 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / August 2007To RAW or not to RAW
Suprise, suprise, suprise. RAW camera images are not the be all and end all of photographic perfection. Sure they don't (usually) contain artifacts Sure they (supposedly) contain 2 or 3 stops of "extra" information but... When you take the time to tune the custom functions of a camera aimed at capturing excellent quality JPEG images, the RAW images don't appear to warrant the extra trouble of processing them. OK so a camera RAW file is created from sensor data but it is processed by the camera's computer before it gets created... Just like a JPEG camera file is. The mail difference is that a JPEG camera file is compressed to a level the camera makers feel is as small as it can be and still result in "good" quality photographs. A JPEG camera file is processed by the camera's computer too. It also develops artifacts as it gets compressed but as my tests with a Panasonic FZ50 show, Artifacts have little or no effect when the destination is a 8x12 or smaller photographic print. Even the supposed "Blown highlight" problem is no problem at all. SO why do we need 18 Megabyte camera files when we can get just as good a photographic print from a 1.8 megabyte one? http://www.ryadia.com/PFF/August/RAW-JPEG1.htm > Suprise, suprise, suprise. > RAW camera images are not the be all and end all of photographic [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > good a photographic print from a 1.8 > megabyte one?http://www.ryadia.com/PFF/August/RAW-JPEG1.htm Sometimes shooting RAW can be a pain in the neck, but a 7.2 MB RAW file works just fine. http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/RAW2.htm Don't blame the format on the camera's problems and vice versa. Jim I am a great believer in EVF cameras of the Z50 genre. I think most amateur users would be happier with one of them than a dSLR if they only shoot jpegs. But these cameras have significant compromises in their designs, starting with sensor size and extending to the viewing, optical and recording systems. The size and weight of EVF cameras, considering the focal lengths and image stabilization available, are a reasonable trade off for the superior technical capabilities of the much larger and heavier dSLR camera and lens combos. But EVF cameras are what they are. The Z50 is, to me, a disappointment in terms of image quality considering some of the laudatory reviews this thing has received. I don't own one but I have seen many jpegs produced by a friend's camera. If the Z50 can only record uncompressed raw images I begin to understand the writer's confusion. The Ur camera of this genre, the late Sony 828, which I used to own and I think creates images superior in quality to the Z50, was similarly crippled by taking forever to record massive file size uncompressed raw images. This is not the case for dSLRs: the 10mp D80 records raw images in about 8mbs near instantaneously. The 828 had fairly good jpeg algorithms built into the camera, better than what I've seen from the Z50, but raw images were still superior. As to the comments about highlights, well, most people never let the facts get in the way of a good opinion. To each his own. (snip) > The 828 had fairly good jpeg algorithms built into the camera, better than > what I've seen from the Z50, but raw images were still superior. > As to the comments about highlights, well, most people never let the facts > get in the way of a good opinion. > To each his own. Amen Babaloo, Amen. Draco Getting even isn't good enough. Doing better does. > Getting even isn't good enough. > > Doing better does. Hi Draco... Your .sig seems to have a problem..shouldn't it read: > Getting even isn't good enough. > > Doing better IS. ? Sometimes our noses are too close to the problem to see it. mike > > Getting even isn't good enough. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > mike Nope. My sig. is just fine. And as far as a problem, grammatically, there is none. But thanks for trying. Draco Getting even isn't good enough. Doing better, DOES. >>> Getting even isn't good enough. >>> Doing better does. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Doing better, DOES. Not to be a nuisance, but the last words on each line have to be in agreement with each other. "Getting even isn't proper revenge Doing better IS." makes sense. mike >>> Getting even isn't good enough. >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Doing better, DOES. So you're saying, "Doing better does get even, but it isn't good enough."? It might be grammatically correct put that way, but it doesn't make much sense either way. What are you trying to say (in a simple sentence, please)? > Suprise, suprise, suprise. > RAW camera images are not the be all and end all of photographic [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > good a photographic print from a 1.8 > megabyte one?http://www.ryadia.com/PFF/August/RAW-JPEG1.htm My thoughts on RAW v JPEG... http://russellspixelpix.blogspot.com/2007/05/rustys-ramble-2-raw-vs-jpeg.html > SO why do we need 18 Megabyte camera files when we can get just as > good a photographic print from a 1.8 > megabyte one?http://www.ryadia.com/PFF/August/RAW-JPEG1.htm because some of us might actually want to produce a slightly larger image than 640X480? > > SO why do we need 18 Megabyte camera files when we can get just as > > good a photographic print from a 1.8 > > megabyte one?http://www.ryadia.com/PFF/August/RAW-JPEG1.htm > > because some of us might actually want to produce > a slightly larger image than 640X480? I have to agree with Noons. Some of us want to print larger images. RAW files also allow you to change what didn't work at first. ASA/ISO, color balance, color or b&w and a lot more. Then go back to the same image and all the