Sony Alpha a99 Sony 135mm F1.8 ZA Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* Sigma 30mm F2.8 EX DN Tamron SP 24-70mm F2.8 Di VC USD +19 more
splashy
splashy Senior Member • Posts: 2,949
Re: Do you really have to RAW??

@Alan, don't get upset I respect Friedman as much as you do,

Page 519

that if you know what you’re doing and take the same care to keep your light right and exposure and color balance set properly for the situation as you did for slides, your final print from in-camera .jpg’s will look just as good as shooting with RAW and post-processing, only it will take significantly less time.

Page 532 the tip

Page 185 "true story' about the Nat Geo and DRO

Mike credits the DRO feature for making the shadows look exactly how his eye sees them, and he tells his staff to“ make the RAW files look just like the .jpg”. On several occasions the staff complained, “We can’t!”.

Important here is what the man asks, “ make the RAW files look just like the .jpg”

So please don't say it's 100 % fabricated, it's written in the book. It's a conclusion about Raw and Jpeg, not how I use them both.

Also it's important to keep in mind certain camera settings aren't usable when using RAW, thus making it sometimes harder to correct an 'error' manually.

 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
Alan_S
Alan_S Senior Member • Posts: 1,835
Excellent example, stevo23. For years I stuck to...
2

...jpg-only, but reading many similar threads like this one intrigued me. During a June 2010 trip to Yellowstone National Park I decided to give RAW+JPG a try, to see if RAW would work for me. This is the shot that convinced me (and I've posted it a few times before, "bear" with me if you've already seen it ). Happened upon this rare close/safe opportunity at about 30 meters, with the 70-400G mounted to my brand new a850, on a monopod. Shooting wide open f/5.6 on a dark, cloudy, misty, morning I had to bump the ISO up to 1600 to muster a shutter speed of 1/320 @ 400mm. This is a 100% view of the OOC jpg + the image I was able to process from the same RAW file.

Left: OOC JPG ... Right: processed from RAW in ACR & Photoshop

Have conducted repeated similar comparisons, and repeat the process with the acquisition of each new camera body (a55, a77, a99), always with the same results.

-- hide signature --

- AlanS

 Alan_S's gear list:Alan_S's gear list
Sony a99 II Sony 70-200mm F2.8 G Sony 16-35mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Sony 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Sony 70-400mm F4-5.6 G SSM II +2 more
OP Gary Eickmeier Veteran Member • Posts: 3,479
Re: RAW Troublemaker Again

mick232 wrote:

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

mick232 wrote:

Why don't you post the RAW file and see what people experienced in RAW processing with various RAW converter software can make out of that? If your JPEG is still better than that, you have a point.

Is there a way to post a RAW file on the dpreview site? I also subscribe to Vimeo if that might help - and, I believe, pbase.com if that would work. Anyway, I have it at the office only right now, so will have to wait until I get back there.

No, but as others have already said: Dropbox, Google Docs, http://www.filedropper.com, http://www.filehostfree.com/ etc.

OK, will try one of those when I get back there.

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

Chris59 Forum Pro • Posts: 15,437
Re: RAW Troublemaker Again
4

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Just an observation, OK? Sometimes the JPG is better.

I shot some outdoor shots of people at a meeting. RAW + JPG. In editing, I notice that the JPG looks so much better! The camera processing took much better care of noise, sharpening, but most of all automatic lens correction for Chromatic Aberration! Take a look at these 100% crops:

The fence shows it fairly well, but the back of his shirt outlined in red (plus several other objects in the rest of the frame) all showed it. The RAW has a lot of CA and the JPG is perfect!

Not sure what the moral of the story is except take a look at both when editing, and always shoot both, not just RAW. Sometimes the RAW can save your butt, sometimes the JPG is better.

JPEG is never better.  What has happened here is that the camera has chosen settings more to your liking.  RAW which has been post processed into a JPEG will always be better provided you know what you are doing.

All you have shown here is your inability to make a good JPEG from RAW.  Instead of posting to tell us about your ignorance, learn what RAW can do and improve your post processing technique.

