Raw Vs Jpeg

[Wayne Larmon]

Sorry all for not replying earlier. Two words: "Ice storm...."

Before I got any farther, does anybody else think that DPreview reformats quotes to be real ugly? I'm not going to do any reformatting this time. Tell me how attractive you think DPreview formatting is?

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.

I am someone that shot 100% RAW from approx. Feb. 2003. Starting with an S45, progressing through 200D and 20D. I've used BreezeBrowser, C1 (briefly), PS CS (about 9 months) and RawShooter Premium (most recently.) Then every picture went through PS, sometimes for several hours. Snapshots sometimes only get a few minutes. But they all went through a RAW converter and then PS, even if it was a batch of hundreds of birthday party type snapshots.
Until I got my G7.

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.

My thesis was simple: if you really, really care about IQ, you won't be wasting time with any digicam (unless it has a Phase One type back bolted onto it.) Once you have cheaped your way down to either an APC sensor DSLR or any kind of P&S, you have already thrown away a lot of IQ that is readily and affordably available to you. It is fatuous to spend much energy arguing about IQ when you've already thrown away gallons of it and are left holding a small teacup. So to speak.

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.

OK, but you've redefined my thesis. I was talking about non-pros. I didn't address pros.

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.

Umm yes, but this still hasn't increased the percentage size.

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.

I'm going to have to put this particular point aside for a while. I haven't done enough tests with my own G7 at ISO 80 or 100 to determine how significant this is. I know that my G7 has this problem in spades at higher ISOs. (I have posted loudly and longly about this exact issue.) But the jury is still our (for me) at the lowest ISOs. And/or if the issue can be sidestepped with different sharpening or contrast. I'm still testing.

(Continued in part 2)

 

[Wayne Larmon]

(Continued from part 1)

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.

AAgain, if you are going for a wall hanger sunset, you should have brought your DSLR. Or 8x10 view camera.

And even then, it shouldn't be an issue. Remember that I assumed a reasonable level of competence. Which means:

1. getting the WB in the ballpark in the camera. Use a viewing hood if needed to see the LCD clearly. You do use a viewing hood, don't you? They were old hat during the Abraham Lincoln presidential election.
2. knowing how to mask off the sky in PP so it won't be adjusted at all.

3. If the sky needs to be brightened or dimmed, then raise or lower its level without spreading the values. No posterization or banding will happen.
4. Consequently, there will be no posterization or banding.

If we remove images that don't have fine gradients, we are back to where picket fence histograms don't make a lick of difference, no matter how large you print. This is the biggest part of my claim why RAW isn't as necessary as a lot of people think it is.

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.

But we are only talking about sunsets, aren't we? Gradients, etc. And I explained why this shouldn't be an issue, above.

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.

Blurred details is the only issue I'd yield on. As I said, I haven't done enough tests to see if photographic skill can eliminate them.
What is BH?

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.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.

There are many circumstances where the RAW processed shot shines
even with a lowly P&S camera.

This is what I'm not buying.

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.

No argument with that point, but my point is that a reasonable amount of photographic skill should yield a camera-produced JPEG that is indistinguishable from the best that can be produced from a RAW file. With the qualifications I gave in my initial post.

Wayne

 

[BravoBrown]

Hi Wayne!

Sorry all for not replying earlier. Two words: "Ice storm...."

No problem. Yikes! Hope there wasn't too much damage. Get any pics?

Tell me how attractive you think DPreview
formatting is?

Yes, I agree it's a bit messy. Not sure what would be better?

I am someone that shot 100% RAW from approx. Feb. 2003.
even if it was a batch of hundreds of birthday party type snapshots.
Until I got my G7.

Plenty of practice with RAW I think the real reason RAW is gone from the G7 is to hide a tremendously noisy sensor.

My thesis was simple: if you really, really care about IQ, you
won't be wasting time with any digicam
It is fatuous to spend much energy arguing about IQ when
you've already thrown away gallons of it and are left holding a
small teacup. So to speak.

Hehe... That's exactly where we differ. I say if you're interested in IQ, you want the best output from any camera you have (especially a 'prosumer').

I was talking about
non-pros. I didn't address pros.

Just making the point.

the new DIGIC III that
has started down the Pany route of watercolor in fine details
starting even at low ISOs.

I'm going to have to put this particular point aside for a while.
I haven't done enough tests with my own G7 at ISO 80 or 100 to
determine how significant this is. I know that my G7 has this
problem in spades at higher ISOs. (I have posted loudly and longly
about this exact issue.) But the jury is still our (for me) at the
lowest ISOs. And/or if the issue can be sidestepped with
different sharpening or contrast. I'm still testing.

