G9 owners, How many users use Raw ! and if not is its Jpeg good enough!

CAMMASTER

Leading Member
Messages
941
Reaction score
0
Location
UK, UK
What is your opinion on your G9s Jpeg engine, is it good enough , or if not is Raw a major improvement , Must Raw be used do you think. and if using 800 iso for example, Also do you believe Raw worth the time and effort involved,
Thankyou for your point of view. Rhoda *

*******************************************************
 
The G9 jpeg engine is quite good but does introduce some smearing of fine detail in its attempt to remove noise. Personally, I do shoot RAW+L most of the time and have settled on RAW Therapee as my raw converter. However, the camera jpg image can sometimes be perfectly acceptable and I do not do a raw conversion on all images. Raw gives me greater flexibility (over Photoshopping a jpg file) where there may be slight crushing of extreme highlights or in bringing out mid-range tonal detail better than the camera can do. Let's face it, many subjects have a greater dynamic range than the camera can cope with and crushing at both ends of the range can easily occur. The amount of sharpening you add is then up to you; likewise with noise reduction.

Regarding the higher ISO settings, I try to avoid if at all possible, but I think raw would give you more flexibility to make the best of the image.

I don't think I end up with a sharper image, just one with nicer fine detail and better tonal control for my eye. For me, the effort is worthwhile on the best shots.
--
Martin, in Kent (UK)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/martin_46/
 
Just took my first Raw shots this weekend - havn't processed them yet.

From the book that I recently purchased, it appears that PSE-6 is supposed to do a decent job of processing Raw images. I'm going to follow-through a few examples, experiment, and see what I get / how much I like it.

I understand the technological "edge" that working in Raw can provide - and I'm nearly certain that as my knowledge & experience of working with digital photography progresses, I'll find myself using Raw for those times when I really want superior images.

I'm no professional (heck, I'm only semi-qualified as an amateur), but if you shoot in one of the larger formats and do not over-enlarge the prints, I still think that the G9 produces really nice results in JPEG (provided that you work within the limitations of a Point-N-Shoot type camera).
 
And I can print out 16" x 20" prints that are very sharp and clear.

Shooting in RAW is really a waste of time and memory.

I did some testing and set my camera on a tripod and photograph the same scene in jpeg and then in RAW. After processing, there was practically no difference in the 16" x 20" image.

The real difference is that it takes a lot of time to go thru all the RAW images and process them.

The JPEG images can be done quickly in Adobe Photoshop.

I just gave up on RAW and shoot everything in JPEG.
--
kr616
 
What is your opinion on your G9s Jpeg engine ....
This is an endlessly debated topic. So much so that one has to wonder if raw really does make a difference; however, I personally know that raw makes a positive difference for me. Unfortunately (well, perhaps fortunately) the endless debate means that many proponents of raw/jpg simply no longer participate in the debate. So please don't draw any conclusion from whatever appears to be determined in this message thread. Sadly, this thread will probably get nasty after just a few more postings.

You can get many more opinions by searching this forum. You can add to those opinions by searching other websites and blogs. But you won't find anything near a consenus on the raw vs jpg debate.

If you are interesting in tweaking your G9 image files to get the absolute best quality possible from the G9 then I recommend that you learn to process the raw image file.

Regarding ISO 800, the Canon in-camera noise reduction processes are not nearly as good as external software such as Noiseware. So if you shoot in raw and follow with such post processing then you'll get significantly better results. In fact, unless you are interested in large prints, ISO 800 is probably OK -- of course, this depends on your own tastes and criteria. Starting from raw, I can get 8x10 prints from G9 ISO 800 that are usually acceptable to me.

--
Gordon
http://hornerbuck.com
http://lightdescription.blogspot.com
 
What is your opinion on your G9s Jpeg engine, is it good enough , or
if not is Raw a major improvement , Must Raw be used do you think.
and if using 800 iso for example, Also do you believe Raw worth
the time and effort involved,
I don't have an opinion on my G9's JPEG engine because I simply don't use it; and I don't use because, by definition, it doesn't give me what I want: complete control over processing.

Whether it's good enough for you depends on how demanding you are. And you know how demanding you are better than anyone else.

RAW isn't so much an improvement (whether major or not) as a whole other concept, partly because any possible improvement will depend on how do you process the RAW.

