Raw vs jpeg part 2

[Ysarex]

Highlights are not a bad thing, it is a component of contrast. Your RAW-JPEG is 1/3 of a stop darker and you removed the highlights and reduced the natural contrast .

In fact the Iris in my processed raw photo is lighter than the Iris in the camera JPEG.

Don't think I removed the highlights. Here's the histogram for the processed raw photo.

That is not how the flower looked like. Maybe you like it like this but if you look at the whole image less than 1% of the pixels are blown highlights. It's fine.

Blown highlights are not fine.

When did blown highlights become a big no no for photography ?

Since day one I believe.

It was certainly an issue to control with film (specifically transparency). We don't clip highlight data we wish to render.

Hasn't it always been that way?

It is ok to blow highlights.

Yes, if that's your creative goal for the image. It's about control. That's again exposure 101.

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

Nice example!

 

[Halina123]

When did blown highlights become a big no no for photography ?

Blown higlights are just white,

It is ok to blow highlights.

I have to disagree.

Blowing highlights spoils the image.

One of my recent failures.

Shot in jpeg, EC -0.3

 

[Ysarex]

Highlights are not a bad thing, it is a component of contrast. Your RAW-JPEG is 1/3 of a stop darker and you removed the highlights and reduced the natural contrast .

In fact the Iris in my processed raw photo is lighter than the Iris in the camera JPEG.

Don't think I removed the highlights. Here's the histogram for the processed raw photo.

That is not how the flower looked like. Maybe you like it like this but if you look at the whole image less than 1% of the pixels are blown highlights. It's fine.

Blown highlights are not fine.

When did blown highlights become a big no no for photography ?

Since day one.

Blown higlights are just white, reflections and light sources are too bright for the eye in real life too. It's natural with blown highligts.

You're confusing diffuse and specular highlights. A specular highlight is a reflection for example off chrome or glass and/or a light source. Specular highlights must clip. My Iris photo didn't have specular highlights.

A diffuse highlight is a white cloud or a white tee shirt in the sun or the petal of a flower in the sun. They have color and detail and a competent photographer records that color and detail.

You did remove the highlights to save details, in real life you can't see details in highlights. Maybe with sunglasses but then everything becomes darker so it's not the same.

You add a piece of sunglasses here an there and the result is not how it looked like.

Try looking at a wide dynamic range scene with your eyes, highlights without detail is natural.

Why do you think cameras have functions like blinkies and every raw converter and image editor has clipping warning functions?

A trained JPEG shooter knows how to use exposure and metering to adjust the amount of blown highlights.

They have little or no choice having made the initial choice to shoot camera JPEGs and relinquish full control over the process. Over time then they rationalize the clipped highlights and blown channels -- "they're just fine, a normal part of the photo."

That is how people used to take photographs for decades, suddenly it is not good enough for the elite...

I've been taking photographs for decades and when I shot color transparency film blown diffuse highlights were the biggest error and sent the shot to the wastebasket. This hasn't changed. I wasn't elite then. Just because I have the skill to not make the same mistake now all of a sudden I'm elite?

I don't blow diffuse highlights in my photos. I don't have to accept that it's OK.

It is ok to blow highlights. It is also ok to avoid it by underexposure. Photomanipulation is ok too but the result is an image with an un-natural proportion of highlight to shadow.

 

[digidog]

Highlights are not a bad thing, it is a component of contrast. Your RAW-JPEG is 1/3 of a stop darker and you removed the highlights and reduced the natural contrast .

In fact the Iris in my processed raw photo is lighter than the Iris in the camera JPEG.

Don't think I removed the highlights. Here's the histogram for the processed raw photo.

That is not how the flower looked like. Maybe you like it like this but if you look at the whole image less than 1% of the pixels are blown highlights. It's fine.

Blown highlights are not fine.

When did blown highlights become a big no no for photography ?

Since day one I believe.

Definitively not. Black and White has allways been a normal part of photography.

I never said otherwise. I specifically targeted this comment to clipped highlights.

We don't cliphighlight data we wish to render.

You must be born in the 90's.

That's kind. Had a degree in Photography before that decade. Before digital.

It is ok to blow highlights.

Yes, if that's your creative goal for the image. It's about control. That's again exposure 101.

Still seems like exposure 101 to me.

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

 

[Ysarex]

Blown highlights are not fine.

When did blown highlights become a big no no for photography ?