Actually, judging only from downloaded photos, I really don't think it's an issue in the lowest ISOs for printing purposes. I also have a particular dislike for mushy details and fine lines that are no longer straight.... so RAW would have been nice for the higher ISOs. Personally, I preferred the DIGIC II version even though it left more noise.

AAgain, if you are going for a wall hanger sunset, you should have
brought your DSLR. Or 8x10 view camera.

Now that's just silly... Of course those cameras would do better, but you don't always have the choice. When the opportunity for a shot presents itself, you do the best with whatever is at hand.

Remember that I assumed a
reasonable level of competence.

Absolutely agree.

Which means:
1. getting the WB in the ballpark in the camera. Use a viewing
hood if needed to see the LCD clearly. You do use a viewing hood,
don't you? They were old hat during the Abraham Lincoln
presidential election.

Love the reference.

2. knowing how to mask off the sky in PP so it won't be adjusted at
all.

PP skills are not the issue. Changing WB was what I was really referring to in this instance (for the entire sky). If you want to have the flexibility to choose WB afterwards for more striking color, only RAW gives you that option without degradation. With jpeg you only get one shot at it, then it's set by the camera. I brought up sunsets because that is where I find WB changes most pleasing.

3. If the sky needs to be brightened or dimmed, then raise or lower
its level without spreading the values. No posterization or
banding will happen.

Not what I was referring to, but tone curves are more easily applied in RAW without degradation (especially in high DR shots).

If we remove images that don't have fine gradients, we are back to
where picket fence histograms don't make a lick of difference, no
matter how large you print. This is the biggest part of my claim
why RAW isn't as necessary as a lot of people think it is.

Necessary... hmm, very little is absolutely necessary, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be helpful.

Blurred details is the only issue I'd yield on. As I said, I
haven't done enough tests to see if photographic skill can
eliminate them.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid that's built in to the new processor.

What is BH?

Ah, I was referring to blown highlights and the little bit of extra dynamic range you can eek out of a RAW file. Of course, that's not a cure for bad exposure, but every little bit of DR helps.

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.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.

That may have been out of place. I was referring to the term 'indistinguishable.' Only with a side by side comparison can you see the extra detail or better DR control. Without any reference, there is nothing to distinguish what might have been better served by a RAW capture.

There are many circumstances where the RAW processed shot shines
even with a lowly P&S camera.

This is what I'm not buying.

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.

No argument with that point, but my point is that a reasonable
amount of photographic skill should yield a camera-produced JPEG
that is indistinguishable from the best that can be produced from a
RAW file. With the qualifications I gave in my initial post.

I'd say in the best circumstances the output certainly can be close for a skilled photographer. You can't always judge which shot would be better served with a little more flexibility with DR, WB and detail before releasing the shutter. I prefer to have the choice myself instead of relying on the camera to make it for me.
Enjoyed your genial responses.
Best regards,
Mark

--

 

[Ominous]

Sometimes the in camera jpeg can really suck.
Was this photo taken in the 1970s and sun faded?



Thankfuly with RAW and a WB reference point you can fix that in .0001 seconds with one click in your RAW converter.



--
http://www.pbase.com/ewhalen

 

[Wayne Larmon]

Sorry all for not replying earlier. Two words: "Ice storm...."

No problem. Yikes! Hope there wasn't too much damage.

Luckily, not too much major damage. I'm in upstate New York (US) At this point the ice storm was generally downgraded to "Wintry Mix." Which normally just means that it will be sloppy out--drive carefully. But in some places, it reared up and acted like a real ice storm. My area was right in the middle of one of those places. We got about 1/2" - 3/4" ice, which is enough to bring a lot of tree branches down. And more than a few trees and power poles. Our power went out about noon Monday. It was restored about 3:30 PM this afternoon (Wed.) I think they expect that the last people in this area will be connected tomorrow. We had access to a generator most of the time, so it could have been worse. I didn't want to run computers on the generator power. And the cable modem was out anyway.

Get any pics?

I got a few, but haven't had time to download them. Been trying to catch up from the lost time. Work, etc.

I think the real reason RAW is gone
from the G7 is to hide a tremendously noisy sensor.

Possibly, but most of the people that are clamoring for RAW know how to deal with noise. I think that the reason is simple economics. A software engineer posted in another thread that there are real costs in adding RAW. Some for the additional firmware programming and debugging. Some for increasing the size of the firmware (maybe). Some for increasing the size and speed of the buffer. Some for writing more documentation. And some more for additional support. (I'll leave it to others to judge the validity of these claims)

The G7 costs significantly less than previous "G" series models. Even though they eliminated the twistable LCD, they increased the size of the LCD. They bumped the lens from 4X to 6X (albeit while making it slower), they went from a plastic body to a metal body. And they added true optical IS. I won't mention the pixel count, because I don't think going from one 1 1/8" sensor to a different 1 1/8" sensor adds appreciably to the cost. Once R&D has been amortized.

