Raw Vs Jpeg

[Wayne Larmon]

This is a good example, but I don't think you explained it well. What these two shots show is that the FZ50's internal processing has overly heavy noise reduction at ISO 400 that blurs low contrast detail (the texture of the concrete between the stones.) Whereas the RAW file can be processed to not obscure the low contrast detail.

I agree that the G7 has this problem. I've complained about it on other threads. (However, note that this problem pretty much goes away if you can use the lower ISOs.) But this isn't a general answer to why RAW is better.

A more general answer would be that when you shoot JPEG, your hands are tied by how the camera internally processes images from RAW to JPEG. If it does what you want, then good, you are all set. But if the in camera processing doesn't do what you want and you can't get around it, no matter how you set the camera controls (like detail blurring at high ISOs), then you are stuck with the results. But you might have a better chance of achieving the processing that you want if you can start with a RAW file.

However.....this still does not mean that you can't achieve your image processing objectives with a camera that doesn't support. RAW. It means that you have to be more careful how you set the in camera settings so that the JPEG that the camera produces is close to what you will desire. In some cases (if time is limited), you might miss shots because you don't have time to fuss with the in camera settings. Or if you need to use high ISO, then you will have to accept the low contrast detail blurring.

But in other less demanding circumstances, you might have enough time to make all the camera adjustments you need and also have enough light so that you can use the low ISOs. In this case, there would be negligible improvement from using RAW.

For me, this is an acceptable tradeoff for a camera like the G7. Especially because the large LCD and live histogram improves the odds of getting the camera settings set correctly. And because I have several DSLRs that support RAW that I can use if I feel that a photo opportunity is important enough that I don't want to risk missing any opportunity I have.

Other people weigh the same facts, but come to a different conclusion. Which is normal. But it helps to understand the issues so that you can make an informed decision. Stating things like "RAW is mandatory" or "RAW is a waste of time" helps nobody.

Wayne

Missing the G7 raw is afterall,in this test not so big mistake
afterall.
If you can't see the diference in an dslr,then how you like to see
any diference in the G7
well tell me

You can see it very easily, because of heavy noise reduction. The
following shots were taken with a FZ50 (noise reduction setting:
low), which is comparable to a G7:

ISO 400 JPEG: And no, a G7 doesn't look better.



ISO 400 RAW:



--
Regards,

Robert
http://www.sondek.smugmug.com

 

[Don Glenn]

I am not sure if 10 bit raw is nearly as useful as the DSLR 12 bit raw files. But, I can tell you that I would not buy a DSLR that didn't have raw file output. It is a strong selling point for P&S.

For me, the issue is exposure latitude, and to some degree white balance. The review is looking at sharpness and detail. I don't know if I would spend the extra time in the raw workflow if I was only going to get sharpness and detail improvements.

 

[Savas Kyprianides]

I am not sure if 10 bit raw is nearly as useful as the DSLR 12 bit
raw files. But, I can tell you that I would not buy a DSLR that
didn't have raw file output. It is a strong selling point for P&S.

For me, the issue is exposure latitude, and to some degree white
balance. The review is looking at sharpness and detail. I don't
know if I would spend the extra time in the raw workflow if I was
only going to get sharpness and detail improvements.

Totally agreed. Which is why I pointed out in another thread that the G7 feedback helps obtain good exposure from the git-go, even without AEB. However, it has whatever tonal range it has, correct me if I am wrong, but exposure lattude in raw, if G7 had it, will not increase range that is inherent at capture. Shift it, maybe, but no add.

 

[Scott55]

For me, this is an acceptable tradeoff for a camera like the G7.
Especially because the large LCD and live histogram improves the
odds of getting the camera settings set correctly. snip
Wayne

I won't be using raw when I get a G7... ha - you know what I mean, I won't miss RAW.

However. I disagree with Canon's thought process in excluding it. What was the trade off? What $ did it save them? From the hacked 620 thread, I don't think it saved any money to exclude it.

The G7 should be a professional camera and support the formats that pros are used to and or prefer. Even if Canon's correct and the G7's sensor and processor give the RAW format little or no advantage over JPEG, that choice should be left to the photographer.

The G7's lack of raw isn't pushing people to the dSLRs. The G7 is for people wanting a P&S form factor. If you want a P&S, you don't want an SLR, or you already have one. And one of the main things stopping every canon dSLR owner from going out and giving more money to canon through the purchase of a G7 is the lack of RAW. This was a mistake by canon.