Blown higlights are just white, reflections and light sources are too bright for the eye in real life too. It's natural with blown highligts. You did remove the highlights to save details, in real life you can't see details in highlights. Maybe with sunglasses but then everything becomes darker so it's not the same.

 

[Michael Fryd]

Michael Fryd wrote: The trick is knowing when you need to squeeze every bit of capability out of your gear, and when the gear will do a good job on its own.

It's not a trick. You always do this when you can. That's what separates a pro, a craftsmanship of a capture, a desire for best practices.

You can't always produce ideal raw exposure any more than you can always shoot under ISO 100 transparency film. But you know when you can and you do. Not a trick, an understanding of the process.

As you hold yourself out as an expert on the process, please explain the situations where the difference will be visible and obvious to the typical viewer, and where one needs to go in with various tools in order to measure the difference.

I've already provided two outside references that show this visually. Other's have supplied examples as well. It is now time for you to do your own testing as described to you.

You've provided references that show that there are situations where the difference is visible.

The question is what characterizes the situations where the difference is visible and what characterizes the situations where there is no visible difference?

 

[Michael Fryd]

One reason would be that they are in a situation where the difference in not visible but the workflow is easier.

Easier when ignorant?

Promoting your position by insulting those who question it suggests that there is something wrong with your position.

Or ignorant that by simply changing one item on the camera, you're indeed producing ideal exposure for the data?

I am trying to understand what you mean by "ideal". When it comes to numerically representing colors you have frequently suggested that once the changes are no longer visible to unaided eye, that there is no advantage whatsoever to improving the data.

Yet, you seem to be suggesting that when it comes to exposure, that it is important to maximize improvements to the data, even if those improvements may not be visible.

It is said ignorance is bliss. Some do highly subscribe to such ideas in their photography and elsewhere in their life.

We have a difference of opinion here. I disagree that your suggested workflow is necessary in every possible situation.

You disagree with me as you believe your conclusions as to what is important must universally apply to everyone in all situations. Therefore you refuse to engage in a discussion of when your suggested workflow might not be important.

Do your exposure homework as outlined, show us the JPEG and raw exposure you think is ideal.

You seem to have trouble with separating the concept of "ideal", from "close enough to ideal that there is no visible difference".

 

[cookedraw]

Blown highlights are not fine.

When did blown highlights become a big no no for photography ?

Blown higlights are just white, reflections and light sources are too bright for the eye in real life too. It's natural with blown highligts. You did remove the highlights to save details, in real life you can't see details in highlights. Maybe with sunglasses but then everything becomes darker so it's not the same.

I see no objective difference in these reflections and the reflections on the flower for example. This is theory , not photography.

--
" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci

 

[digidog]

Michael Fryd wrote: The trick is knowing when you need to squeeze every bit of capability out of your gear, and when the gear will do a good job on its own.

It's not a trick. You always do this when you can. That's what separates a pro, a craftsmanship of a capture, a desire for best practices.

You can't always produce ideal raw exposure any more than you can always shoot under ISO 100 transparency film. But you know when you can and you do. Not a trick, an understanding of the process.

As you hold yourself out as an expert on the process, please explain the situations where the difference will be visible and obvious to the typical viewer, and where one needs to go in with various tools in order to measure the difference.

I've already provided two outside references that show this visually. Other's have supplied examples as well. It is now time for you to do your own testing as described to you.

You've provided references that show that there are situations where the difference is visible.

Yes I did!

The question is what characterizes the situations where the difference is visible and what characterizes the situations where there is no visible difference?

Why would that matter when there are case after case where the differences ARE visible and easily obtainable?

In the hour(s) you've asked this today, you could have come back from your exposure homework assignment and begin to examine the JPEG and raw data in RawDigger (you do have a copy, right?).

 

[Michael Fryd]

if you goal is to produce the best possible image no matter what the cost in terms of time, effort, and dollars, then one should absolutely be shooting RAW.

Not absolutely.

It's an interesting question.

In some sense shooting raw is a "superset" of shooting JPEG. If you can get the image you want shooting JPEG, you can also get the same image shooting RAW and post processing. The converse cannot be said. There are images you can capture shooting raw, that you can't get at the same quality level by shooting JPEG.

Raw provides superior latitude in fine tuning an image in post processing.

This suggests that shooting raw allows you to maximize quality.

.

This is different than stating that everyone should shoot raw. In some situations the difference many not be significant.

a medium format sensor is the way to go as anything smaller is not the "best".