This is a lot of non-trivial features to add while also chopping 1/3 (? not sure) from the cost.

(snipped IQ and detail blurring discussions)

Actually, judging only from downloaded photos, I really don't think
it's an issue in the lowest ISOs for printing purposes. I also have
a particular dislike for mushy details and fine lines that are no
longer straight.... so RAW would have been nice for the higher
ISOs. Personally, I preferred the DIGIC II version even though it
left more noise.

I'm not sure this is a settled matter. I've read a few threads that say that DIGIC II has a few trouble spots that DIGIC III fixed. This needs more testing. But I agree that if you do shoot higher ISOs, that it would be preferable to be able to wrestle with the noise after the fact. In RAW. Or (at least) in a noisy JPEG (if you so choose.) I have the Noiseware plugin and I know my way around masks. Nuff said.

AAgain, if you are going for a wall hanger sunset, you should have
brought your DSLR. Or 8x10 view camera.

Now that's just silly... Of course those cameras would do
better, but you don't always have the choice. When the opportunity
for a shot presents itself, you do the best with whatever is at
hand.

I'll withdraw my above statement, because in retrospect, I should have answered it like I do in my next response, below.

2. knowing how to mask off the sky in PP so it won't be adjusted at
all.

PP skills are not the issue. Changing WB was what I was really
referring to in this instance (for the entire sky). If you want to
have the flexibility to choose WB afterwards for more striking
color, only RAW gives you that option without degradation. With
jpeg you only get one shot at it, then it's set by the camera. I
brought up sunsets because that is where I find WB changes most
pleasing.

Yes, but I generally know what I want. And can see it on the LCD. The new, improved large LCD is part of what changes the dynamic (for me) away from "need RAW always" to "most likely can do the settings in the camera."

Drawing back some, my thesis is that the improved LCD visibility increases what the photographer can see before making the exposure, which reduces the necessity of needing to do fine adjustments in PP. And reduces the need for RAW, for PP purposes. Part of "this is changing everything."

Drawing back some more, more of my thesis is adopting the position that a qualified photographer should be able to previsualize (as was explained, exhaustively, by Ansel Adams) what the end print will look like before the shutter is pushed. I aspire to previsualize. The G7 is a tool that gets me closer to achieving this objective.

I think I'll stop right here. The preceding paragraphs pretty much sums up what I was trying to say.

I'll also add that I brought out my 20D for my first ice storm pics. Because there were thick clouds, the light level was very low. And indistinct. So I felt I needed the 20D's decreased noise and flexibility in WB adjustments in PP (using RAW.) But today was clear and sunny, so I used my G7, set to AWB. I was able to easily hand hold ISO 80 and 100. Yesterday, I was bouncing between ISO 400 and 800. With an f/2.8 lens on the 20D.

Wayne

 

[BravoBrown]

Luckily, not too much major damage. I'm in upstate New York (US)
At this point the ice storm was generally downgraded to "Wintry
Mix."

Glad to hear it wasn't any worse. Still sounds like it was a mess!

Get any pics?

I got a few, but haven't had time to download them. Been trying to
catch up from the lost time. Work, etc.

Looking forward to seeing some.

I think the real reason RAW is gone
from the G7 is to hide a tremendously noisy sensor.

Possibly, but most of the people that are clamoring for RAW know
how to deal with noise. I think that the reason is simple
economics. A software engineer posted in another thread that there
are real costs in adding RAW. Some for the additional firmware
programming and debugging. Some for increasing the size of the
firmware (maybe). Some for increasing the size and speed of the
buffer. Some for writing more documentation. And some more for
additional support. (I'll leave it to others to judge the validity
of these claims)

I remember seeing that, but I don't buy it because the S80 wasn't cheaper than the S70 which included RAW (plus the fact that countless other previous cams included it). I actually spoke with Canon tech service when the S80 came out to find out why RAW was left off. The answer? Because they didn't want to deal with support calls asking how to use RAW anymore. Amazing. I'm sure that's not all there was to it, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was a major factor.
(snippity snip snip)

This is a lot of non-trivial features to add while also chopping
1/3 (? not sure) from the cost.

The G7 does offer a lot of nice features. It's a great camera that would have been even better with RAW. I think the price was strategically set viewing the recent pricing of the XT.

(snipped IQ and detail blurring discussions)

I preferred the DIGIC II version even though it
left more noise.

