Why Even Bother to RAW Process At All !!!

Gary R. wrote:

What your two sample photos are really saying, is "I know how to adjust images in my RAW processor, but I don't know how to do it to JPG files."
You might find that if you were to actually read what it is that I say in my posts, you would not come off like someone who is either uninterested (and/or for some reason incapable) of listening - preferring (perhaps) only to listen to yourself talk?
One thing's for sure; it's nearly impossible to convince a dyed-in-the-wool RAW user that he's not getting extra dynamic range, recovering blown highlights, and getting a lot more shadow detail than he would have if he used jpg.
Sounds like you might benefit from gaining some actual familiarity and understanding relating to the technical aspects of what you (or, at least other people) do with cameras and image-processing.
Certainly, in extreme exposure situations ...
You mean like ones that require cameras that your little commercial product does not work on?
Even a graph showing the data and how densely it populates the histogram means little if you can't see the difference when it's on a monitor or printed.
Note: This may say more about your own monitor/printer and your own eyesight than it says about the rest of the world. Caution is wisely recommended when trying to over-generalize ...
I'm not anti-RAW by any means, I think it's a good tool to use when appropriate, or all the time if you want, but I think in many cases the most zealous advocates may be more influenced by the good feeling they get, rather than actual results that can actually be seen in the final image.
We all like to feel good. Hence, we try to imagine that toy cameras warrant expensive accessories.
 
I take two photos. One with a tripod, the other without. They look identical! Why on earth would I use a tripod.

(Cheerfully contradicting my other post.)
 
I take two photos. One with a tripod, the other without. They look identical! Why on earth would I use a tripod.
And more....

Why use IBIS when it causes image shake?

Right now testing various lenses on my E-PL1 and all except the Mk1 14-42mm kit lens yield better results with IS turned off when at or above the minimum recommended hand-held shutter speed of 1/(focal length x 2).

So for E-PL1 at least, leave IS off for all shooting except when below that minimum speed, when it does help.

Except for the Mk1 kit lens that has shake problems in 35mm to 42mm range when shutter speeds seem to be in the 1/100 to 1/200 range with IS on or off and anti-shock on or off.

Got some "serious" shooting coming up in two weeks time and it seems my new kit will be the old 4/3 lenses, 14-54mm Mk1, 11-22mm, and the very old 40-150mm with the large aperture. Weight no bother in this case, but results happen to matter so going with the old favourites (and leaving that damned IS turned off).

Regards........... Guy

[edit... brain spasm, I forgot that I was in Pany forum instead of my usual M4/3 playground, apologies to all]
 
I take two photos. One with a tripod, the other without. They look identical! Why on earth would I use a tripod.
And more....

Why use IBIS when it causes image shake?

Right now testing various lenses on my E-PL1 and all except the Mk1 14-42mm kit lens yield better results with IS turned off when at or above the minimum recommended hand-held shutter speed of 1/(focal length x 2).

So for E-PL1 at least, leave IS off for all shooting except when below that minimum speed, when it does help.

Except for the Mk1 kit lens that has shake problems in 35mm to 42mm range when shutter speeds seem to be in the 1/100 to 1/200 range with IS on or off and anti-shock on or off.

Got some "serious" shooting coming up in two weeks time and it seems my new kit will be the old 4/3 lenses, 14-54mm Mk1, 11-22mm, and the very old 40-150mm with the large aperture. Weight no bother in this case, but results happen to matter so going with the old favourites (and leaving that damned IS turned off).

Regards........... Guy

[edit... brain spasm, I forgot that I was in Pany forum instead of my usual M4/3 playground, apologies to all]
Guy, I found the same to be true on my E510, even at long focal lengths. I believe perhaps you have a steady hand as do I. It is similar to leaving IBIS on when camera is on a tripod. I also noticed that my L1 which doesn't have IBIS does extremely well with lenses like the Olympus 40-150mm (both versions). I actually use the smaller one more because it is tiny and has better Bokeh. The Mk1 is sharper though by a hair.