Over-generalization.

The context was that if you absolutely wanted to maximize quality, a larger format typically results in higher quality.

Again, this is not to say that everyone should be shooting with a large sensor. In many situations full frame, crop body, or even smaller is more than good enough for the needs of the image.

Photography is not limited to digital, not limited to colour, not limited to visible light, not limited to matrix sensors, not limited to static scenes and subjects, not limited to linear output, etc etc.

One-dimensional view of the world is one of the major reasons that make photography boring, and photographers unsuccessful.

Absolutely. Different situations have different needs and call for different workflows. Sometimes it is best to shoot raw using ETTR. Sometimes an in-camera sRGB JPEG is good.

There are lots of photographers with lots of different needs. It is a shame that some people think that the choices they have made are also the best choices for everyone else.

 

[digidog]

cookedraw wrote:I see no objective difference in these reflections and the reflections on the flower for example. This is theory , not photography.

Interesting, I see a significant difference. It's both photography and correct theory.

 

[cookedraw]

When did blown highlights become a big no no for photography ?

Blown higlights are just white,

It is ok to blow highlights.

I have to disagree.

Blowing highlights spoils the image.

One of my recent failures.

Shot in jpeg, EC -0.3

This is too much ofcourse . Sun is too bright. Your issue is not RAW vs JPEG, it's dynamic range.

--
" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci

 

[digidog]

cookedraw wrote: This is too much ofcourse . Sun is too bright. Your issue is not RAW vs JPEG, it's dynamic range.

We'd only know if we could access the raw. Examine it in RawDigger, might have plenty of highlight data.

 

[Michael Fryd]

...

The question is what characterizes the situations where the difference is visible and what characterizes the situations where there is no visible difference?

Why would that matter when there are case after case where the differences ARE visible and easily obtainable?

Because some people like to tailor their workflow to the task at hand.

Exposing the raw for JPEG does have some workflow benefits. You've made it clear that these are not benefits that interest you, however some people may be interested.

If the difference in quality is small, than some may choose to expose for JPEG. Even if the only difference is an easier to see JPEG on the back of the camera, there are situations where that can be very helpful.

.

If you want to have a rigid workflow that you use in every situation, then good for you. I think it is shortsighted to insist that your workflow is the "best" workflow for every photographer in every possible situation.

 

[digidog]

...

The question is what characterizes the situations where the difference is visible and what characterizes the situations where there is no visible difference?

Why would that matter when there are case after case where the differences ARE visible and easily obtainable?

Because some people like to tailor their workflow to the task at hand.

So you're suggesting some people, other than yourself, would rather get inferior data and use the products incorrectly, to achieve inferior, not recommended exposure?

Exposing the raw for JPEG does have some workflow benefits.

Nope. Suboptimal exposure for raw. Just shoot JPEG.

What was said, what you'd see, what your homework is to produce is a raw + JPEG bracket to see how they all sync up (or as you'll see, don't).

You should be done with this homework by now Michael! It isn't hard.

You've made it clear that these are not benefits that interest you, however some people may be interested.

Well I'm certainly not trying to convince you! You have to do the due diligence and run some tests if you have a DSLR, maybe a printer and the right software.

If the difference in quality is small, than some may choose to expose for JPEG.

Some? Speak for yourself. Better after you actually test this!

Even if the only difference is an easier to see JPEG on the back of the camera, there are situations where that can be very helpful.

You'll find out once you get up from the computer and blow the dust off the camera .

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

 

[Iliah Borg]

shooting raw is a "superset" of shooting JPEG

Raw is simply a better film.

Raw provides superior latitude in fine tuning an image in post processing.

Latitude in photography often has a definite sense as room for error in exposure; comparing raw to jpeg is not about exposure latitude, if both are exposed optimally. What is the meaning of latitude in your phrase - I do not know.

This suggests that shooting raw allows you to maximize quality.

Shooting LF b/w film allows me to maximize quality.

The context was that if you absolutely wanted to maximize quality, a larger format typically results in higher quality.

"Typically" does not cut it. In many situations smaller format results in better quality. Sometimes using a smaller format is the only way to get the shot.

in-camera sRGB JPEG is good.

In what way it is good?

 

[cookedraw]

cookedraw wrote: This is too much ofcourse . Sun is too bright. Your issue is not RAW vs JPEG, it's dynamic range.