I'm not sure this is a settled matter. I've read a few threads
that say that DIGIC II has a few trouble spots that DIGIC III
fixed. This needs more testing. But I agree that if you do
shoot higher ISOs, that it would be preferable to be able to
wrestle with the noise after the fact. In RAW. Or (at least) in
a noisy JPEG (if you so choose.) I have the Noiseware plugin and
I know my way around masks. Nuff said.

Agreed. A little selective NR/sharpening can really go a long way in hands of someone with decent PP skills.

Yes, but I generally know what I want. And can see it on the LCD.
The new, improved large LCD is part of what changes the dynamic
(for me) away from "need RAW always" to "most likely can do the
settings in the camera."

Drawing back some, my thesis is that the improved LCD visibility
increases what the photographer can see before making the exposure,
which reduces the necessity of needing to do fine adjustments in
PP. And reduces the need for RAW, for PP purposes. Part of
"this is changing everything."

I think that factor plus the live histogram really help the G7 out of the RAW quandry. The only thing it doesn't solve is the missing info in the jpeg that is tossed from the RAW file (which all contributes to that extra DR, detail and WB flexibility). Definitely helps, but not a substitute.

Drawing back some more, more of my thesis is adopting the position
that a qualified photographer should be able to previsualize (as
was explained, exhaustively, by Ansel Adams) what the end print
will look like before the shutter is pushed. I aspire to
previsualize. The G7 is a tool that gets me closer to achieving
this objective.

Remember that Ansel Adams was using antiquated equipment by today's standards. He HAD to get it right beforehand, and still took thousands of shots to come up with those iconic photos we all recognize. This is a new millennium, and in the digital age a single RAW file contains much more artistic flexibility than any one negative ever did (of course that doesn't guarantee any artistic merit unless the photographer already has that innate sense). Obviously the same standards apply today for knowing what you want before taking the shot, but we have much more creative flexibility in PP (esp with RAW). Knowing what you want to achieve beforehand applies to any endeavor striving for excellence. It doesn't just happen by accident.

I'll also add that I brought out my 20D for my first ice storm
pics. Because there were thick clouds, the light level was very
low. And indistinct. So I felt I needed the 20D's decreased noise
and flexibility in WB adjustments in PP (using RAW.) But today
was clear and sunny, so I used my G7, set to AWB. I was able to
easily hand hold ISO 80 and 100. Yesterday, I was bouncing
between ISO 400 and 800. With an f/2.8 lens on the 20D.

I imagine in those circumstances the G7's live histogram would really be a boon for keeping highlights under control! Again, I look forward to your icy shots. I'm traveling in Italy for work, and hope to bring back some nice Pro1 shots to share (stuck on an impossible dial up connection at the moment). Not much time to be a tourist, but I'm sure I can sneak in some shots. Stay warm!
Best regards,
Mark

--

 

[Sean Nelson]

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.

There doesn't have to be ANY post-processing difference between a TIFF and a JPEG file, other than difference in the original file as written to the memory card by the camera. If you're worried about loosing image quality when post-processing JPG files, then just save them using a lossless 16-bit image format before making any changes. After that, no cool will be lost.

 

[Wayne Larmon]

Wayne Larmon wrote:

(some snippage)

Yes, but I generally know what I want. And can see it on the LCD.
The new, improved large LCD is part of what changes the dynamic
(for me) away from "need RAW always" to "most likely can do the
settings in the camera."

Drawing back some, my thesis is that the improved LCD visibility
increases what the photographer can see before making the exposure,
which reduces the necessity of needing to do fine adjustments in
PP. And reduces the need for RAW, for PP purposes. Part of
"this is changing everything."

I think that factor plus the live histogram really help the G7 out
of the RAW quandry. The only thing it doesn't solve is the missing
info in the jpeg that is tossed from the RAW file (which all
contributes to that extra DR, detail and WB flexibility).
Definitely helps, but not a substitute.

I still think that this extra stuff is illusionary. But part of my viewpoint is a personal goal of moving more towards getting it right in the camera. From this viewpoint, DR is handled by adjusting contrast, saturation and sharpness in the camera to match the DR that the scene has. Same for adjusting WB.

And even if you don't adopt my viewpoint, I also assumed a reasonable amount of photographic skill. Which means getting these settings in the ballpark in the camera. After this, it is only scenes that have smooth gradients (i.e., skies) that suffer in PP if printed very large and if they need more than a token amount of post processing and if you can't finesses the PP with masking.

But I'll also refer back to my initial post on this thread. After eliminating pro usage (as per my thesis), the vast majority of images don't need the extra information anyway. 4x6s and web images don't.