And keep in mind after everthing I've written here, I'm a Jpg shooter.

 

[schlafmuetze]

Exactly - the newest reengineering discoveries show that there would be absolutely no additional hardware costs for Canon caused by adding RAW. Before these discoveries, we could speculate that jpeg generation is some kind of streaming, directly from ccd to jpeg. But now we know that anyway there is a in-memory buffer where the RAW is temporarily stored, and the only missing step is writing this RAW to the memory card.

I agree that for 95% of situations RAW would give nothing additional to us, and perhaps most of the G7 users would never use it. But for the remaining 5% of the shots I would prefer to have an option to fall back to RAW.

 

[Don Glenn]

Totally agreed. Which is why I pointed out in another thread that
the G7 feedback helps obtain good exposure from the git-go, even
without AEB. However, it has whatever tonal range it has, correct
me if I am wrong, but exposure lattude in raw, if G7 had it, will
not increase range that is inherent at capture. Shift it, maybe,
but no add.

I think I agree, mostly shifting the exposure. But, it is more data, so curves could be applied against more data than what JPEG would give you. I look at histograms, and on some applications, modifying white balance and/or exposure causes histogram gaps. In the RAW workflow, you don't have that problem.

 

[Savas Kyprianides]

I think I agree, mostly shifting the exposure. But, it is more
data, so curves could be applied against more data than what JPEG
would give you. I look at histograms, and on some applications,
modifying white balance and/or exposure causes histogram gaps. In
the RAW workflow, you don't have that problem.

Great point. We avoid those haircomb histograms demonstrating missing information from the curve application.

 

[Wayne Larmon]

I think I agree, mostly shifting the exposure. But, it is more
data, so curves could be applied against more data than what JPEG
would give you. I look at histograms, and on some applications,
modifying white balance and/or exposure causes histogram gaps. In
the RAW workflow, you don't have that problem.

Great point. We avoid those haircomb histograms demonstrating
missing information from the curve application.

In my experience, the only ill effect of haircomb histograms is that they look ugly. But they don't have any appreciable effect on image appearance. Assuming non-pathological edits. And typical real world images.

(Usually the only part of a real world image that would show banding at all is a clear sky. And you can sidestep this issue by masking off the sky before editing. Then do one careful edit on the sky. If needed.)

Anybody could, of course, intentionally kill an image by doing excessive edits. But if the image is in the ballpark out of the camera, then a reasonable amount of tonal edits shouldn't cause any perceptible effects on the image. Even if the the histogram looks haircomby.

Wayne

 

[Savas Kyprianides]

Anybody could, of course, intentionally kill an image by doing
excessive edits. But if the image is in the ballpark out of the
camera, then a reasonable amount of tonal edits shouldn't cause any
perceptible effects on the image. Even if the the histogram looks
haircomby.

Wayne

Good point. I think the G7 yields very reasonable ballpark images to start with.

I don't mind the haircomb histogram, then. If it's a comb-over, then there might be a problem.

 

[Wayne Larmon]

Anybody could, of course, intentionally kill an image by doing
excessive edits. But if the image is in the ballpark out of the
camera, then a reasonable amount of tonal edits shouldn't cause any
perceptible effects on the image. Even if the the histogram looks
haircomby.

Good point. I think the G7 yields very reasonable ballpark images
to start with.

I don't mind the haircomb histogram, then. If it's a comb-over,
then there might be a problem.

Getting back to RAW vs. JPEG, P&S-must-have-RAW adherents (which I used to be) are advocating a position that is only applicable in a razor thin percentage of circumstances.

First, we'll assume that you are not a pro. If you are a pro, then use pro equipment. So this set of circumstances is eliminated.

If image quality is paramount, then you'd be using an 8x10 view camera. If your image quality is paramount and you must use digital, than use a high end medium format digital back + technical view camera (as described on Luminous Landscape), at an approx. cost of $50,000 (US). Note that by insisting on going digital, IQ as deteriorated, because even the most expensive medium format digital back has far less resolution than a SOTA 8x10 film view camera.

$50,000 is expensive, but is within the reach of most people. Yes, you may have to sell your house and live in a rental apartment, but it is possible. If image quality is paramount.

Perhaps you aren't willing to sell your house. OK, what about selling your good car, getting a junker car so you can get around, and using the money to get a good FF DSLR + assortment of "L" quality lenses. Yes, IQ has taken another hit, but you still have your house.