--
Oll an gwella,
Jim
 
I take two photos. One with a tripod, the other without. They look identical! Why on earth would I use a tripod.

(Cheerfully contradicting my other post.)
LOL, makes a dandy club for would be muggers or dogs.
--
Oll an gwella,
Jim
 
You might find that if you were to actually read what it is that I say in my posts, you would not come off like someone who is either uninterested (and/or for some reason incapable) of listening - preferring (perhaps) only to listen to yourself talk?
--------------
Sounds like you might benefit from gaining some actual familiarity and understanding relating to the technical aspects of what you (or, at least other people) do with cameras and image-processing.
I normally just ignore threads about using raw, but your title made me wonder if you'd changed your tune, since I know you're a raw aficionado.

What caused me to reply was the condescending attitude in your first post (I didn't read the whole thread...no need to, the issue has been endlessly discussed, and nothing is new). Your response here also shows the same attitude; you know nothing about my experience or background, technically, or photography-related, yet you give me "advice" of what you have decided would benefit me. It's an effective technique, talking down to others to make yourself look more credible, but that's all it is.

I don't re-post others' photos without specific permission (besides, I have my own photos to catch up on, never mind tinkering with others), but I did run both of your example tree-trunk pix into PS, and a quick and simple curves adjustment gave a near-match to your raw example; the color was warmer, which I liked, but a bit of desaturation made the match even closer, and had I wanted to go further, a slight color balance shift would have finished it. With the contrast increased, sharpness was the same on both. As I said, most photos posted as examples of why to use raw are simply adjusted differently, and could as easily have been jpg-only.
You mean like ones that require cameras that your little commercial product does not work on?
I'm not sure I understand what little commercial product you refer to. The camera? Photoshop? I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.
Even a graph showing the data and how densely it populates the histogram means little if you can't see the difference when it's on a monitor or printed.
Note: This may say more about your own monitor/printer and your own eyesight than it says about the rest of the world. Caution is wisely recommended when trying to over-generalize ...
Again, the condescension, with no idea of what monitor or printer I use, or how well I see. Back in the "old days" of digital, we used to have fun swapping 8x10's from our 1-2 megapixel cameras, challenging ourselves and others to identify which were taken using "standard" quality jpg and highest quality jpg and tiff (no raw available then). Bottom line was notbody could tell, even the ones who insisted that they could. Double-blind tests work wonders to dispel myths, and for the most part, the posts one sees of why it's imperative to use raw to get good quality photos are myths, because the photos posted to prove it prove nothing.

Again, raw is a nice option to have, for whatever reason one might choose it (or not choose it). But whether it will really make a difference in the end quality of one's photos, whether they're published, how much they sell for, how they look in the family album, or (as you can easily see in this forum) how much others enjoy looking at those photos, is not dependent on whether or not you use raw. IF you choose to use it, great, but don't be condescending to those who have made other choices, or think that somehow they're "unenlightened" and need to be 'talked down to'.

--
Gary
 
I used to carry a tripod to make my shoulder(s) stronger. As an added bonus, you get those "Oh, a professional!" stares or whispered comments.

Once I put my LX3 on the tripod, walked away a few meters for something, turned around and thought someone had stolen the camera behind my back. Looked carefully and it was still there ... small as a fly on a camel. ;)
 
ulfie wrote:

I used to carry a tripod to make my shoulder(s) stronger. As an added bonus, you get those "Oh, a professional!" stares or whispered comments.
Yes, I have found myself at times being something of a "looky-lu". The expenditure of capital resources on sexy and black expensive-looking apparatus (especially if it appears to be constructed of exotic "carbon fibers") truly does (in some) elicit a sense of awe (and a silly, yet nevertheless present, illusion of a certain "virtue" attached to the mere acquisition of shiny material objects).

Some imagine that such mere trifles somehow confer substance and assumed expertise upon the holder of such mere objects. As mere slaves of the consumer-state, an instinctual drive (at least, in industrialized societies where "disposable income" is even a concept) exists to treat such persons with a certain deference and awe reserved for any such "higher priests" in the cathedral of wealth.