I'll also add a new point. That I'm glad to be freed from worrying about RAW converter compatibility. Speaking as a RawShooter Premium user, I don't imagine that RSP would have supported the G7, if the G7 did have RAW. Nor would I be happy to have to upgrade from PS CS for the sole reason of updating the CS RAW converter. RAW stinks in a lot of ways. Adobe and the camera manufacturers are in a stareoff over RAW compatibility and we users are the ones that are suffering.

(snipped verbiage about AA and previsualization)

He HAD to get it right beforehand, and still took
thousands of shots to come up with those iconic photos we all
recognize.

An aside. I read recently that AA's lifetime output was about 10,000 images. Meaning the total number of negatives that he took. (Most weren't printed--just filed.) That is, what, about a month's worth for a wedding pro these days.

This is a new millennium, and in the digital age a
single RAW file contains much more artistic flexibility than any
one negative ever did (of course that doesn't guarantee any
artistic merit unless the photographer already has that innate
sense).

Obviously the same standards apply today for knowing what
you want before taking the shot, but we have much more creative
flexibility in PP (esp with RAW). Knowing what you want to achieve
beforehand applies to any endeavor striving for excellence. It
doesn't just happen by accident.

Rather than entering the "what is art?" tar pits, I think I'll punt this point by restating that I limited my thesis to P&Ss. If you are really serious, don't use a P&S. Or consider any real keepers you get to be a happy bonus, like AA did with his 35mm cameras.

Remember that I never said that RAW is never needed--only that it is rarely needed with a P&S. AA never clamored for movements (tilt, shift, etc.) to be added to 35mm cameras, even though he made extensive use of movements on his view cameras. A comparable point might be that sleeper bunks aren't needed in passenger cars, even if they are necessary in the cabs of cross country trucks. See the distinction?

I'll also add that I brought out my 20D for my first ice storm
pics. Because there were thick clouds, the light level was very
low. And indistinct. So I felt I needed the 20D's decreased noise
and flexibility in WB adjustments in PP (using RAW.) But today
was clear and sunny, so I used my G7, set to AWB. I was able to
easily hand hold ISO 80 and 100. Yesterday, I was bouncing
between ISO 400 and 800. With an f/2.8 lens on the 20D.

I imagine in those circumstances the G7's live histogram would
really be a boon for keeping highlights under control!

With a thick layer of clouds, dynamic range wasn't a problem. The problem was low light levels, which meant cranking up the ISO. Which is why I used my 20D.

Again, I
look forward to your icy shots.

I still haven't looked at them. Still getting caught up.

I'm traveling in Italy for work,
and hope to bring back some nice Pro1 shots to share (stuck on an
impossible dial up connection at the moment). Not much time to be a
tourist, but I'm sure I can sneak in some shots. Stay warm!

The Pro1 is about the same vintage as my 300D, isn't it? Both have excellent IQ, but I think both have limited on camera viewing capabilities. Compared to what the G7 has. I know that I'm much less comfortable with "getting it right in the camera" when peering at a 1.8" LCD. (On my S45, 300D, and 20D.) That has significantly less dynamic range than the G7's LCD does.

Best regards,
Mark

Same to you. Good luck on your trip. May you have excellent light. And a free schedule during the golden hours. (Although I understand that Europe is getting some rough weather right now. I don't know if it extends as far south as Italy.)

Wayne

 

[mmep]

Sometimes the in camera jpeg can really suck.
Was this photo taken in the 1970s and sun faded?



Thankfuly with RAW and a WB reference point you can fix that in
.0001 seconds with one click in your RAW converter.

I shoot RAW with my 20D always so getting a G7 without it was a huge decision. I'm glad I did though, because with Adobe Lightroom, you can correct WB the exact same way you would a RAW file ... a click or two and it's done.

Cheryl P.

 

[Ominous]

I shoot RAW with my 20D always so getting a G7 without it was a
huge decision. I'm glad I did though, because with Adobe Lightroom,
you can correct WB the exact same way you would a RAW file ... a
click or two and it's done.

Cheryl P.

But it is not the same. The jpeg / TIFF WB correction is not going to give you the same results as doing it in the RAW image. Your tonal range can be way off.

--
http://www.pbase.com/ewhalen

 

[PixelMinded]

But it is not the same. The jpeg / TIFF WB correction is not going
to give you the same results as doing it in the RAW image. Your
tonal range can be way off.

I second this and I have experimented with SilkyPix (similar to Adobe Lightroom) in that it allows u to manipulate JPG files as if they were RAW,

I did a test taking shots by both A610 and Pro1 in JPG from both and RAW from Pro1, and I can confirm that there is a difference in favour of RAW when it comes to correcting things like exposure and WB. I would say that in the final postprocessed JPG Pro1 files where just a little bit better than those of A610, while the end result from the Pro1's RAW files were considerably better than Pro's postprocessed JPG.