We can continue trading off IQ for money until we get to the level of camera that you can comfortably afford. For most of us, it will be either an APC sensor DSLR or a high end fixed lens camera, both of which are extremely affordable. If IQ is a consideration at all, we'll assume that you own at least a low end DSLR, all of which (at the time of writing!) support RAW. And a decent lens in the focal range you will be using. Lets hold that position for a while, but start again from the other end.

If you use a camera that shoots JPEG only, such as the G7, and assuming a reasonable level of photographic competence, there are many circumstances where you can produce in camera JPEGs that are indistinguishable (on a print) from the best that could be produced from a RAW file. Assuming that you used the lowest ISO, set WB on the button (perhaps with custom WB), and nailed the exposure. There isn't much improvement that could be accomplished from RAW conversion.

OK, but we have the set of circumstances where we won't have time to get in camera settings on-the-button. Mostly involving shooting pictures of people that move fast. OK. Of these images, how many will be printed at 16x20 (or so) and consequently need the quality that you can get from processing a substandard exposure from a RAW file? As compared to images that won't be printed larger than 4x6? Or (most likely) crunched down to 640x480 to be sent as an email attachment? Or put on Pbase or Smugmug? Unless you are printing poster size, you most likely can rescue a bad exposure from a JPEG and it won't be distinguishable on a print.

If you can envision circumstances that are important enough that printing very large is a consideration, but lighting conditions change fast enough that it isn't practical to get in camera JPEGs on the button, then bring your DSLR. We did assume a reasonable level of photographic competence, so you should have been able to make the correct decision about which camera to bring.

OK, so what are the circumstances that we are left with where your P&S-must-have-RAW? If IQ is paramount, we will be using an 8x10 view camera. If not, then IQ isn't paramount. So we trade off IQ for affordability and/or size and speed. Starting from a JPEG-only camera, what are the circumstances where we can't (using good photographic technique) get a JPEG in camera that is indistinguishable from a RAW conversion and will need to be printed very large? And you couldn't have used your DSLR?

This is where I see a razor thin set of circumstances. Where the P&S-must-have-RAW. Actually, I find it difficult to describe any.

Wayne

 

[Savas Kyprianides]

OK, so what are the circumstances that we are left with where your
P&S-must-have-RAW? If IQ is paramount, we will be using an 8x10
view camera. If not, then IQ isn't paramount. So we trade off IQ
for affordability and/or size and speed. Starting from a
JPEG-only camera, what are the circumstances where we can't (using
good photographic technique) get a JPEG in camera that is
indistinguishable from a RAW conversion and will need to be
printed very large? And you couldn't have used your DSLR?

This is where I see a razor thin set of circumstances. Where the
P&S-must-have-RAW. Actually, I find it difficult to describe any.

Wayne

Ahhh - but any good analysis works up until the point when you add human emotion and habit.

 

[Wayne Larmon]

OK, so what are the circumstances that we are left with where your
P&S-must-have-RAW? If IQ is paramount, we will be using an 8x10
view camera. If not, then IQ isn't paramount. So we trade off IQ
for affordability and/or size and speed. Starting from a
JPEG-only camera, what are the circumstances where we can't (using
good photographic technique) get a JPEG in camera that is
indistinguishable from a RAW conversion and will need to be
printed very large? And you couldn't have used your DSLR?

This is where I see a razor thin set of circumstances. Where the
P&S-must-have-RAW. Actually, I find it difficult to describe any.

Ahhh - but any good analysis works up until the point when you add
human emotion and habit.

True. My rationales for shooting 100% RAW (no matter how inconsequential the situation) was "just to be sure." "You never can tell when I'll shoot a real wall hanger."

Humans are generally poor at calculating probabilities. For things that affect their own lives.

Wayne

 

[demarren123456]

Afcours on an Dslr you gain more then on an small censor.
so dare to take raw from an dslr or it is war
hehe.
But you right somtimes you better have it then not have it.

--
Demarren.
Website :

http://www.flickr.com/photos/73737307@N00/sets/ Nikon D70s Kodak P880 Canon S3 IS Canon G7 Sony A100

 

[demarren123456]

I see an little more,but not thad muts,sorry.

--
Demarren.
Website :

http://www.flickr.com/photos/73737307@N00/sets/ Nikon D70s Kodak P880 Canon S3 IS Canon G7 Sony A100

 

[newmikey]

Wayne,

I do appreciate your argument (it's a good one) and agree to a large part but I think that you are forgetting one factor: image processing.