info is still there with no loss of information. One analogy I like is a RAW file is like a pizza shop. You have the dough, the sauce, all the differant toppings and being able to cook the pizza for as little or as long as you wish. A JPEG is like taking the pizza dough and shaping it, adding how much sauce to it;topping with as much or as little cheese;adding what ever toppings and baking it at what ever temp. Out comes the final product. But, you still have the pizza shop to make differant selections from the original material with RAW. With JPEG you take away something to make it differant you have lost that thing. No going back and re-doing with a JPEG file. Can't be done. Once the file is saved as all the other "stuff" is thrown away. Never to be found again. So RAW files can be a great help and they can be a pain in the backside. Just like any other photographic process can be. Draco Getting even isn't good enough. Doing better does. >> SO why do we need 18 Megabyte camera files when we can get just as >> good a photographic print from a 1.8 >> megabyte one?http://www.ryadia.com/PFF/August/RAW-JPEG1.htm > > because some of us might actually want to produce > a slightly larger image than 640X480? Well now I find myself on both sides of the fence on this one. On the one side I believe that starting out with a raw file is always a good idea. On the other side when you are making a jpeg from the raw file 1.8 MB is way more then what is needed for a 640x480 image. This image is just under 1.8MB and will make a 8 x 12 inch print at 300 ppi. http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/83462055/original Raw is much more then not losing detail, it is also about the ability to do things like choose the color space you want to work in after you have taken the photo. Things like WB adjustment are also much easier with a raw file. And then there is the extra dynamic range that you get with raw, always nice. But detail is not a large issue between raw and jpeg. Scott > Raw is much more then not losing detail, it is also about the ability to > do things like choose the color space you want to work in after you have > taken the photo. Things like WB adjustment are also much easier with a > raw file. Amen, brother. Anyone who has accidentally shot a pic with the wrong WB setting can tell you that. For example: http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/68115976 > > Raw is much more then not losing detail, it is also about the ability to > > do things like choose the color space you want to work in after you have [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/68115976 Can everyone say, "Whoopsie"? Draco ;-} >> Raw is much more then not losing detail, it is also about the ability to >> do things like choose the color space you want to work in after you have [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/68115976 Do that all the time ... RAW saves the day. OTOH, if you want some real chilling winter scenes, set your WB to about 2800 - 3000K (Tungsten will do). (You can post-work it in RAW of course).  Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > >> SO why do we need 18 Megabyte camera files when we can get just as > >> good a photographic print from a 1.8 [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Scott All this might have been really important *once* and some of it still applicable but things like "choosing color space" and WB adjustment are of little importance now that Adobe Bridge allow opening JPEGs in ACR 4.1. You can work with JPEGs in Photoshop in very much the way you would work with RAW images and in case you were unaware... You can convert a JPEG to Adobe's universal RAW (The DNG) format and then edit it with such programs as "Raw Shooter" or "Lightroom" as a RAW image and have all the recovery tools (aliebit without some of the headroom on exposure) as you get with a RAW file. There is nothing presently that allows you to repair artifacts but I suspect this is coming in the next generation of cameras, now that large storage cards are freely available ther is little reason to engage in such heavy file compression. Doug > All this might have been really important *once* and some of it still > applicable but things like "choosing color space" and WB adjustment [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > are freely available ther is little reason to engage in such heavy > file compression. Yeah, I know what you talking about. But that has been available via plug-ins for quite a while, nothing new there. There are quite a few that will convert an 8-bit colour image to 16-bit, then apply an extrapolation from the original values to try and fill in the "gaps". It works. Most of the time. Mainly because few folks are really looking at large images: they mostly just plonk a result at 640X480 in some website somewhere and are perfectly happy with that. At that size, even strong posterization is hard to see unless one is running an adjusted monitor to show that image size as large. Let's face it: with a monitor set to 1280X1028, 640x480 image size is so small you'll hardly see any detail in it. You need a monitor capable of displaying accurately at 300dpi to have a detail image at that size - it's also called a printer. Most crts and lcd monitors hardly reach 96dpi. So yes: at small image sizes, all that is possible. At large image sizes needed for detail prints, you better start with something containing all the info. Or else you'll forever be in "recover" mode. It's a lot easier to take away extra information than to add it afterwards, out of nothing. I know which one I'd prefer. > > All this might have been really important *once* and some of it still > > applicable but things like "choosing color space" and WB adjustment [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > It's