I have found that I (as well as others) have sometimes felt a sense of compulsion to stop and stare, and to perhaps engage such a so equipped "brujo" in some dum conversation about what it is that they are doing with their virtual phallic extensions. Early on in my brief career as a photo-hack, I sometimes felt and did the same (perhaps sometimes to the slight irritation on the part of the oft-busy and otherwise already engaged photographer). Likely a bit irritating at times ...

It was only when I personally experienced people sometimes stopping, staring, and asking the absurdly unenlightened question, "what are you doing" of me that I fully realized what a thoroughly stupid question that is. "I'm taking pictures, ... what do you think that I am doing", I have on occasion responded somewhat curtly, or simply with some friendly amusement in my mind.

Nowadays, when I see someone with tripod and some "money-pit" mounted thereupon, I usually have a look at their seemingly intended subject-matter, how (usually) supremely uninteresting the natural lighting is on the subject-matter at the time, and imagine how uninteresting the result would likely be to my eyes, and quietly chuckle (only to myself, and in my own mind), "Geez, what a moron". There's nothing like a bit of experience at failure to "wisen" one to the failings of others.

Upon first purchasing a mono-pod (that is fairly thick in construction as mono-pods go, which thankfully imparts some mechanical strength to the mechanism), I could not help but notice the primal emotions that seem to accompany (both carrying, as well as being observed as carrying) such a "blunt instrument". I found myself imaging how I might perhaps use it as a weapon to defend would-be-thieves of my gear -"take that, you ingrates, ya wanna piece of this?" ... as a bit childish primal visions of battle's to the death over one's precious material objects dance in my head

To my amazement and some wonder, I found that passing pedestrians (and even people in the relative safety of their passing automobiles) sometimes respond themselves in a primal way to a person carrying such a "blunt instrument". One day, the passing cars at an intersection (where all pedestrians waiting to cross the busy street are largely completely ignored by the hurried traffic), miraculously stopped for me to cross - as if (deep in their primal minds) perhaps imagined that I might take up my "axe" and bludgeon them in their automobiles if they did not treat me with a certain newly-imbued deference. Wow! (Perhaps) we are not nearly the "advanced and civilized creatures" that we often so imagine ourselves to be ... The archetypal "club" is an ancient symbol.
Once I put my LX3 on the tripod, walked away a few meters for something, turned around and thought someone had stolen the camera behind my back. Looked carefully and it was still there ... small as a fly on a camel. ;)
Though I usually wander quite alone in the relative solitude of the muddy riverine bogs surrounding my favorite creek, searching for beautiful perspectives of the ancient and floral creatures therein, when my relatively tiny LZ5 (and my LX3) was/is mounted on my mono-pod, I (still) sometimes experience a primal sense of self-consciousness - as if it might seem somehow seem odd or silly to other persons who I might encounter why such a "big stick", yet such a tiny little object so "extended" on my "rod" ... (Of course), when my more bulky FZ50 is so mounted on the same, no such self-conscious sense of any perceived "inadequacy" even crosses my silly yet primal mind ... :P

(Perhaps, and particularly in the case of the males of our species), the metaphors of "bigger, heavier, thicker, meatier" may register more in our collective unconscious than we might concede. A modern equivalent (for some of the more fortunate on this spinning rock) includes " wallet-size "
 
This photo is a case where one might not expect to see much difference. Try a landscape with distant, low contrast detail, and the advantage of raw is obvious in terms of retained detail. The LX5 (3) NR wipe out such detail as distant mountains and forest. May not notice if only doing web or small prints, especially if you are not picky.

The other place I like raw is for white balance. It is very hard to color balance jpegs over the full highlight to shadow range, but trivial with raw.
 
... In the case of a camera that is capable of recording in RAW [where post-processing time is identical , and (in this case) ignoring any recording time delays or available memory-card capacity] ...
Well ? ... :P
 
breivogel wrote:

This photo is a case where one might not expect to see much difference. Try a landscape with distant, low contrast detail, and the advantage of raw is obvious in terms of retained detail. The LX5 (3) NR wipe out such detail as distant mountains and forest. May not notice if only doing web or small prints, especially if you are not picky.