Any image processing done on a 16-bit TIFF file will not deteriorate the image quality unless the processing options specifically provide for that. (posterizing etc.) while a JPEG will definitely lose its cool.

I think many(not all, not even the majority, but many) people routinely run some sharpening, levels adjust, color tweaks etc. on the images before outputting them to print or online gallery.

Therefore you should add to your razor-thin circumstances the question whether one expects to output straight from the camera without any PP. In that case, your argument still holds firm.

However, if any of the (routine) pp actions are required, the RAW file will eventually result in a higher quality image.

To many of us, RAW conversion is not so much an effort consuming, but rather a time consuming issue. The purist would probably tweak each and every RAW file separately, but there is much to say for batch conversions to TIFF.

That way you get the best of both worlds - a good quality file in a usefull (TIFF) format to do PP on with the ease of an camera-jpeg. When you are either done PP-ing or have no reason to PP the specific batch, you can then batch-convert to the final output JPEG.

Myself, like some other people I know on these fora even routinely combine the two steps in one batch process (BAT for Windows or Bash for Linux). This flowcharts somewhat like:

Download RAW file from memcard -> Convert RAW to 16-bit TIFF -> Apply color profiles (can be left out) -> apply levels -> apply curves -> apply slight Unsharp Mask -> Convert to Jpeg -> Generate additional thumbnail

Most of this can be done with free and open software like ImageMagick and Dcraw/UFraw without any effort except for the time it takes making coffee while the batch runs.

Just my 0.02 Euro

--
You're invited to visit my gallery at
http://www.pbase.com/newmikey
Drop me a line there if you like it.

 

[yahooqq]

they are professional+ ..if you are not.. then forget RAW

 

[RoyGBiv]

Excellent rant, Wayne!
--
If you're a G7 owner, please feel free to comment on your viewfinder here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=21630856

 

[RoyGBiv]

I think many(not all, not even the majority, but many) people
routinely run some sharpening, levels adjust, color tweaks etc. on
the images before outputting them to print or online gallery.

Hi there Mikey,

I think the opposite, actually. I think the subset of folks who tweak their shots routinely runs in the miniscule category. I think the overwhelmingly vast majority of people stop their post processing at cropping. I think the general public does not trust their own ability to evaluate the details, and skip it, favoring the rules of thumb provided by whatever logic is in their camera to make those decisions for them. And I think that aligns quite well with what I see being offered in the market.

--
If you're a G7 owner, please feel free to comment on your viewfinder here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=21630856

 

[newmikey]

I think many(not all, not even the majority, but many) people
routinely run some sharpening, levels adjust, color tweaks etc. on
the images before outputting them to print or online gallery.

Hi there Mikey,

I think the opposite, actually. I think the subset of folks who
tweak their shots routinely runs in the miniscule category. I
think the overwhelmingly vast majority of people stop their post
processing at cropping. I think the general public does not trust
their own ability to evaluate the details, and skip it, favoring
the rules of thumb provided by whatever logic is in their camera to
make those decisions for them. And I think that aligns quite well
with what I see being offered in the market.

If that assumption is true, the argument holds like glue! With that in mind , the discussion becomes much less of an issue.

I just assumed that, with all of the Picasa's, PSE's and Irfanviews that are available to even the newest and most unexperienced of users, many owners of a 200$-plus camera would do at least some tweaking. Obviously I am wrong there.

It makes Canon's choice much clearer and easier to understand in light of such a market situation. I have resigned to the fact that I am using a dying breed of camera (Pro1 now, G5 before) and may have to come to terms with the fact that I am a dying breed of photo-enthousiast, non-professionals who enjoy fooling around with image files.

It is either going to be some non-Canon brand that will pick up the minuscule subset of customers fleeing Canon or I will let myself be goaded into a low-price DSLR. I enjoyed it while it lasted though.

--
You're invited to visit my gallery at
http://www.pbase.com/newmikey
Drop me a line there if you like it.

 

[BravoBrown]

I hate to join in here since it's all been said many times before... but I find myself unable to walk away from this one. While you have made some interesting points, I think your starting point is completely off base. If anyone (Pro or not) wants the absolute most out of their camera (no matter what camera is used) RAW is a must. If that extra flexibility doesn't matter to you, or if you are someone who NEVER post processes, then RAW makes no sense and is completely unnecessary. On the other hand, if you ever PP, RAW actually makes the process quicker and gives better results (regarding DR, WB, and details that the in camera jpeg machine blurs away). It is not a matter of demanding the best IQ available in the world, but a matter of getting the best out of whatever equipment you already own. RAW is simply one of the tools in a photographer's bag like any other that gives added flexibility to the user.