a lot easier to take away extra information than to add it > afterwards, out of nothing. I know which one I'd prefer. Opinions are everywhere. What works best for you, may not work best for someone else. The important thing to keep in mind is that posters here have been doing a bash up on JPEG capture just because it's a JPEG file that gets recorded and that is quite unfair on a general front. Granted, some brands of cameras deserve the bashing but not all of them. Given that I have many, many examples from Olympus E300 cameras, set to capture as JPEG only, I am prepared to say (with evidence to back up the statement) that not all camera maker's set their products to make the best of JPEG. Canon are one such firm. For most of last year my second shooter used an Olympus E300, in JPEG mode. Had I given him a Canon camera set to JPEG capture, I would indeed have spent a lot of time in disaster recovery mode. Not so with the Olympus compression of JPEGs. I've taken the unusual step (for me) of posting an actual camera image from an E300. I used Photoshop to overlay the copyright notice but it is a camera file, complete with EXIF data. Spot metering (something 20Ds don't have) allowed this shot to be well exposed. http://www.ryadia.com/POD/August/8-08-07.htm If we only get a camera made with the best features from all those on offer, we'd actually have no excuses for "off" shots. Doug >If we only get a camera > made with the best features from all those on offer, we'd actually > have no excuses for "off" shots. Amen! > All this might have been really important *once* and some of it still > applicable but things like "choosing color space" and WB adjustment > are of little importance now that Adobe Bridge allow opening JPEGs in > ACR 4.1. Using ACR is a nice "quick-and-dirty" way to make adjustments on a JPG file (or group of files), but you will not get equivalent results to using a RAW file. You can experiment for yourself using this test image where I shot in the wrong WB mode and was able to correct the RAW file. http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/68115976 The whole crux of the matter is that when a JPG file is created in camera much of the original data is lost forever. The RAW file, on the other hand, retains all of the original data. The resulting JPG file may be perfectly usable to you as is, but if you plan on doing further editing to the file it makes no sense to shoot in JPG mode. Why wouldn't you want to have ALL the original data to work with to create the best possible result? > > All this might have been really important *once* and some of it still > > applicable but things like "choosing color space" and WB adjustment [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Why wouldn't you want to have ALL the original data to work with to > create the best possible result? Exactly! Once an image is a JPEG, converting it back to a RAW file is NOT the same thing as an original RAW. Those who seek the ultimate quality possible should always "start" with the RAW. > >> SO why do we need 18 Megabyte camera files when we can get just as > >> good a photographic print from a 1.8 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > good idea. On the other side when you are making a jpeg from the raw > file 1.8 MB is way more then what is needed for a 640x480 image. Precisely. In particular, the example given by ryadia doesn't need raw because it is a simple 640x480 image: any file format will do if one wants to produce images at that size. Then again, no one will even dream of printing that image to anything larger than a postage stamp. > This image is just under 1.8MB and will make a 8 x 12 inch print at 300 ppi.http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/83462055/original yeah, but that doesn't really prove anything about raw vs jpg: it's a stitch of many images, maybe raw in origin but now a jpg. It would be rather difficult to produce the same image with a single raw file or jpg, no matter what. Still: note that it is a much larger image than ryadia's example, showing enormous detail by comparison. There is no getting away from it: if one wants big prints with lots of detail, one needs a big, detailed image to start with. If it is stored in raw or jpg, that is immaterial to the details. But very relevant for example if one wants to recover some shadow detail: 8 bit colour is just not enough for that. > Raw is much more then not losing detail, it is also about the ability to > do things like choose the color space you want to work in after you have > taken the photo. Things like WB adjustment are also much easier with a > raw file. And then there is the extra dynamic range that you get with > raw, always nice. But detail is not a large issue between raw and jpeg. Exactly. And I think in the case of stitching, it becomes very important to be able to manipulate the colour balances for example so that the result stitch doesn't look like a quilt. BTW: is PTGui smart enough to compensate for that as well? > Suprise, suprise, suprise. > RAW camera images are not the be all and end all of photographic [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > good a photographic print from a 1.8 > megabyte one? http://www.ryadia.com/PFF/August/RAW-JPEG1.htm Both raw and jpg have their place. JPG is quick, easy, and probably 99 times out of 100 is good enough. JPG does struggle in _some_ situations - eg high dynamic range, images with ultra fine detail and scenes with difficult white balance. For these situations having RAW is very handy. This is one thing I like about the GX10/K10D - I can set it to JPG and tweak the contrast, saturation and sharpness to my taste, but by pressing 1 button I have both JPG and RAW until I press that button again. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.