Anyhow no matter what we say, there will always be arguments to advocate the devil (Canon) about their decision to eradicate RAW from the PowerShot range. Even if all those who are interested in compact camera RAW are talking about illusionary benefits of including RAW on such cameras --and these are definitely not illusionary--; even if this is the case, there is no harm in including RAW just to allow these people to practice their illusions freely in the same way that secular and atheist governments allow freedom of worship. Even if the conspiracy theory about dropping RAW is not true and there are good reasons behind that decision, Canon is just like communist regimes who try to impose their believes on their peoples and decide for them what they can practice and what they can not. The question mark becomes bigger when we consider how easy and inexpensive implementing RAW is, if Canon would like to do it, yet they don't that but keep on maintaining stupid AIAF, silly scene modes and more costly OVF's, this naturally push many to think in the direction of the conspiracy theory.

--
Ahmed Elnagar
http://profile.imageshack.us/user/pixelminded/images

 

[Wayne Larmon]

I shoot RAW with my 20D always so getting a G7 without it was a
huge decision. I'm glad I did though, because with Adobe Lightroom,
you can correct WB the exact same way you would a RAW file ... a
click or two and it's done.

But it is not the same. The jpeg / TIFF WB correction is not going
to give you the same results as doing it in the RAW image. Your
tonal range can be way off.

But if you get WB in the ballpark in the camera (and not way off, like your example, above), then tweaking WB in a JPEG won't make a bit of difference on a print. Except possibly, for the near pathological case of printing 16x20s from a P&S.

Again, I shot 100% RAW from early 2003 until I got my G7. I still shoot 100% RAW on my 20D, because the 20D's LCD isn't good enough to judge WB well enough to get it in the ballpark. And the 20D's auto-whatever also isn't as good as the G7's autoing. So I feel the need to correct after--the-fact on my 20D often enough that I'm not comfortable switching to JPEG only. But the G7's improved LCD and improved auto WB (when outside) gets the in camera JPEG in the ballpark most of the time, such that I'm don't miss RAW.

However, The G7's histogram seems to have taken a step backwards. Almost as if Canon stopped making any pretense of making the mono histogram be an accurate summation of the RGB channels and just went with using the G channel while totally ignoring R and B. I've got images where I need to make the on camera histogram be a whole 2 stops underexposed in order to eliminate a single channel blowout. While other images need the in camera histogram to be snuggled right up to the right. My 20D and 300D don't vary that much.

The G7's improved LCD somewhat makes up for the defective (IMO) histogram, because I can see single channel blowouts as looking "strained" on the LCD, just like they look on a real monitor. Older LCDs didn't display this--everything looks fat and happy, even if a single channel is blown.

I miss a true RGB histogram (meaning identical to the RGB histograms you see in PS) much more than I miss RAW. If I had this, then this would be the last part of the puzzle that prevents me from making near perfect JPEGs in the G7.

Wayne

 

[Erik Derrote]

I'm curious about achieving color balance in prints from the G7.

I compared some pix taken in daylight by a G7, a Pentax K10 that I was trying out, and my film SLR with Kodak HD 200 and Fuji-something 100. There were big color differences between the two films, and between the two digitals, as well as between the film and digital. I didn't make any camera adjustments, and didn't use autoexposure (just AV or TV on the digitals).

I found that at least for one set of prints taken in the first two daylight hours, the G7 prints were a lot warmer than the K10 and both films. Actually, way warmer. Everything else about the G7 prints was practically indistinguishable on the one print from each camera (I had zoomed in on by 400% to print a portion of the image to save the cost of a large print). That surprised me.

I haven't learned how to use the G7's color adjustment controls. Do they really work well?

 

[Wayne Larmon]

I found that at least for one set of prints taken in the first two
daylight hours, the G7 prints were a lot warmer than the K10 and
both films. Actually, way warmer. Everything else about the G7
prints was practically indistinguishable on the one print from each
camera (I had zoomed in on by 400% to print a portion of the image
to save the cost of a large print). That surprised me.

I haven't learned how to use the G7's color adjustment controls.
Do they really work well?

I've found that the G7 images are a bit warm for my taste, also. They are close enough that I can correct them in PP, usually by boosting the B channel.

I just tried turning up the Blue adjustment in the custom Colors setting. But I haven't done enough testing to see if this setting changes the WB to be more to my taste.

FWIW, I took some RAW images with my 20D at about the same time. And needed to do somewhat more radical WB adjustments in RawShooter Premium than I need to do with the G7. Canon gets WB closer than Pixmantec (or Adobe) does. For my taste.

