RAW VS jpeg

[Alupang]

No need I believe you--just another fine example adding to the pile of RAW advantages.

Thanks

 

[RussellInCincinnati]

What is the typical speed of Aperture to convert a file from Sony raw to, say, a 16-bit TIFF file? On what exact Apple hardware?

Thanks.

 

[relate22]

For me is just comes down to information captured. Dpreview in their review says that the RAW photos capture much more information than the jpegs, so I now shoot only RAW.

I suppose I should also say I do enjoy processing my images, some people may prefer the jpegs because of the ease of no processing.
--
http://www.pbase.com/reelate2
http://www.pbase.com/relate2
My youtube channel====> [ b] http://www.youtube.com/user/relate2?feature=mhsn
What flying means to me.
http://vimeo.com/2598837
Flying highlights
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lRu3P15BaY
My Youtube Channel http://www.youtube.com/user/relate2#p/u

 

[edwardaneal]

Actually it is hard to say, Aperture does not work like regular converters. all of the individual adjustments are saved as small seperate files that are linked to the master image. The changes you saw in the default image were basically instant, that is just the way the image opened after I imported it from the camera into my aperture library. The only time all of the adjustment that have been made from converting to all of the other adjustments needed for final output are actually applied to an image is when you export that version of the image out of the library. The original and the linked adjustments always remain behind in the library and can always be changed or completly undone. The only time I export images is when I want to uplaod it to smugmug to either share here on on an other site or if I want a larger print than my printer can deal with.

for me exporting images does take some time, but I am not a good test of this as I am running my iMac with only 2gb of memory which really slows things down. This may sound like a pain, but even though I have thousands of converted and processed images in my library the number that actually get exported for printing or posting is small in comparison and they are usually exported in very small numbers.

Hving said this I do plan on bumping my memmory to 8gb whan I get around to it :0

What is the typical speed of Aperture to convert a file from Sony raw to, say, a 16-bit TIFF file? On what exact Apple hardware?

Thanks.

--
My kit - D200, 10.5mm f/2.8D, 35mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.4G & 70-300VR
NEX-5 18-55 OSS

Lenses worth mentioning owned and sold 12-24 f/4, 17-55 f/2.8, 35-70 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4D, 60mm f/2.8D, 85mm f/1.8, 105mm f/2D-DC, 180mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4D-ED

 

[GaryW]

I have used RT for a while, and used the beta versions a lot when I got my Nex. I tried a couple of commercial software trial versions, and for sheer quality, RT holds its own. But when I tried DxO, I found that I could, much more quickly, dial in the look that I wanted. Plus, its "HDR" mode works similar to DRO, instantly giving really good results.

So, I have to say, my observations are similar to Edward's, although I've used RT a lot and the software I prefer now is DxO. There are differences between the software, and maybe really good reasons to use one over the other.

For example, RT's deconvolution could be used on a photo that is overall a bit soft, while for DxO, it only uses such a feature to counteract lens sharpness, not photo issues. Also, non-supported lenses can't use deconvolution at all in DxO!

However, DxO has a pleasing handling of noise, both in the rendering of noise, and the look of noise reduction. And I find it easier to tweak the color. I have the feeling that they do a lot of work behind the scenes to give the user simple controls.

RT is great, but I do think it requires a bit more effort usually to get the best out of it. But on a budget, I have no problems recommending it. But, like a camera, it's a tool. One either finds it useful or not as much as another tool... and if we find a better tool, we're allowed to change.

(BTW, another commercial product I tested worked well, except the color always seemed weird. I can't recall if I tested any other commercial ones. The free UFRaw is worth a look, but I think RT beats it easily.)

exactly - we all have different taste, and having tried many different programs to convert RAW I find I prefer the way Aperture works. I also love the fact that it is completely non destructive to the original. No matter how many times I change things I can always get back to the original out of camera image.

As a side note I also think you and I have very different taste it how we like our images, there is nothing wrong with that, in fact I love it, but it will influence our choice in things like this

You have a great day - I have enjoyed our conversation

But no, it's only the simple case of you've tried RawTherapee, and you were just reporting to us that you didn't like its defaults.

--
Gary W.

 

[Noxonomus]

I just want to start by saying that I respect your right to not like RawTherapee it's far from perfect.

but why would I want to have to make those adjustments to every image?

I think you were using the default default profile "default" (thats a lot of default) as your starting point. RawTherapee has many built in profiles from which you can start, and I think you would probably prefer one such as "punchy-0" or "punchy-2" which can be accessed by right clicking on an image in the file list and selecting "apply profile". Then if you find one you like you can set it as the default in preferences or you can even create your own custom profile and set that as default, thus avoiding the making adjustments to every image bit.

I am a fan of that sort of flexibility and customization, of course Aperture probably has similar functionality.

I have since deleter Rawtherapy from my computer.

I know all that was too late to be of relevance to you but I still felt it was worth saying.

If you are happy with it that is great - it is just a tool. At this point I will stick with aperture

If we all liked the same things there would be only one.

 

[RussellInCincinnati]

Thanks for your post, forgot about that obvious and super easy way to change the default RT RawTherapee color/contrast processing. Because have never used them, happen to like the "default" profile.

Anyway you right-click on one or more selected images in the File Browser, go to the Apply Profile option, and pick out a profile like one of the "punchy" or "High ISO" ones from the menu. Then right-click again on your selected images, and click "put to processing queue". Then click over to the visible processing queue/waiting list and click the "Start processing" button.

 

[D Cox]

The absence of moiree on that boy's shirt is remarkable.

 

[RussellInCincinnati]

D Cox: lack of moire...

It was moire suppression that led me to RT RawTherapee in the first place. Here's the 100% original to assess exactly how much moire made it through the RT moire-suppression routines.

Good lenses+jitter-free images+close textiles = fairly frequent moire problems on Nex.

 

[madmaxmedia]

Here's why I like RAW:

1) Before a JPG is rendered, some noise reduction is applied to the file. The noise reduction looks somewhat like a mild blur. So, when you shoot RAW, you have the choice of how much (if any) noise reduction you want to apply.

I wish the NEX allowed more control over level of NR. Such a great sensor doesn't need heavy-handed (IMO) noise reduction. I mean I only notice when I pixel-peep, generally even ISO 1600 JPEG's looks excellent. But my preference is for less NR to save detail, I can always apply more NR later if I want (but usually don't.)

 

[nelsonal]

The biggest difference I've noticed is that when editing a sharpened image, I tend to blow channels or get other less than desirable results.

What I mean is, most camera's "sharpening" is done by a mathematical increase in pixel contrast at edges (so lights get lighter and darks get darker). Here's a nice example from wikipedia:



When one edits that further those lighter lights or darker darks begin to look unnatural. Imagine trying to preserve those curve edges to change white balance. Also if your editing changes where or how you want that contrast, I don't know of any process to change it.

The other reason it's nice, is the ability get something similar to an LCD's show you the change on screen before you finish the photo effect, except at full size. Or one can capture a decisive moment but still make those changes after the fact. The final advantage is most raw editors explicitly don't modify the original file, so you can keep an archival copy for future editing.

 

[edwardaneal]

http://www.slrlounge.com/raw-vs-jpeg-jpg-the-ultimate-visual-guide

--
My kit - D200, 10.5mm f/2.8D, 35mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.4G & 70-300VR
NEX-5 18-55 OSS

Lenses worth mentioning owned and sold 12-24 f/4, 17-55 f/2.8, 35-70 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4D, 60mm f/2.8D, 85mm f/1.8, 105mm f/2D-DC, 180mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4D-ED