In camera processing RAW v JPG comparison

[Don Hoey]

Originally Posted by Stephen

Well I'm sorry but I can't really see a great deal of value in Don's comparison.

Stephen,

The full image had to have 35% compression to post here and was only posted to show where the crop came from.

No processing was carried out in order to see the difference in how a RAW converter may affect a conversion to JPG. If you retain your file in RAW format then this is of no concern at all. If however you for any reason convert the processed image from RAW to JPG then the test shows there can be an effect.

That will no doubt lead to another question and that is if you have a RAW image do you need to convert it to JPG at all ? Why would you ?

I'll start the list

Passing a copy to a friend.
Posting in a gallery on the web.
Smaller file size for printing at home .

In each case the image you spent time on, getting just right, may not in converted form resemble it. Compression for e-mailing / web posting will have some effect but I suggest not that much.

Don

[Stephen]

I wonder if you are missing some of my point Don. The fact is that of course some processing has gone on. This is proven by the differences I mentioned in the two examples. However at their default setting there is always going to be a difference between progs. I suppose the same as there would be with an jpeg image out of different cameras. Part of my point was though that your example does not really show that one is better than the other, only that they are different. You cannot say from this test that NC is better than RSE.

I hope I'm not misunderstanding your comment 'if you retain the file in Raw format' This should always be retained, its your neg.

To do anything with your image you need to process the Raw file in the converter, however you decide how it looks finally. Even for web use though the image may look different especially if you use Adobe RGB. All browsers default to sRGB and this will show up on the web.

[Don Hoey]

[quote=Stephen] You cannot say from this test that NC is better than RSE.

QUOTE]

Stephen,

May be my fault re NC and Nikon. It relates to the converted image in comparison to the adjusted RAW. The NC version when placed side by side with the RAW shows almost no difference in lightness/tone. To acheive the same result with the RSE would have required a tweak or two. The amount of adjustment would be as you can see from the comparison.

As a converter I am not saying that NC is better than RSE in any other respect. As I mentioned RSE is very fast by comparison and has far more tools to allow for image adjustment. It would take a lot more use of the program to establish a better one. Anyway that may not be strictly a fair test as my version of NC is from 2002 and RSE is 2005.

I will use RSE with its advantages to play with the various adjustments - good for the learning curve.

[ Quote : I hope I'm not misunderstanding your comment 'if you retain the file in Raw format' This should always be retained, its your neg. ]

Once again I may not have put this as clearly as I might. I was not suggesting that after a conversion to JPG, if you made one, you bin the RAW.

Don

[Don Hoey]

After 3 hours of playing with RSE this image is an pretty fair reflection of how far I have got.

I think getting exposure right is a lot easier.

Don

[Don Hoey]

Working with RAW files.

My PC is by todays standards of limited power - 800mhz, 128mb ram, Windows 2000pro operating system.

My only experience of RAW has been to use it in tricky lighting situations where W/B might be a problem ie in the hangers at Duxford. Images being then adjusted and converted to JPG for fast processing anything else ie; crops, dust removal etc in PSP7 or 8.

Yesterday I spent around 8 hours playing with a few RAW files and the following are my personal thoughts based on that experience. Two RAW converters were used = Nikon Capture V3 ( released 2002 )and Rawshooter essentials ( released 2005 ).

Doing more than tweaks to exposure or W/B was a fairly painful business due to lack of processing speed. With more adjustments than that, such as those as available in RSE, I found that I was loosing intimate contact with the image and consequently the end results required far more work on the conversion in Paint Shop to get back to the desired result.

Each program had its advantages and disadvantages. Although NC was slower I found it easier to use, and with my lack of previous use that cannot be put down to familiarity with it. Other than a straight conversion of the RAW file I cannot post a comparison, as neither program recognises changes made in a saved copy of the RAW file from the other program. I was not able to achieve a suitably accurate match on a single image with both progs for a comparison of a conversion to be posted.

My conclusion therefore is that to use RAW and not be driven mad by it you do need a powerful PC. With more limited PC resources then using JPG fine with the occasional use of RAW is a more satisfying way to go. A well exposed and not overly in camera processed JPG is still makes a good negative.

So a couple of thoughts for the melting pot.

1) For those with less PC resource the origonal question of in camera processing is still valid.
In these discussions I think it important not to lose sight of the costs of some of this kit, and peoples ability to afford it. Fast PC with large HD £400+ Adobe CS2 £500+. I ask myself the question would any of my images directly benefit from this spend, or have I been in anyway been limited without it, and the answer is a resounding NO. Nice to have but far from essential.
2) A correctly exposed JPG is NOT inferior to RAW. With the very sophisitcated light metering systems now built into cameras how often do you really need, or rely on the exposure compensation of + / - 2 EV offered by RAW.