To a certain extent, WB is subjective. Unless you are shooting fabric samples for a catalog, or other similar task where correctness is measurable.

Wayne

 

[BravoBrown]

I still think that this extra stuff is illusionary. But part of my
viewpoint is a personal goal of moving more towards getting it
right in the camera. From this viewpoint, DR is handled by
adjusting contrast, saturation and sharpness in the camera to match
the DR that the scene has. Same for adjusting WB.

No illusion, but a good goal! I'm sure you saw Robert N's post above showing the difference in detail (ISO 400...). Also, here's an interesting RAW hack for the S3IS showing how much detail is lost (the extra noise as well) http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=21402770

It's proven RAW contains extra DR headroom (as per reviews here). I frequently retrieve seemingly BH in jpeg that aren't actually clipped in the RAW file. Because of the small size of these sensors, every bit of DR helps. Adjusting contrast and saturation does help (I keep that custom setting on my Pro1), but better still to have RAW. Just exposing for highlights in bright outdoor shots can produce too much shadow, which can be more problematic to adjust in jpeg than in RAW (when "shooting to the right"). I don't mean really high DR, which needs bracketed exposures and blending. Another benefit of RAW... you can use the same exposure to develop 2 or 3 times for highlights and shadows, then combine with masks (or HDR programs like Photomatix).

And even if you don't adopt my viewpoint, I also assumed a
reasonable amount of photographic skill. Which means getting these
settings in the ballpark in the camera. After this, it is only
scenes that have smooth gradients (i.e., skies) that suffer in PP
if printed very large and if they need more than a token amount
of post processing and if you can't finesses the PP with masking.

I agree again about a certain level of photographic skill. Always best to get as close as possible in cam. However, printing large is not a prerequisite to seeing the difference (especially for detail in grass or leaves, and for seemingly BH in skies). Right on about the fine gradients... I should add, I don't always always use RAW. Sometimes with my slower Pro1, I switch to jpeg for speed. Before I got the macro lens (very nice), all my super macros were jpeg as well (reduced size).

...the vast majority of
images don't need the extra information anyway. 4x6s and web
images don't.

Certainly agree that smaller prints and many web shots don't need RAW... except for those previously mentioned considerations.

I'll also add a new point. That I'm glad to be freed from worrying
about RAW converter compatibility. (snip)

That's a good point. Of course, you can always depend on the Canon software, but it's not always the best choice. I use PSE and just update the ACR file. I also like Silkypix, but was never completely happy with RSP colors. I really like how the new Pentax K10D also produces DNG files. Finally a company that gets it! (hint hint Canon!)

An aside. I read recently that AA's lifetime output was about
10,000 images. Meaning the total number of negatives that he took.
(Most weren't printed--just filed.) That is, what, about a month's
worth for a wedding pro these days.

That's interesting. I think I once read something like that as well. It continues the point about how much more flexible digital is. You can take thousands of shots and just delete the crummy ones. No film lost... and even more flexibility with the RAW files! I remember all the hours I spent in the dark room playing with my B/W shots. RAW is a joy!

Rather than entering the "what is art?" tar pits, I think I'll punt
this point by restating that I limited my thesis to P&Ss. If you
are really serious, don't use a P&S. Or consider any real keepers
you get to be a happy bonus, like AA did with his 35mm cameras.

Hehe.. agreed. I do think with cameras like the G7 and Pro1 you can get a lot of keepers though!

Remember that I never said that RAW is never needed--only that it
is rarely needed with a P&S. (snip for space)

Proper tools for the job. We just don't agree about the niceness of RAW on a prosumer P&S (which is ok!). I wouldn't waste my time with RAW on most compacts, but I think it's really nice for those interested in a high end camera like the G and Pro series. For me, no RAW is like buying a nice sports car with an automatic transmission. Just not as much fun

With a thick layer of clouds, dynamic range wasn't a problem. The
problem was low light levels, which meant cranking up the ISO.
Which is why I used my 20D.

I was referring to the sunny day. Sounds like a lot of glare. I saw your other post about the crummy histogram... rats. That really makes the live histogram less helpful than I hoped it was. Oh for a real RGB histogram in a prosumer! At least the LCDs are improving.

The Pro1 is about the same vintage as my 300D, isn't it? Both
have excellent IQ, but I think both have limited on camera viewing
capabilities. Compared to what the G7 has. I know that I'm much
less comfortable with "getting it right in the camera" when peering
at a 1.8" LCD. (On my S45, 300D, and 20D.) That has significantly
less dynamic range than the G7's LCD does.