I use RAW for virtually every photo, regardless of the ISO setting, because the difference is not just in internal noise reduction processing: there's also colour rendering, sharpness extraction and luminosity correction issues, among other things.

And yes, I believe RAW processing is worth the effort... for me. Otherwise, I wouldn't be using RAW.
 
Raw here. I don't care for the JPEGs from my G9 so much--for jpeg I'd rather just take my A640. Raw is why I bought the G9, which otherwise lacks features I'd really prefer to have with me, like the swivel LCD.
 
Many who own the G9 are not interested in the post processing and just want good images. I shoot jpeg 90% of the time as if it need to be better I do not use my P&S.

--
Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida
 
To put people in the loop.......this thread was started by the OP to challenge my claims (in another thread) that my G9 can be as good as my F31 (and his F30) at ISO800. It also started because I said most users like to use raw on the G9, especailly to control noise at higher ISOs. Fair play to the OP. Looks like he/she is doing a roll call...LOL!

I told the OP that I have the photos to back that up. It could have been sorted in another post but here goes. This should pipe the OP down a bit.

Here is your F30 (or my F31) in all it's full glory getting the pants blown of it at ISO400 by the G9 in detail with raw. But cheer up.....it does show why your little F30 is so good and clean though at higher ISOs.....because they take the noise out fantastically. But in doing so, they also take the detail with it by excessive noise reduction! So wakey wakey, luv.



Now lets go up a notch to ISO800. Here is your F30 (same as F31) against my G9 at ISO800 in the same lowlight indoor situation.

First of all I photographed a photo magazine which had fine detail on the printed cover. Both were taken on a tripod under tungsten lighting at same distances and same aperture and shutter speeds. SS was 1/13s, which I would deem low enough lighting.



And here below are the crops after I processed the G9 in raw myself. I should point out that not everyone will get these results if they don't posses a fair knowledge of raw and processing. Actually, I was dissapointed with my PP skills in this result as I only matched the F31 blow for blow. I should have gotten it better and probably would now if I processed it again. Anyway.....bottom line, the F31 is no better!



And lets crank it up full, shall we? And for a larf lets see the G9 getting a total pasting.......not!

Again you will still see why your infamous Fuji is so good and clean at high ISOs............here is both cams at ISO1600.

While I left more noise in the G9 crop in processing and you can also see a little horrible color noise in there as well..... it completley blows the doors off my F31 in detail once again in this magazine cropped shot. The printed "cymk" on the magazine was retained by the G9 in raw but went bye byes on the "NR smearing F31" in which you are stuck with and can't undo.



And you stated your F30 jpegs are WAY better than the G9's? You must have gotten a dud G9 or don't know how to handle that wild beast. Or else you got a Super F30!

Here are 100% crops of the G7 in jpeg which I owned before getting the G9 for raw. It has the same output as the G9 in jpeg. This is it against the terrific Canon 30D at low ISOs. Not bad, eh? If it can give a 30D a very close run for it's money, then your F30 must have ONE HELL of a beast if it blows the socks off the G9 in jpeg. It would blow the 30D along with it if that was the case!



And finally.....since you a bit hooked on noise. You forget one big thing with the G9 and noise for indoor shooting.....there is no need for noise with G9 at all!

Ever hear of a hotshoe? It's not put there to decorate the G9 for xmas. It is there for a purpose. There is no need for NOISE on a G9 for indoor shooting with a low enough ceiling if you don't want noise! And I for one, have no hang-ups in using it either for social gatherings, birthdays ect when I want the upmost in quality but still not wanting to lug all the bigger DSLR gear. Hell...it's another one of the reasons I bought the G9.....to use this function!

So try to get this quality from your F30 indoors. No noise or detail loss as we seen above from NR smearing in having to shoot ISO800/1600 with F30. And if you want to try and use low ISOs to match G9's image quality with the F30..... you will have to use that little redeye junky of a flash which will give very harsh shadows and unrealistic colors. No harsh shadows, redeye or unrealistic colors on the G9. Just pure quality with bags of detail.

And all with a flash that costed me €100 and is as small as your SB400 (coat pocketable) which I can bounce it off a ceiling at ISO80. Both flash and G9 together in a my bag is still way smaller than one entry level DSLR like D40 in a bag. And it will produce just as good images indoors for birthdays and social gatherings too!.