The other place I like raw is for white balance. It is very hard to color balance jpegs over the full highlight to shadow range, but trivial with raw.
Hear, hear ! Good points. Not issues that can be easily and conveniently rhetorically "side-stepped".
 
... In the case of a camera that is capable of recording in RAW [where post-processing time is identical , and (in this case) ignoring any recording time delays or available memory-card capacity] ...
Well ? ... :P
I'll bite.

It is definitely not practical to totally ignore the write times or the extra storage required.

I'd like to use RAW 100% of the time but jpegs all happen a bit faster and take less storage either short or long term, and in the case of the LX3 and E-PL1 the jpegs are good enough.

So it's RAW for....

more time taken to write
more space needed on memory cards
more time taken to transfer
more space needed to store and backup
and slightly more quality in some situations.

Jpeg for simplicity and saving the earth's resources.

Regards...... Guy
 
In addition, on my FZ30, I also lose burst mode and extended zoom (EZ) in RAW :-( It all adds up to a major disadvantage.
... In the case of a camera that is capable of recording in RAW [where post-processing time is identical , and (in this case) ignoring any recording time delays or available memory-card capacity] ...
Well ? ... :P
I'll bite.

It is definitely not practical to totally ignore the write times or the extra storage required.

I'd like to use RAW 100% of the time but jpegs all happen a bit faster and take less storage either short or long term, and in the case of the LX3 and E-PL1 the jpegs are good enough.

So it's RAW for....

more time taken to write
more space needed on memory cards
more time taken to transfer
more space needed to store and backup
and slightly more quality in some situations.

Jpeg for simplicity and saving the earth's resources.

Regards...... Guy
--
Richard

 
Detail Man wrote:

... In the case of a camera that is capable of recording in RAW [where post-processing time is identical , and (in this case) ignoring any recording time delays or available memory-card capacity] ...
Well ? ... :P
I'll bite.

It is definitely not practical to totally ignore the write times or the extra storage required.
I'd like to use RAW 100% of the time but jpegs all happen a bit faster and take less storage either short or long term,
Write-able logical memory drives are dirt-cheap per Gbyte - please refrain from confusing the issue.

Other than that, all of the above (in your quest for "simplicity") has completely ignored the conditions set forth in my question - and merely invented your own completely different question (which I suspect that you will here as a result, manage to amazingly answer with relative ease) ...
and in the case of the LX3 and E-PL1 the jpegs are good enough.
Your foregoing snippet represents the only answer that does not completely ignore my question and its corresponding qualifying conditions set forth. Fair enough, they look "good enough" to your own eyes - on the surface of your CRT and (TN-flat-screen?) monitors, as well as on the printed media that (so far) you have not been willing to (despite my inquiries) state what is the actual, measurable spatial resolution (in line-pairs per unit distance), or what are the light/dark contrast ratios (for Luminance and Color). Why am I not so far convinced by your (here unqualified) words?
So it's RAW for....

more time taken to write
more space needed on memory cards
more time taken to transfer
more space needed to store and backup
Again, not a single one of your points quoted directly above answers my stated question - it only invents your own different question. It might have involved just a tad more typing on your part - but it would have been a lot less confusing to the readers had you actually authored your own separate post (and set forth your own conditions at your pleasure). Instead, we end up with this :
and slightly more quality in some situations.
Wait ... what have we here? And what precisely are those situations? It seems reasonable for you to actually define those situations with a descriptor that is a tad more specific than "some", eh?

In order for you to be able to decide whether either RAW or JPG would be appropriate, you need to be able to understand those rules in order to be able to speak with any legitimate authority ...
Jpeg for simplicity and saving the earth's resources.
Cute, but (as you might yourself say), complete "non-science" ... :P
 
radamczak wrote:

In addition, on my FZ30, I also lose burst mode and extended zoom (EZ) in RAW :-( ...
... It all adds up to a major disadvantage.
For your FZ30. Why not use your FZ50 (which has ergonomic as well as possible optical lens-system improvements, as well), and record in RAW with your FZ50?