Yep, the LCD is a bit small... pretty good definition, but I use the EVF a lot with my Pro1, unless I need the twisty LCD. The EVF is even less detailed, but I still prefer the familiarity of handling.

Same to you. Good luck on your trip. May you have excellent
light. And a free schedule during the golden hours. (Although I
understand that Europe is getting some rough weather right now. I
don't know if it extends as far south as Italy.)

Thanks, Wayne! I've never seen so much fog as the region around Parma. Luckily not too much really bad weather yet.
Again, best regards!
Mark
--

 

[jerryk]

I have used raw conversion to recover some blown highlights. Not something I can do as easily on the G7. When my G7 arrives I am planning on spending a bit of time determining how much EC to dial in.

jerry

--
jerryk.smugmug.com

 

[Wayne Larmon]

I have used raw conversion to recover some blown highlights. Not
something I can do as easily on the G7.

Try the "Highlight" tool in PhotoShop's (and maybe Elements?) "Shadows/Highlight" tool. I've found that I can get a substantial amount of highlight recovery from JPEGs with the Highlight tool.

When my G7 arrives I am
planning on spending a bit of time determining how much EC to dial
in.

It varies tremendously depending on the color temperature of the light. Or the color of the main subject. If there is a lot of red component (sunrise, etc.) then the camera histogram needs to be cranked back so it looks like it is underexposed. Also for Caterpillar Yellow (i.e., bulldozers, etc.) or School Bus Yellow.

If the light or subject of more balanced, then the camera histogram is accurate. This is predictable, but is something that you will need to do a lot of practice shots so that you can learn when to derate the camera histogram. I've had my G7 for a bit over a month and I'm about halfway there in learning this.

The live histogram does make up for a lot of other sins, though. It is way cool.

Wayne

 

[BravoBrown]

Forgot to mention something about LCDs.... The Pro1 LCD is still pretty impressive at 2" and has 235,000 pixels, as opposed to the non twisty G7 LCD, which is 2.5" but only 207,000 pixels. Also, the EVF of the Pro1 has the same 235,000 pixels... so I was mistaken before. The resolution is the same for EVF or LCD, which really makes it a nice addition, epecially in bright sunlight when it's less easy to see an LCD. Pretty decent 'on camera viewing capability.'

The Pro1 is about the same vintage as my 300D, isn't it? Both
have excellent IQ, but I think both have limited on camera viewing
capabilities. Compared to what the G7 has. I know that I'm much
less comfortable with "getting it right in the camera" when peering
at a 1.8" LCD. (On my S45, 300D, and 20D.) That has significantly
less dynamic range than the G7's LCD does.

Yep, the LCD is a bit small... pretty good definition, but I use
the EVF a lot with my Pro1, unless I need the twisty LCD. The EVF
is even less detailed, but I still prefer the familiarity of
handling.

--

 

[Wayne Larmon]

Forgot to mention something about LCDs.... The Pro1 LCD is still
pretty impressive at 2" and has 235,000 pixels, as opposed to the
non twisty G7 LCD, which is 2.5" but only 207,000 pixels. Also, the
EVF of the Pro1 has the same 235,000 pixels... so I was mistaken
before. The resolution is the same for EVF or LCD, which really
makes it a nice addition, epecially in bright sunlight when it's
less easy to see an LCD. Pretty decent 'on camera viewing
capability.'

Wow! I didn't know that Canon was using LCDs like that that far back. I guess I can add a "Grrr" that my 20D (that was released later than the Pro1) has the same 1.8" 110,000 (?) megapixels LCD that the 300D has.

On the other hand, I'm not sure that the Pro1 should be compared to the G7, because it cost almost twice what the G7 does. The Snn series is in the same price ballpark as the G7. Porsches handle better than Hondas, also.

Wayne

 

[Samuli Haataja]

the lack of raw in g7.

First I wasn't bothered because I hadn't used raw before. Now that I got more computer capasity I also started shooting raw with my D50 dslr. The difference is significant with my type of work.

I do bw for most of the time so white balance is not an issue to me. But tonal gradations are a big issue. With jpg the exposure has to be really accurate to achieve pleasing tone in pp. With raw I can much more easily produce jpgs that have a 'good histogram' and after that the bw conversion is also much more easy and succesful. (BTW with good histogram I mean an exposure that is as much as possible on the bright side but no blown highlights)

I know dslr is dslr, but if jpg vs raw makes a difference with dslr then why wouldn't it make a difference with compact?

I really would like to have raw with g7. Sorry Canon: as soon as there will be similar camera with raw I'll be selling my g7.

No more cameras without raw for me!

--
Nikon D50 and Canon G7

• S -