So off you go now....... and try to gather all the info you like to fire at me with this thread you started. No amount of info will ever convince of the facts even if you pointed me to some stupid jpeg comparisons from reviews. And most of all you will never take away from me in what I have and in what I produced here. And that is with MY PP ABILITY and with MY CAMERA (G9), not only will I technically produce as good images at nearly all ISOs with the G9 as your F30, but also technically, the camera itself (as DPR put it) is leagues ahead in all other areas compared to compacts like your F30.......
......so boo bl--dy hoo!







--
*****************************************
Packy
 
Pretty much what I have seen when real F30 vs Canon P&S comparisons where made...

Very heavy smearing of details with lots of noise in fine detail (such as the printing on a black battery) in the F30 vs pretty strong noise everywhere in the Canon line. In every case, the Canon seemed to have much more underlaying detail available in the picture.

I will give the F30 congratulations on its ability to figure out where to "smear" details vs leaving some fine detail alone--but when looking at the 100% crops--the F30/31 does not seem to have any great advantage at the sensor level--just a pretty intelligent NR algorithm.

-Bill
 
Wny not? Storage is cheap, post processing is easy, so why not grab the highest quality image in all situations? Exceptions: I use stitch assist, and only JPEG is available in that mode. Dammit...
--
-------------------------------------------------

 
I think you need to get someone who is experienced in post processing show you how to get the most out of RAW. The advantages of RAW are multiple, and simply having the ability to change white balance is enough to sway me to RAW.
--
-------------------------------------------------

 
I think you need to get someone who is experienced in post processing
show you how to get the most out of RAW. The advantages of RAW are
multiple, and simply having the ability to change white balance is
enough to sway me to RAW.
And not to mention if you use ACR, there is a bit more highlight data and DR in your photos too.

*****************************************
Packy
 
I'm puzzled by your apparent ignorance or rejection of the analysis of the differences between RAW and jpeg in the review of the G9 on this web site. Here we have Simon Joinson, a professional camera reviewer with no allegiance to Canon, Fuji, Panasonic, or any other make, going to considerable trouble to assess the effeciveness of RAW vs. jpeg processing for the G9, using controlled comparisons, and presenting the images that allow you to draw your own conclusions based on these images.

A few relevant quotes from the review:

"Although the G9's JPEG resolution is very good there is a slight advantage to shooting raw (though you'll only see it if you use a third party raw converter such as ACR)." (My comment: "slight" does not necessarily mean "negligible"--it depends on your needs and expectations.)

"As mentioned earlier in the review the G9's ISO 400 JPEGs are actually pretty good, but the noise reduction does remove detail, and you can get some of this back by using ACR."

{Re: ISO 800 studio shot} Once again you can pull a little more detail out of the scene if you shoot high ISO in raw mode and convert using ACR, though be prepared for quite a lot of work as you attempt to balance the noise reduction and detail/sharpness"

"Low contrast detail recovery

Dropping to a more reasonable ISO setting (ISO 400) it's possible to recover a lot of the very finest low contrast detail lost in the in-camera noise reduction process, though you'll obviously have a more 'grainy' image as a result"

"After spending several hours with the G9's raw files I can report that they give you a little, but not a lot of headroom in the highlights... That said as the examples below show even a little headroom is better than none, and if you're prepared to put a little work into the processing, even with seemingly irredeemable files the return is often worth the effort."

It's clear from these results that shooting RAW with the G9 and using ACR to process the images CAN produce better results than shooting jpeg. Whether the difference is worth the effort is a question only you, not any other forum contributor, can answer, and looking for someone else to provide you with an answer seems to me to be pointless. It's easy to find people who say "Yes" and others who'll say "No"--but that doesn't tell you which is the right answer for YOU. The review provides evidence for coming to a conclusion, but it doesn't tell you what that conclusion should be. At some point you have to decide to think for yourself.