We'd only know if we could access the raw. Examine it in RawDigger, might have plenty of highlight data.

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

But is it better than to wait for good light ?

Shooting a swan with a bunch of grey little swans in broad daylight is a challenge. No RAW file will save that swan.

This is an out of camera JPEG . Is it borderline of too much highlights ? Maybe but I don't care cause this swan is very white and bright in the sunlight. It's a lot of details hiding in the JPEG too, try to recover them and you will see.

NX 50-200





--
" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci

 

[Michael Fryd]

shooting raw is a "superset" of shooting JPEG

Raw is simply a better film.

Raw provides superior latitude in fine tuning an image in post processing.

Latitude in photography often has a definite sense as room for error in exposure; comparing raw to jpeg is not about exposure latitude, if both are exposed optimally. What is the meaning of latitude in your phrase - I do not know.

This suggests that shooting raw allows you to maximize quality.

Shooting LF b/w film allows me to maximize quality.

The context was that if you absolutely wanted to maximize quality, a larger format typically results in higher quality.

"Typically" does not cut it. In many situations smaller format results in better quality. Sometimes using a smaller format is the only way to get the shot.

I think we agree that the "best" solution depends on the task at hand, and that there is no universal solution that is best for all situations.

in-camera sRGB JPEG is good.

In what way it is good?

Sometimes the level of quality offered by in-camera sRGB JPEGs is more than good enough for the job at hand, and the speed advantages can be very helpful in some situations.

 

[Iliah Borg]

in-camera sRGB JPEG is good.

In what way it is good?

Sometimes the level of quality offered by in-camera sRGB JPEGs is more than good enough for the job at hand

One can't predict how the image will be used 10 years from the moment it was shot. Or even 2 hours. There is no such thing in photography as "job at hand".

 

[Michael Fryd]

...

The question is what characterizes the situations where the difference is visible and what characterizes the situations where there is no visible difference?

Why would that matter when there are case after case where the differences ARE visible and easily obtainable?

Because some people like to tailor their workflow to the task at hand.

So you're suggesting some people, other than yourself, would rather get inferior data and use the products incorrectly, to achieve inferior, not recommended exposure?

An excellent use of a biased emotional plea. Have you considered writing advertising copy or working in politics?

The word "inferior" implies that the data is not good enough for the task at hand.

We could have just as easily phrased the question as "why would anyone, other than yourself, go to extra effort to get additional data that won't make a visible difference in the final print?"

However, both of these questions are off topic. The question that you have been unable to answer is what characterizes the situations where ETTR makes a visible difference in the final print?

For example, if I am shooting products in a studio, under controlled lighting conditions, there may not be a lot of dynamic range in the images. If my camera is at ISO 100, will people be able to see a difference in the final images whether I exposed the raw file for JPEG or used ETTR?

Note, this is not a question of which is "better", nor is it a question of which is "optimal". it is a question of how large a difference ETTR makes in this situation.

Exposing the raw for JPEG does have some workflow benefits.

Nope. Suboptimal exposure for raw. Just shoot JPEG.

What was said, what you'd see, what your homework is to produce is a raw + JPEG bracket to see how they all sync up (or as you'll see, don't).

You should be done with this homework by now Michael! It isn't hard.

If you're going to talk about homework, you should set a good example. perhaps you could provide proof that the difference between ETTR and exposing the raw for JPEG will always make a noticeable and visible difference in the final image.

You've made it clear that these are not benefits that interest you, however some people may be interested.

Well I'm certainly not trying to convince you! You have to do the due diligence and run some tests if you have a DSLR, maybe a printer and the right software.

Again, perhaps you should lead by example.

Set your camera to ISO 100 and setup a low dynamic range studio scene.

Shoot a raw file with ETTR, and shoot a second raw file exposed for JPEG.

Post process the images such that they look as close to each other as possible.

Make prints and run tests to see if typical viewers can see a difference between the two.

If the difference in quality is small, than some may choose to expose for JPEG.

Some? Speak for yourself. Better after you actually test this!

You're asking for proof that some people choose to shoot JPEG rather than raw?

Just read some of these forums. Lots of people choose to shoot JPEG.

Even if the only difference is an easier to see JPEG on the back of the camera, there are situations where that can be very helpful.

You'll find out once you get up from the computer and blow the dust off the camera

Sorry, I though we were talking about the merits of various workflows. I didn't realize you wanted to devolve to personal attacks in an effort to get yet another thread locked.