Yes, it is a shame that the FZ30 and the FZ50 do not offer a Burst Mode in RAW - but plenty of other more modern cameras do (so your point relates to the limitations of the those particular FZ-Series models, only).

I thought that you were excited about the new line of FZ-Series cameras (which do offer RAW burst-modes) ...

It seems now quite clear that "EZ Zoom" modes impart no image-quality advantages whatsoever over cropping from full-size in post-processing (and, in fact, appears to actually degrade potentially realizable image-quality).

As far as the advantages that you report that the use of "EZ Zoom" gives you where it comes to focusing and metering performance - note that "EZ Zoom" is not exclusive to the FZ30 and FZ50.

I thought that you were excited about the new line of FZ-Series cameras (which do offer "EZ Zoom" functionality) ...
 
Gary R. wrote:

What your two sample photos are really saying, is "I know how to adjust images in my RAW processor, but I don't know how to do it to JPG files."
... for normal images under a wide range of conditions, most of the "proof" given consists of the image comparisons as above, or what somebody said, or wrote somewhere.
Rather than clearly imply that I am an absolute moron who has not a clue regarding how to go about (and no experience with) JPG post-processing (try 90% of my post-processing of several thousand images over the last 5 years time), why not (rather than just "writing it somewhere") convincingly demonstrate your own professed JPG processing expertise - by directly proving your contention via the posting of your post-processing of the LX3 OOC JPG displayed below (at the same 1600 pixel height by 1200 pixel width as my posted RAW processed example) ??? You write:
I process every file that I use, because that's how you get the results you want. No matter if it's RAW or jpg; in some cases there's a difficult exposure that might allow one to get some data that was discarded when the camera processed the file to jpg, but most of the time when two images like that are shown, it's just different processing, and meaningless as far as what advantage RAW does or doesn't have.
Sound like a "piece of cake" there, Gary. You have my express written permission to "have at it" ...

As everyone has a unique/different set of eyes, you will likely find some who may agree with you !!

Please (also), when you post your resulting (1600 pixel height by 1200 pixel-width) post-processed JPG image-file, specifically identify the name and version number of the particular image-processor or image-editor (and any plug-ins used, as well) that you may employ in the creation of your image.





http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4464732135/photos/987618/p1070655_dmc-lx3-ooc
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4464732135/photos/987619/p1070655_dmc-lx3-rw2_dxo
 
I agree, Detail Man. Also, as far as the advantages of EZ-zoom goes for focusing and exposure, if your subject being photographed is not moving around rapidly, you can set to use EZ-zoom for the highest magnification and etc., use the button for locking focus and exposure to take a photo, check on screen to be sure the image is at best focus and exposure, and then change to RAW mode and snap away with the locked focus/exposure getting the best of both worlds. More complicated? Yes. But frequently better than letting the camera focus again and again between exposures where its accuracy of focusing can vary significantly. And with all the advantages of raw image quality that you have shown. The difference in your two pictures with Raw is certainly visible to me, particularly in very light regions in the jpg.
 
I'm a great fan of jpeg.

With todays superior in-camera processing engines, jpeg is the equal of raw --unless the lighting is complex, the dynamic range is great, the intended output is poster-sized.

However, in most situations shooting raw (with fz100) carries little penalty in speed, memory, or post processing. So I use raw whenever I'm shooting "artistic" photos, and benefit in knowing that I've captured the best photos I can.
--
Gerry

Take a look at my photography at:
gerryp123.zenfolio.com
 
I agree on all points, and particularly on the FZ100. I have stopped shooting jpg's on the FZ100, and only shoot RAW. If I need more zoom, I add a Tcon (Olympus or Nikon) and keep the full resolution of the camera. I also like some of the advantages of jpg's, but on this camera the noise reduction can be too problematic, giving the artifacts that have caused too many to give up and return the camera.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top