Getting back to RAW vs. JPEG, P&S-must-have-RAW adherents (which I
used to be) are advocating a position that is only applicable in a
razor thin percentage of circumstances.

"Must-have" is not the same as saying it is a valid and helpful tool. In a high end prosumer P&S that supposedly offers all the available DSLR user parameters, it makes absolutely no sense to omit.

First, we'll assume that you are not a pro. If you are a pro, then
use pro equipment. So this set of circumstances is eliminated.

Ridiculous. Pro's don't always run around with all of their equipment. Most also have a P&S or two at hand. There have been many threads on which best serves their needs in the Pro forum. It all depends on what you're looking for, but many pros have successfully used their P&S equipment for pro applications.

If image quality is paramount, then you'd be using an 8x10 view
camera. If your image quality is paramount and you must use
digital, than use a high end medium format digital back + technical
view camera (as described on Luminous Landscape), at an approx.
cost of $50,000 (US). Note that by insisting on going digital, IQ
as deteriorated, because even the most expensive medium format
digital back has far less resolution than a SOTA 8x10 film view
camera.

Again, it's not about best IQ possible, but best IQ from your particular equipment.

If you use a camera that shoots JPEG only, such as the G7, and
assuming a reasonable level of photographic competence, there are
many circumstances where you can produce in camera JPEGs that are
indistinguishable (on a print) from the best that could be produced
from a RAW file. Assuming that you used the lowest ISO, set WB on
the button (perhaps with custom WB), and nailed the exposure.
There isn't much improvement that could be accomplished from RAW
conversion.

Except in cases of high DR or where fine detail is important (landscapes etc). This is especially true of the new DIGIC III that has started down the Pany route of watercolor in fine details starting even at low ISOs.

OK, but we have the set of circumstances where we won't have time
to get in camera settings on-the-button. Mostly involving shooting
pictures of people that move fast. OK. Of these images, how many
will be printed at 16x20 (or so) and consequently need the quality
that you can get from processing a substandard exposure from a RAW
file? As compared to images that won't be printed larger than 4x6?
Or (most likely) crunched down to 640x480 to be sent as an email
attachment? Or put on Pbase or Smugmug? Unless you are printing
poster size, you most likely can rescue a bad exposure from a JPEG
and it won't be distinguishable on a print.

How about sunsets... you can easily get posterized colors that can be seen on 8X10 prints. Plus, RAW isn't just for imperfect shots, but it certainly helps. For the casual snapshooter, it's obviously not applicable, but for the 'prosumer' who is looking for more out of their high end cam, RAW is most certainly helpful.

If you can envision circumstances that are important enough that
printing very large is a consideration, but lighting conditions
change fast enough that it isn't practical to get in camera JPEGs
on the button, then bring your DSLR. We did assume a reasonable
level of photographic competence, so you should have been able to
make the correct decision about which camera to bring.

DSLR is nice when you happen to have it in your bag. Sometimes size and weight considerations are paramount and that isn't really a viable option.

OK, so what are the circumstances that we are left with where your
P&S-must-have-RAW? If IQ is paramount, we will be using an 8x10
view camera. If not, then IQ isn't paramount. So we trade off IQ
for affordability and/or size and speed. Starting from a
JPEG-only camera, what are the circumstances where we can't (using
good photographic technique) get a JPEG in camera that is
indistinguishable from a RAW conversion and will need to be
printed very large? And you couldn't have used your DSLR?

Printing large isn't a necessity to see the advantages, especially where blurred details and BH could be avoided with the RAW file. Side by side comparisons are the only ones that are valid when people challenge you to guess if a shot was taken in jpeg or RAW. There are many circumstances where the RAW processed shot shines even with a lowly P&S camera.

This is where I see a razor thin set of circumstances. Where the
P&S-must-have-RAW. Actually, I find it difficult to describe any.

Here ya go, anytime you want to travel light but still want to get the most DR, highest detail, and most flexible WB possible from your cam, RAW is the way to go. Ever wonder why kids build hot rods out of crummy little cars instead of starting with an expensive race car? Obviously to get the most out of the machine available to them.
Best regards,
Mark

--