 Chris59's gear list:Chris59's gear list
Samsung NX1 Samsung 16-50mm F2.0-2.8
OP Gary Eickmeier Veteran Member • Posts: 3,479
Re: Do you really have to RAW??

RichV wrote:

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.

Now I am going to have to take exception. No, nothing is "smeared" in that picture. It was taken on a tripod, SSS turned off, manually focused to perfection with double magnification, and fired with a 2 sec timer. I have already posted a sharp as a tack crop of the street lights with every little red LED visible at that great distance - about a block and a half - well, you can see how small they are in the original. Every brick is countable, every sign readable, a perfectly sharp image.

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

splashy
splashy Senior Member • Posts: 2,949
Re: Do you really have to RAW??

@Alan-S, don't get upset I respect Friedman as much as you do,

Page 519

that if you know what you’re doing and take the same care to keep your light right and exposure and color balance set properly for the situation as you did for slides, your final print from in-camera .jpg’s will look just as good as shooting with RAW and post-processing, only it will take significantly less time.

Page 532 the tip

Page 185 "true story' about the Nat Geo and DRO

Mike credits the DRO feature for making the shadows look exactly how his eye sees them, and he tells his staff to“ make the RAW files look just like the .jpg”. On several occasions the staff complained, “We can’t!”.

Important here is what the man asks, “ make the RAW files look just like the .jpg”

So please don't say it's 100 % fabricated, it's written in the book. It's a conclusion about Raw and Jpeg, not how I use them both.

Also it's important to keep in mind certain camera settings aren't usable when using RAW, thus making it sometimes harder to correct an 'error' manually.

Read also page 534 at the end

and the start of 535

He definitely says "the benefits of RAW in that scenario are not compelling."

PLUS the following issues.

 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
Alan_S
Alan_S Senior Member • Posts: 1,835
Re: Do you really have to RAW??
2

splashy wrote:

@Alan, don't get upset I respect Friedman as much as you do,

Page 519

that if you know what you’re doing and take the same care to keep your light right and exposure and color balance set properly for the situation as you did for slides, your final print from in-camera .jpg’s will look just as good as shooting with RAW and post-processing, only it will take significantly less time.

So please don't say it's 100 % fabricated, it's written in the book. It's a conclusion about Raw and Jpeg, not how I use them both.

Not upset splashy ... but you have to admit the above is a far cry from what you posted:

splashy wrote:

... 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)

He simply never stated that, not in your quote above, and not anywhere else in the book... In fact, he stated that he "sometimes" shoots jpg-only. Just setting the record straight!

And yeah, the Alphas have some cool features that work only in jpg mode. But the mindset that RAW mode is only for "fixing errors" is wrong, and Gary's book in no way implies that (in fact, he goes into great detail on obtaining better results from RAW in numerous scenarios). It is about the freedom to take more control and to take occasional artistic latitude.

It's not for everyone. My wife gets pretty good results in the AUTO mode... but she shoots RAW+JPG and asks me to process here favorite shots, always, without exception, with better results than the OOC.

-- hide signature --

--

- AlanS

 Alan_S's gear list:Alan_S's gear list
Sony a99 II Sony 70-200mm F2.8 G Sony 16-35mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Sony 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Sony 70-400mm F4-5.6 G SSM II +2 more
AceP Regular Member • Posts: 388
Re: RAW Troublemaker Again
2

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

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

Actually if you think about it, they will spend the least amount of time that will achieve the highest quality so most of those guys have set up their presets in Lightroom on some test shots where they fix the CA, saturation etc. for a custom starting point. Their "style" if you will. It appears your starting point in the illustration was to apply nothing except to make the RAW file visible!

Then these wedding shooters import the 2000 images with their choice of preset applied as they come in. That was step 1. Step 2, they click on the pull down menu and select "export to jpeg". Then go surf the web and reply to some DPReview comments while their computer churns out the processed jpegs, processed the way they like it rather than the way their camera jpeg processing choices happened to be set at during the shoot. With RAW, if they want to apply some different style to certain photos, they can create as many versions in LR as they wish before exporting another fresh from the original RAW file, jpeg.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads