 |
 | 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 / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / February 2007Double Exposure
A while back I asked if any digital cameras did double exposure. I found out the Nikon D200 does. Now I find that the Nikon D40 (and possibly other cameras) has the capability to overlay two images, which to my way of thinking is exactly the same thing. The only problem is they have to be RAW, which is okay if you normally shoot RAW but not if you shoot jpeg. Nevertheless, there is no reason, on the rare occasion when this is necessary, not to switch to RAW and then to switch back. You can download the RAW image and convert it to jpeg for future use.  SignatureRobert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883 bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac] rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office] On Feb 21, 6:36 pm, Robert Peirce <b...@peirce-family.com.invalid> wrote: > A while back I asked if any digital cameras did double exposure. I > found out the Nikon D200 does. Now I find that the Nikon D40 (and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > on the rare occasion when this is necessary, not to switch to RAW and > then to switch back. You can download the RAW image and convert it to Does it make much sense to choose a camera based only on this feature? If you normally use jpegs but will have to switch to raw to take advantage to use this feature, you are adding an extra step (conversion). But if you do allow an extra step, you might as well take the two exposures as jpegs as you (presumably) normally would and then add them together in an image editor (for example, the gimp, which is free, so you don't need to buuy anything extra). This may free you up to make a decision based on other criteria. > On Feb 21, 6:36 pm, Robert Peirce <b...@peirce-family.com.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > This may free you up to make a decision based on other criteria. In 25 years I can count the times I needed a double exposure on one hand. I just like that it is there if I need it again. Since I don't use any software apps that do this, it is in camera or not at all. However, it was never a consideration in whether I chose a camera or not. I can always drag out my A-1 or my 4x5 if I have to. SignatureRobert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883 bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac] rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office] > A while back I asked if any digital cameras did double exposure. I > found out the Nikon D200 does. Now I find that the Nikon D40 (and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > then to switch back. You can download the RAW image and convert it to > jpeg for future use. But you can overlay any two or more images from any camera or from more than one cameras, taken in raw or jpeg, during post-processing by using layers. Signaturegautam > > A while back I asked if any digital cameras did double exposure. I > > found out the Nikon D200 does. Now I find that the Nikon D40 (and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > than one cameras, taken in raw or jpeg, during post-processing by using > layers. True in Photoshop but not in LightZone. That's why I was interested in the first place, although it is something I only rarely need. SignatureRobert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883 bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac] rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office] > A while back I asked if any digital cameras did double exposure. I > found out the Nikon D200 does. Now I find that the Nikon D40 (and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > then to switch back. You can download the RAW image and convert it to > jpeg for future use. The D200 (at least) has two methods for combining multiple exposures. The first is Image Overlay. This combines two RAW files and leaves the originals intact as seperate files. You can adjust the gain for the two pictures from .1 to 2.0 and see the effects in the preview image. The other method is Multiple Exposure which allows you to combine up to 10 exposures as a single photograph. They need not be RAW, but the original images are not saved. The way it works is you select Multiple Exposure in the shooting menu and then choose the number of shots that you are about to take. They are then combined in-camera. You can turn Gain on or off. With it on, the gain is adjusted for each picture, 1/3 for three exposures, 1/2 for two exposures, etc. You cannot change it. EXIF information will be for the first exposure and you can use the interval timer. You cannot use bracketing in Multiple Exposure mode. SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor >A while back I asked if any digital cameras did double exposure. I > found out the Nikon D200 does. Now I find that the Nikon D40 (and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > then to switch back. You can download the RAW image and convert it to > jpeg for future use. Unless your shots are throw-aways, you should always be shooting RAW. There's a head-and-shoulders difference in quality, in my opinion. -- www.mattclara.com > Unless your shots are throw-aways, you should always be shooting RAW. > There's a head-and-shoulders difference in quality, in my opinion. Interesting you should bring this up. I just got a new camera that does RAW along with Fine, Normal and Basic jpg, the difference being compression levels. As a preliminary test, I took four shots of a completely flat, blank wall, to see what artifacts would be created by printing, and I took four shots of a picture frame running diagonally across the picture to see what jaggies I might find. There are other tests to do, but these are a start. The pictures are 3000x2000 pixels. At 300 dots/in. they would make a "natural" picture of 10"x6-2/3". I decided the largest print I might ever want to make with this camera would be 30"x20". Actually, 18"x12" is probably more realistic, but I wanted a difficult test. I took a 1000x667 pixel crop of each of the eight images and printed them on 6x4 paper. Aside from some minor color differences, which can be corrected during editing, I really could not see any difference among them without using a loupe! I was frankly amazed. The picture frame, viewed through a loupe, showed some softening on Basic vs. RAW, but it wasn't apparent to the eye. I have read this might be the case, but I didn't believe it. If you have never tried this, you should. It may depend on the camera and lens you use. I don't know about that. However, I do know you can prove to yourself whether it matters with your equipment. There are some other tests I want to do, but so far I have concluded RAW isn't necessary and Fine probably isn't either. I don't know if I'm ready to go Basic, but Normal looks like it would work just fine, pun intended. SignatureRobert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883 bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac] rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office] > There are some other tests I want to do, but so far I have concluded RAW > isn't necessary and Fine probably isn't either. I don't know if I'm > ready to go Basic, but Normal looks like it would work just fine, pun > intended. Raw contains more control over the final image-period. If you shoot in Raw you can always convert back to a jpeg if that your thing. Where you see the benefits of shooting raw is when you have to control highlights or do some sort of editing of the image before printing. Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com > Raw contains more control over the final image-period. If you shoot in > Raw you can always convert back to a jpeg if that your thing. Where you > see the benefits of shooting raw is when you have to control highlights > or do some sort of editing of the image before printing. I guess I am missing something. Pixels are pixels. Why would RAW offer more controls than jpg or tif? I edit the latter all the time. The software I use, LightZone, gives me complete control regardless of what the file structure is. In fact, when you load a RAW file, it uses some of its standard controls to pre-process it. For me, the only critical criteria is what does the print look like? If it matches my "vision" then I am happy. RAW, 12 or 16-bit and so on sound terrific, but so far I am not seeing the benefit of any of these things in my prints. SignatureRobert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883 bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac] rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office] On 24 Feb, 15:45, Robert Peirce <b...@peirce-family.com.invalid> wrote: > I guess I am missing something. Pixels are pixels. Why would RAW > offer more controls than jpg or tif? I edit the latter all the time. There are two clear advantages that I use a lot, and an additional convenience: 1) You can nail your exposure more exactly without loss of channels. For instance, there is no way that one can expose a snowscape with the brigthest snow spot at the white point just using the camera's exposure control - it's really not fine-tuned enough, even if you know exactly what you are doing. With RAW, I can - _without_ losing the channels I would have had to chuck if I had used the "levels" command in PS or some equivalent on a jpeg. 2) You can increase the dynamic range of substantially an image by taking two different exposures of the same RAW image, and the blending them with layer masks. 3) As long as you don't delete the RAW file, the original is always there. If your tastes change, you can always go back and make a new version. Getting back to snowscapes, I have recently started fancying my snow a little bit warmer and creamier, and a little less ice-cold bluish. As they are shot in RAW, I can get back to my old snowscapes and touch them up according to my present taste. Jan Böhme > On 24 Feb, 15:45, Robert Peirce <b...@peirce-family.com.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > channels I would have had to chuck if I had used the "levels" command > in PS or some equivalent on a jpeg. If you want to, and I usually don't with a digital camera, you can use spot metering and the zone system. Personally, I would feel a lot more comfortable doing that than hoping I could fix it in post-processing. However, that is the way I was brought up. Others are totally comfortable using editors. > 2) You can increase the dynamic range of substantially an image by > taking two different exposures of the same RAW image, and the blending > them with layer masks. I can't comment on that since I don't use Photoshop, but I don't know why you couldn't do that with a jpg or tif. Maybe I am just showing my ignorance. > 3) As long as you don't delete the RAW file, the original is always > there. If your tastes change, you can always go back and make a new > version. Getting back to snowscapes, I have recently started fancying > my snow a little bit warmer and creamier, and a little less ice-cold > bluish. As they are shot in RAW, I can get back to my old snowscapes > and touch them up according to my present taste. Again, I don't know Photoshop, but LightZone does this for any image. SignatureRobert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883 bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac] rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office] On 25 Feb, 03:36, Robert Peirce <b...@peirce-family.com.invalid> wrote: > In article <1172351063.281642.175...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > If you want to, and I usually don't with a digital camera, you can use > spot metering and the zone system. I use spot metering for snowscapes if I haven't got the time to chimp, rest assured. But my 30D only allows me to regulate the exposure in thirds of EC steps. This is nowhere suppficient to get the exposure perfection that I want from snowscapes - essentially being that the brightest channel (usually the red one) in the brightest spot should have the value of 255, whereas it should have a lower value in the second brightest spot. OTOH, my RAW converter allows fine-tuning the exposure by 0.05 of an EC step, which is enough for this type of precision. > Personally, I would feel a lot more > comfortable doing that than hoping I could fix it in post-processing. The thing is, you can't do this at all without some kind of PP. And without RAW, your only option is to chuck out the top channels you didn't use, and consequently get an image with less gradation. > > 2) You can increase the dynamic range of substantially an image by > > taking two different exposures of the same RAW image, and the blending [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > why you couldn't do that with a jpg or tif. Maybe I am just showing my > ignorance. A jpeg just uses 8-bit tonal depth. The sensor records 12-bit depth to the RAW file. (And you'll get 14 bits in the newly announced 1D Mark III.) If you try to lift shadows from a jpeg, you'll get posterization, because there are so few tonal values in the deep shades of a jpeg. If you do two exposures from a RAW, you can make use of the full 12 bits, and get considerably more gradation in your shades. Believe me, there is a world of difference between the two. This is also the reason why RAW is way better for salvaging half-baked exposures. At least with the noise characteristics of my 30D, it doesn't matter much if I'm a full stop too low in an exposure - as long as I'm shooting in ISO 100 or 200, and I don't want to get two different exposures of of it. Thanks a) to the RAW file saving the the sensor values in 12-bit depth and b) there being very little noise anywhere in the recorded image from a 30D at those ISO values, I just have to adjust the exposure in the RAW converter, and there will be no difference to a perfecty exposed jpeg. Jan Böhme > A jpeg just uses 8-bit tonal depth. No, Jpeg has 8-bit per channel digital range, this is not at all same same as 8-bit tonal depth. > The sensor records 12-bit depth to the RAW file. No, sensors are analog, they have a dynamic range and an useful dynamic range. The 12-bit that you refer to is the bit-depth of the output of an analog-to-digital converter. Such ADC converts the analog image data that the sensor captures into the digital domain. So, when the sensor captures about 9-bit of dynamic range then that is what you have, the fact that this 9-bit dynamic range is digitalized by a 12-bit converter does not give any additional dynamic range. The type of analog-to-digital converters that are in use in the digital cameras is called 'flash converter' (they provide very fast conversion). The dynamic range of flash converters is not equal to the bit-depth of their output. Typically a 12-bit flash converter has just 10-bit dynamic range. Timo Autiokari > > A jpeg just uses 8-bit tonal depth. > > No, Jpeg has 8-bit per channel digital range, this is not at all same > same as 8-bit tonal depth. Oh noooo! When I write a post directed to somebody who obviously doesn't realise the advantages in RAW shooting, the _very_ last thing I need is an answer from Timo "I'm the only person in the whole world who understands anything about sensor output" Autiokari. First off, I was in search for a phrasing that would be intelligible to the OP, not for nomenclature that would satisfy you. And secondly, while some of your assertions are factually undisputable - though entirely irrelevant for my line of argument - some of them are just a rehash of the same tired old hobby-horses that you beat to death with Roger N. Clark some months ago here. And, to be frank, after reading your discussion with Roger back then pretty carefully, I'd trust him over you eight times a week. Jan Böhme > Oh noooo! When I write a post directed to somebody who obviously > doesn't realise the advantages in RAW shooting, the _very_ last thing > I need is an answer from Timo "I'm the only person in the whole world > who understands anything about sensor output" Autiokari. The advantages of RAW workflow are plentiful and very clear for everyone who have done even a little work in comparing them. But there are absolutely no advantages in explaining the benefits of RAW workflow by using nonsense "arguments". Timo Autiokari > > Oh noooo! When I write a post directed to somebody who obviously > > doesn't realise the advantages in RAW shooting, the _very_ last thing [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > But there are absolutely no advantages in explaining the benefits of RAW > workflow by using nonsense "arguments". This may well be so. But neither is it particularly useful to rebut "The sensor records 12-bit depth _to the RAW file_ (my emphasis) with "No, sensors are analog, they have a dynamic range and an useful dynamic range." The sensor _does_ record 12-bith depth _to the RAW file_ - by the use of an A/D converter. I left this device out of the argument, because it was entirely unwarranted to bring it into the discussion at that point at all. Furthermore, I know well that you argue that the dynamic rage of the sensor is much less than what other people say. But I followed the discussion between you and Roger N. Clark a couple of months ago pretty closely. And then,I came to the conclusion that, based on the merits of the respective arguments put forward in the discussion, you were talking through your hat, and Roger wasn't talking through his. And there is only so much time and effort I'm prepare to devote on the issue of the available DR of a DSLR sensor. Jan Böhme > The sensor _does_ record 12-bith depth _to the RAW > file_ - by the use of an A/D converter. No, the sensor does _not_ record 12-bit bit-depth to the RAW file. Sensors have some bit-depth (or in other words dynamic range) that is then digitized by the analog-to-digital converter. But due to this process the bit-depth of the ADC does not magically become to be the dynamic range of the image data. Even if you had 1000 bit ADC you'd still have only the dynamic range that the sensor is able to provide. > I left this device out of the argument, because it was entirely > unwarranted to bring it into the discussion at that point at all. No. Instead it is entirely incorrect to claim that "The sensor records 12-bit depth to the RAW file". Again, RAW workflow provides higher or far higher quality than JPG workflow, this is a fact (in those cases where the user has the required skills to process the RAW files properly). But if you want to rationalize such a RAW vs JPG claim, you just need to use facts, not fiction. Timo Autiokari > > The sensor _does_ record 12-bith depth _to the RAW > > file_ - by the use of an A/D converter. > > No, the sensor does _not_ record 12-bit bit-depth to the RAW file. Depends on who one is asking - as you should be very well aware. But OK, the consensus answer probably is that it records just over 11-bit depth of true sensor sensitivity from a decent dSLR - which isn't the same thng as if this sensor sensitivity would be adequately represented by eleven bits. Anyway, just over eleven bits is considerably more than eight, so my original argument is still valid. > Sensors have some bit-depth (or in other words dynamic range) that is > then digitized by the analog-to-digital converter. But due to this [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > No. Instead it is entirely incorrect to claim that "The sensor records > 12-bit depth to the RAW file". Whether it is 12-bit, 11-bit, or even your personal DR of 9 bits, is entirely irrelevant for my original argument, as long as it is more than the eight bits of a jpeg. > Again, RAW workflow provides higher or far higher quality than JPG > workflow, this is a fact (in those cases where the user has the required > skills to process the RAW files properly). But if you want to > rationalize such a RAW vs JPG claim, you just need to use facts, not > fiction. The facts are 1) that you can increase the useful dynamic range considerably by using two exposures of RAW and blending them, just as I wrote. (This I don't need you or any other gearhead to tell me, because I know that very well from actual experience taking and postprocessing high-contrast photos, comparing the blending of two exposures from a RAW file to various tricks that can be peroformed on one image, such as "levels", "curves" or "Shadow/Highlight" in PS..) The facts are further 2)that this is possible because the information in the RAW file has considerably higher bit depth than that of the jpeg. This was all the OP needed to know. He was in no way helped by your butting in whatsoever. In particular as you haven't, in three postings, provided him with any clues as to why RAW is better, just stated that it is, if one is good enough for it. Not particularly helpful, in my book. Jan Böhme [] > A jpeg just uses 8-bit tonal depth. The sensor records 12-bit depth to > the RAW file. [] > Jan Böhme But this statement is not quite what it may seem at first sight. Whilst the JPEG has 8-bit data, that encoding is non-linear, and actually capable of fully representing the tonal range of the 12-bit linear data from the sensor. However, it can do so less accurately, which is why trying to enhance shadow detail from a JPEG file may result in less good results than trying to do the same thing with the RAW data. The RAW data may also have little more margin on bright parts of the subject, allowing a better final image to be made, albeit at the expense of more time and effort. For most general-purpose use, JPEG works very well and can provide images you will be very pleased with. David On 25 Feb, 11:20, "David J Taylor" <david-tay...@blueyonder.co.not- this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote: > > A jpeg just uses 8-bit tonal depth. The sensor records 12-bit depth to > > the RAW file. > But this statement is not quite what it may seem at first sight. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > trying to enhance shadow detail from a JPEG file may result in less good > results than trying to do the same thing with the RAW data. You're quite right that the encoding of a JPEG is non-linear. But you still get only eight bits of output. This is all wine and roses as long as you expose as correctly as you want at the start. (And have a correct white balance, but that's another story.) But if you don't, the paucity of channels on the dark side will show when you try to lift them. > The RAW data may also have little more margin on bright parts of the > subject, allowing a better final image to be made, albeit at the expense > of more time and effort. > > For most general-purpose use, JPEG works very well and can provide images > you will be very pleased with. I know, of course. I have shot digital for five years with a Nikon Coolpix 995 and a Panasonic FZ20 before getting a dSLR. What I normally do now with my 30D is to shoot RAW+fine JPEG. If Í have an adequate JPEG, I can keep it without further bother. But if I haven't - and some exposures are almost impossible to nail as well as I want them in-camera, so it isn't just a quation of my inadequate skilols - I have the RAW image to fiddle with. Jan Böhme > A jpeg just uses 8-bit tonal depth. The sensor records 12-bit depth to > the RAW file. (And you'll get 14 bits in the newly announced 1D Mark > III.) I use iPhoto (5, I think) for cataloging and as far as I have been able to determine, it can't handle more than 8 bits. At any rate, I have tried to scan and store negatives at higher rates without success. In spite of this, it can read RAW files. I guess it must do this by dropping off the extra bits, which sort of defeats this feature of RAW for me. Or maybe it actually stores the extra bits for RAW. At any rate, my final criteria is the print, and I am not sure the extra bits would help there. If I am wrong, please tell me because I would like to know. SignatureRobert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883 bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac] rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office] On 25 Feb, 15:45, Robert Peirce <b...@peirce-family.com.invalid> wrote: > In article <1172390385.435725.70...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, > > > A jpeg just uses 8-bit tonal depth. The sensor records 12-bit depth to > > the RAW file. (And you'll get 14 bits in the newly announced 1D Mark > > III.) > I use iPhoto (5, I think) for cataloging and as far as I have been able > to determine, it can't handle more than 8 bits. At any rate, I have > tried to scan and store negatives at higher rates without success. In > spite of this, it can read RAW files. No image editor can really _read_ RAW files. What they can do, is to convert them to a viewable format - with more or less manual control. But iPhoto can handle the 12/16 bits of RAW files all right. It just is limited to saving actual image files as 8-bit jpegs. But it doesn't clip anything off the RAW file. Se, for instance: http://www.oreillynet.com/mac/blog/2005/11/1043_updates_iphotos_raw_capab.html Jan Böhme I just completed another test -- window screen against tie wall, macro focus on screen. I took a 1000 pixel, 4x6 crop as for a 20x30 enlargement. Again, aside from minor color shifts, there was no difference among RAW, Fine, Normal and Basic. This is actually quite amazing to me because I was sure Basic would not be anywhere near as good as RAW. I have to do more tests. There has to be something to show the superiority of higher quality over lower, unless it is all marketing hype, or unless the final criteria is other than the print. Maybe it only shows up for really big prints, but if so, that really isn't a concern of mine. I would use 4x5 for posters. SignatureRobert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883 bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac] rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office] >I just completed another test -- window screen against tie wall, macro > focus on screen. I took a 1000 pixel, 4x6 crop as for a 20x30 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > only shows up for really big prints, but if so, that really isn't a > concern of mine. I would use 4x5 for posters. You obviously have all the answers, Bob--it's a wonder you bother asking questions. -- www.mattclara.com > You obviously have all the answers, Bob--it's a wonder you bother asking > questions. My problem is I don't have all the questions. If I know the question I can find an answer that satisfies me. SignatureRobert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883 bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac] rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office] >I have to do more tests. There has to be something to show the >superiority of higher quality over lower, unless it is all marketing >hype, or unless the final criteria is other than the print. Maybe it >only shows up for really big prints, but if so, that really isn't a >concern of mine. I would use 4x5 for posters. It also has to do with 12 bit data available while processing and performing levels and curves edits and avoiding posterization. SignatureEd Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html [] > There are some other tests I want to do, but so far I have concluded > RAW isn't necessary and Fine probably isn't either. I don't know if > I'm ready to go Basic, but Normal looks like it would work just fine, > pun intended. Congratulations on actually making the tests rather than following the crowd. I have made similar tests, and concluded that "normal" was indeed acceptable, and that the very small level of extra artefacts introduced was OK for me. What tests have you done to demonstrate the extra dynamic range which is the prime advantage of using RAW? Cheers, David > [] > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > What tests have you done to demonstrate the extra dynamic range which is > the prime advantage of using RAW? Here's an ugly old test I did to sell myself on using raw: <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/raw-vs-jpg&PG=1&PIC=4> What that told me is that raw is capable of getting a wee bit more detail and sharpness at the price of more noise. And that the jpegs out of the camera do a darn good job of balancing all that. I decided to shoot raw plus jpeg and I'm usually happy with the jpegs, the raw files are mostly useful when I get the exposure or white balance wrong as a second lease on life. For the sharpness & noise issue, it is true that all gets muddled in the printing so I agree the difference is really minor and probably hard to detect at all. The raw conversion process is nice for batch adjustments of white balance corrections and recovering bad exposures or extreme high dynamic range scenes (which is a lot of work). [] > Here's an ugly old test I did to sell myself on using raw: > <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/raw-vs-jpg&PG=1&PIC=4> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > a lot of > work). Thanks, Paul, that's an interesting comparison. What do you mean by "noise+4" in the middle image? Is this some noise reduction you've used? You raise a good point about the final image - I very rarely print, so what appears on the display is what matters to me. And that display will usually have fewer pixels than the source image. But if I do print, than it's a different set of optimisations that I ought, perhaps, to apply..... I never do raw, and prefer to get things "right first time" in the camera where possible. So I have colour balanced JPEGs - the purists would be horrified! Cheers, David >>Here's an ugly old test I did to sell myself on using raw: <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/raw-vs-jpg&PG=1&PIC=4> >>What that told me is that raw is capable of getting a wee bit more >>detail and sharpness at the price of more noise. And that the jpegs [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Thanks, Paul, that's an interesting comparison. What do you mean by > "noise+4" in the middle image? Is this some noise reduction you've used? That means +4 on the noise reduction slider in Adobe Camera Raw if I recall correctly, in an attempt to match the jpeg noise reduction (not easy). Also those examples are super-boosted with curves to exaggerate the contrast. Nikon D70, ACR CS1. > You raise a good point about the final image - I very rarely print, so > what appears on the display is what matters to me. And that display will [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > where possible. So I have colour balanced JPEGs - the purists would be > horrified! For careful shooting that's a better time saver. For working quick on the run, it's hard to set white balance every time & check the histogram etc. > Here's an ugly old test I did to sell myself on using raw: > <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/raw-vs-jpg&PG=1&PIC I am going to save this URL and check it out. I have an open mind about RAW, but so far nobody is convincing me. SignatureRobert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883 bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac] rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office] >>Here's an ugly old test I did to sell myself on using raw: >><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/raw-vs-jpg&PG=1&PIC > > I am going to save this URL and check it out. I have an open mind about > RAW, but so far nobody is convincing me. Here's another example where I wanted to increase contrast & saturation and you can see the in-camera fine jpeg version looks horrible compared to the raw conversion: <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/moon/2007-02-22&PG=1&PIC=0> That's more extreme that you would use for any normal scene but the raw version is quite reasonable looking. > >>Here's an ugly old test I did to sell myself on using raw: > >><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/raw-vs-jpg&PG=1&P [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > That's more extreme that you would use for any normal scene but the raw > version is quite reasonable looking. There certainly appears to be a lot more information in the RAW photo. I have two questions. When I did my tests, I had the camera (Nikon D40) set up so I could click the setting button followed by the OK button and it would put me where I could change among RAW and the jpg choices. Everything else was automatic. Was that the case here? Also, the D40 being newer than the D200, do you know if jpg is handled as well on the D200 as on the D40? I have read that Nikon worked hard to improve this on the D40, but compared to what?? SignatureRobert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883 bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac] rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office] >>>>Here's an ugly old test I did to sell myself on using raw: >>>><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/raw-vs-jpg&PG=1&PIC=4> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > it would put me where I could change among RAW and the jpg choices. > Everything else was automatic. Was that the case here? The D200 has a QUAL button; hold that down, spin the main command dial & see the settings on the top LCD. I just shoot in RAW+fine jpeg unless I'm running out of memory or turn off raw to get a longer burst for something like capturing a bee in flight. Or maybe if I'm just taking a snap of a trail sign to remember where I was shooting and memory is running low. What I do though is download only the jpegs, then sort through them & cull out favorites & seconds. Then delete the jpegs from the card & copy my favorites back to the card & manually select only those raw files to copy over (usually 1/3 of the full set). The raw files are about 10MB each & that really eats up hard drive space, plus it takes about 20 minutes to copy 2GB card with my older slow cards. And, I archive the raw files on a separate USB drive so my main archive on the laptop only includes the final jpegs. For web versions, I often don't bother with the raw conversion but it's nice to have them on another drive if I decide to print that picture enlarged. > Also, the D40 > being newer than the D200, do you know if jpg is handled as well on the > D200 as on the D40? I have read that Nikon worked hard to improve this > on the D40, but compared to what?? That's quite possible. I started with a D70 and was bummed when the D50 came out with superior low noise performance, but oh well, that wasn't available when I bought, and the D70 has more manual controls & features. Then I got a D200 & a few months later the less expensive D80 came out with most of the same features for half the price. Sigh. I'm still happy with the D200 though. I guess Nikon's next release will be a pro level camera so that won't effect us. > > [] > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > detail and sharpness at the price of more noise. And that the jpegs out > of the camera do a darn good job of balancing all that. How is that possible? The raw file contains the data from which the jpeg was made (or a close approximation to it). So it should be possible to get an equal jpeg by converting from raw (but of course NR, contrast, black and white points and so on will need to be chosen manually in all probability; for example, you can get rid of a lot of noise by darkening the shadows or clipping them altogether, trading DR for noise). If you get more noise when converting from raw even when playing with NR settings, try the contrast settings too. And there's other stuff too. Not that I'm an expert on postprocessing or anything. > I decided to > shoot raw plus jpeg and I'm usually happy with the jpegs, the raw files > are mostly useful when I get the exposure or white balance wrong as a > second lease on life. Yes I'd also say the main advantage of shooting raw is flexibility in choosing the WB. If you're willing to devote time to it, you can get results better in all respects than from camera jpeg (noise, DR, details), but usually it's not worth it, at least for me (but I never shoot jpeg anyway for other reasons). > For the sharpness & noise issue, it is true that > all gets muddled in the printing so I agree the difference is really > minor and probably hard to detect at all. Well it depends. Personally I can see minute differences (such as slightly different sharpening) already in my A4 prints, but I'm pretty sure it's because I am anal about these things rather than the difference being really that much. I never pay the slightest attention to this stuff when I see other people's image (unless they're otherwise rubbish, in which case I concentrate on the technical stuff :) ). But as the ISO increases, the converter starts to matter more and more (I'm not talking about their NR routines, I always switch them off if possible; it's the actual conversion that I find makes a difference, how the noise looks, if it's long-wavelength or short-wavelength etc; this depends on the interpolation algorithm to some extend). > The raw conversion process is > nice for batch adjustments of white balance corrections and recovering > bad exposures or extreme high dynamic range scenes (which is a lot of work). I disagree, it depends on your converter. In the one I mainly use, it's a piece of cake (but it has no fancy stuff like vibrance, contrast, sharpening, or NR, just controls affecting the conversion, WB, it allows you to specify a curve and a couple of other things). It gives excellent resolution, more than any other I've tried except capture one (which costs too much and doesn't allow you to switch sharpening off), although the difference is only visible if you have something like a brick wall at the limits of resolution, when one converter renders it and the other just gives a mush (extreme case, admittedly); it also renders a very fine grained noise pattern, so that ISO 1600 A4 prints from a D200 look great, much much better than from capture one or Nikon capture (which does not allow you to switch NR off...). It takes 5 min per image, though :) >>Here's an ugly old test I did to sell myself on using raw: >><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/raw-vs-jpg&PG=1&PIC=4> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > playing with NR settings, try the contrast settings too. And there's > other stuff too. Not that I'm an expert on postprocessing or anything. It should be possible but I couldn't quite match it with ACR. Well, the closest I could get is in the center and that's still sharper & noisier than the camera's jpeg. I think ACR's noise reduction is not great. The in camera jpegs are very smooth. Probably Nikon Capture could match it plus a very slight improvement given more time & cpu power than the camera processor has. > It should be possible but I couldn't quite match it with ACR. Well, the > closest I could get is in the center and that's still sharper & noisier > than the camera's jpeg. I think ACR's noise reduction is not great. The > in camera jpegs are very smooth. Probably Nikon Capture could match it > plus a very slight improvement given more time & cpu power than the > camera processor has. Yes I also found ACR's noise reduction quite bad. I also don't like lots of other things about it so don't use it. Nikon Capture seems much better but doesn't let you switch NR completely off. > [] >> There are some other tests I want to do, but so far I have concluded [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > What tests have you done to demonstrate the extra dynamic range which is > the prime advantage of using RAW? Here's my test--shoot a wedding with JPEG Fine, and then spend a couple days struggling to get the exposure/color right on those few that are all messed up, and which the bride is gonna have a fit over. Then shoot another one in RAW and don't have those worries. You'll never shoot JPEG Fine again. I know I haven't. -- www.mattclara.com > Here's my test--shoot a wedding with JPEG Fine, and then spend a couple days > struggling to get the exposure/color right on those few that are all messed > up, and which the bride is gonna have a fit over. Then shoot another one in > RAW and don't have those worries. You'll never shoot JPEG Fine again. I > know I haven't. I hate to say this because it sounds like carping, but why would you even try to save a blown shot? Time is money. You are never going to recover the cost of spending a couple of days to recover one shot. Throw it away. The nice thing about digital that we never had with film is that there is virtually no incremental cost to taking another shot. If one is bad, another will be good. Use the good one. Furthermore, a bad shot is a bad shot. The only way RAW will save you is if it is only a little bit bad. If it is a little bit bad, several additional shots taken at the same time are likely to be better. If it is really bad, you are out of luck. SignatureRobert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883 bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac] rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office] >> Here's my test--shoot a wedding with JPEG Fine, and then spend a couple >> days [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > additional shots taken at the same time are likely to be better. If it > is really bad, you are out of luck. Robert, until you've had the experience, please try not to deny mine--do you shoot professional event photography? RAW saves lots of pictures that aren't anywhere near ruined--a shot with the wrong white balance, for instance, which would be ruined if just shot in JPEG. -- www.mattclara.com > >> Here's my test--shoot a wedding with JPEG Fine, and then spend a couple > >> days [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > aren't anywhere near ruined--a shot with the wrong white balance, for > instance, which would be ruined if just shot in JPEG. Which I would classify as a little bit bad. They shouldn't take a couple of days to fix. SignatureRobert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883 bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac] rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office] On Feb 24, 4:25 pm, Robert Peirce <b...@peirce-family.com.invalid> wrote: > Which I would classify as a little bit bad. They shouldn't take a > couple of days to fix. The best way to learn just what RAW gives you is to shoot a bunch of photos in RAW + jpeg mode and compare the ease of getting the final photos that you want using both the RAW and the jpeg image. This is what I did and whereas you can make adjustments to the jpeg image it is far harder and much more time consuming then with the RAW file. What is more is the highlights are blown a bit in the jpeg you are pretty much done but with the RAW file it often takes just a couple of seconds to get the exposure back to a very good looking photo. With memory cards as cheap as they are I would never go back to shooting jpeg images. Scott In article <EzRDh.6409$I46.4054@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote: > What tests have you done to demonstrate the extra dynamic range which is > the prime advantage of using RAW? Another interesting concept. I come from the ancient order of pre-visualizers. If the shot I get is what I want, then I have everything I need. If the range of the shot exceeds the capabilities of the camera, then I use fill or screens or whatever to modify the light. You have to know the limitations of your equipment, whether you are using RAW or jpg. RAW may give you a little more range; I don't know. What I want to know is what I can do with what I am using. If it isn't good enough then I need something better. So far I haven't seen a need for RAW and I worry what might happen down the road when standards change. Sure, jpg or tif may change too but probably not as fast as RAW. As it is, each manufacturer has his own definition of RAW and his definition is subject to change. Everybody's definition of jpg and tif seems to be the same, at least for now. SignatureRobert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883 bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac] rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office] > In article <EzRDh.6409$I46.4054@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, > "David J Taylor" [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > definition of RAW and his definition is subject to change. Everybody's > definition of jpg and tif seems to be the same, at least for now. For christ's sake, what are you shooting with, a Mattel brand digital camera? Rest assured, Nikon and Canon will be around long enough for our needs. -- www.mattclara.com > A while back I asked if any digital cameras did double exposure. I > found out the Nikon D200 does. Now I find that the Nikon D40 (and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > then to switch back. You can download the RAW image and convert it to > jpeg for future use. My Pentax *ist D can do up to 9 frames, I just skimmed through the K10D manual and it offers the same function. http://www.darrelllarose.ca/gallery/album03/hopping2 is an example of multi-frame exposure (6 frames) |
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.