Bob
 
Perhaps you weren't using the G9 correctly. The fuji "f" line images I've seen have never impressed me that much to be honest. ;)

All G9 images below were shot in extremely low light, using extremely high ISO's (and even though they may look really bright, the lighting really was very dim). More of these images can be viewed here: http://bryanw.zenfolio.com/p706413854/

ISO 400 no NR (RAW):





ISO 800 no NR (RAW):





ISO 1600 no NR (RAW):









ISO 3200 no NR (jpeg):







--
bryan
--------
http://bryanw.zenfolio.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/oakandacorns/sets/

 
Robert Deutsch wrote:
At some point you have to decide to think for yourself.
That's the problem with the OP..they can't think for themselves!...LOL

And let's put another thing straight, Bob. Like in the other thread were she asked you to do a TZ5 test after buying and having the camera herself at her leisure for up to a month...... she had the G9 for a up to a whole month at her leisure, too. The OP DID test the G9 out fully but passed it up which is why I said this thread is ridicolous.

And not alone did she pass the TZ5/G9 up, she also ridiculed and slated those two cameras on numerous occasions. Actually, she constantly ridiculed your TZ5 to me and called it a "dud" panny BEFORE she spun you some yarn and asked you to do a test with the TZ5 for her so she could get some relevent info to throw mud at me....cunning and hypocritical, eh?

And the REAL motive behind this thread is that she is trying to rally around to get a strong "Yes to jpeg" vote and a "G9 is cr@p at ISO800" vote of approval. Again...all to just sling some mud at me for some facts that I made today in another post. In that I said that most of the serious G9 users would shoot raw and that at ISO800 in raw, my G9 would match her little F30. So no surprises that she started a "poll" like thread to see who uses raw and to question the ISO800 capabilities at the same time....again cunning and hypocritical.

--
*****************************************
Packy
 
JPEG only and have said it many times to the ire of RAW users. For some reason they don't agree:-)) I find RAW unnecessary, slow as the dickens to fool with, and a camera such as the G9 gives great images with JPEG. Try it and judge for yourself.
--
Russ

 
rkhndjr wrote:
Try it and judge for yourself.
That's what I said! It's a personal decision, with no right or wrong answer.
FWIW, with the Canon 5D I normally shoot jpeg (highest resolution/least compression), except when it's something important, so that I want to make sure that I have a bit more dynamic headroom and I can correct a problem with white balance more easily. None of my small digicams have RAW, so it's not a possibility, but lately I've been processing the TZ5's images (jpeg, of course) first in ACR, which Photoshop CS3 allows. I haven't done any controlled comparisons, comparing ACR+CS3 vs. CS3 only, but I think starting with ACR is better, and it's recommended by two books that I have on Photoshop.

Bob
 
JPEG only and have said it many times to the ire of RAW users. For
some reason they don't agree:-)) I find RAW unnecessary, slow as the
dickens to fool with, and a camera such as the G9 gives great images
with JPEG. Try it and judge for yourself.
--
Russ

****************************************************

So many replies can I thank others for there point of view and reply just on this one seems not all think Raw is a must do.

Thanks for your opinion Russ, I know you are well respected poster Sir and have watched your opinions and lovely profile picture .

I never said G9 was not good at 800 iso, but that I prefered the F30 and thought it better compared to the G9, anouther poster I think said no and he uses Raw and at 800 iso its better than his F31 But he might have a dud F31., I also wondered why he still has a F31might be for it be for sport and scenery work what do I know only a SIMPLE girl.

I have a F30, I dont use Raw like yourself on my only half a DSLR camera I was told D40, I have not the Time or inclanation, and was trying to find out if the G9 is that good at 800 iso a respected poster mentioned ( he is an experienced poster ). and shines at 800 iso, even better he says go use Raw.

Seems some and some points of view at this moment in time,

I Had a G9 for some time to try, returned it for a few well known issues, but mostly the noise at 400 up. The F30 seemed cleaner better at say 400 -800 iso + (anyway only my point of view) it sure looked it after looking at both sets of photos and on the screen

This all came out of what would be better on the G10 and a celibrated poster seemed (but I could be wrong of course ) to agree with me on possibly 6 to 7mp like the F30, less noise, I can only imagine like me he thinks 12mp is the wrong number on the G9, starting at 28mm lens a must have ,, I would also like a better grip like my A95/80 and also like my A95/80 a swivell screen lovely.

Thanks again so much Russ, for your always civil reply, for yours and others points of view, we all have a point of view but it does not have to be" Oh dear seems it sometimes " world war three because of that point of view, does it Russ !. RhoDA*

****************************************************
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top