Don

[PollyG]

Originally Posted by Don Hoey

My conclusion therefore is that to use RAW and not be driven mad by it you do need a powerful PC. With more limited PC resources then using JPG fine with the occasional use of RAW is a more satisfying way to go. A well exposed and not overly in camera processed JPG is still makes a good negative.

So a couple of thoughts for the melting pot.

1) For those with less PC resource the origonal question of in camera processing is still valid.
In these discussions I think it important not to lose sight of the costs of some of this kit, and peoples ability to afford it. Fast PC with large HD £400+ Adobe CS2 £500+. I ask myself the question would any of my images directly benefit from this spend, or have I been in anyway been limited without it, and the answer is a resounding NO. Nice to have but far from essential.
2) A correctly exposed JPG is NOT inferior to RAW. With the very sophisitcated light metering systems now built into cameras how often do you really need, or rely on the exposure compensation of + / - 2 EV offered by RAW.

Don

I reckon you summed things up nicely with those conclusions.

I've quietly been watching this thread with some interest as I only started using raw myself maybe 6-7 months ago ..... with some prodding, encouragement and help from Stephen Anstey (in other photography boards.

I was also using an old Win98 SE PC until about 18 months ago and that struggled with PS7 using jpegs, let alone raw! I'm not a very experienced photographer either, only got started in 2003 with a Canon G3 than got the Pentax istD November 2003 so I felt I needed to concentrate more on learning to use the camera more competently before trying to expand my digital darkroom skills.

When I eventually upgraded the PC I was still reluctant to attempt using raw - but I eventually decided I should at least give it a go and learn how to go about things - then I'd have more choices if I at least learned to master the digital darkroom techniques.

I'm glad I did as it means I now have the choice of shooting in whatever mode might be best for the occasion.

I agree wholeheartedly with those who have said shooting RAW allows you to correct mistakes a little more and maybe salvage a special shot that can't be repeated. I agree whole heartedly with someone, I think it was Tannin, who said you sometimes have to consider the trade-offs and shoot high ISO jpgs for bursts of birds in flight ... something I forgot to do myself a couple of weeks ago and missed several potential Gull shots as I was shooting RAW and the camera/card read/write was too slow so I was having to wait too long between bursts.

I also agree it's an expensive business trying to keep up with the latest technologies - both hardware and software.

Its a wide and varied learning curve, lots of choices on all aspects. The most important thing, in my humble opinion, is that everyone should carry on enjoying their kit and their hobbies at their own pace...... and also enjoy sharing experiences, skills and photographs.


Pol

[Don Hoey]

I have just spent time on BF and found a thread debating RAW & JPG.

To show that I am trying to steer a middle course on the subject, I am posting a link that was posted in that thread. Luminous Landscape - Understanding RAW.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...aw-files.shtml

Makes interesting reading. It is information that only a regular user of RAW files can comment on really as a lot seems to hinge on the number of bits 8, 12, 16. I do not have a cache of RAW files that will enable me to see the effect.

Obviously no real comparison pics can be posted as they would have to be JPG which is 8 bit.

Don

[Don Hoey]

A really interesting link with lots of info on the digital image. http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm

Don

PS I have now posted this link in the Members Forum as well.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Don Hoey

I have just spent time on BF and found a thread debating RAW & JPG.

To show that I am trying to steer a middle course on the subject, I am posting a link that was posted in that thread. Luminous Landscape - Understanding RAW.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...aw-files.shtml

Makes interesting reading. It is information that only a regular user of RAW files can comment on really as a lot seems to hinge on the number of bits 8, 12, 16. I do not have a cache of RAW files that will enable me to see the effect.

Obviously no real comparison pics can be posted as they would have to be JPG which is 8 bit.

Don

It seems a fairly clear and unbiased article to me Don HERE is another you may be interested in

It seems to me that the biggest thing that is stopping you from becoming a full convert is the lack of a machine with enough power and a prog like CS2

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Don Hoey

A really interesting link with lots of info on the digital image. http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm

Don

Again there is an interesting article on this site about using Raw.

One interesting thing he raises and I forget whether this has been mentioned here here before is the lack of a standard format by the camera manufacturers. As you may be aware Adobe now have the DNG format, and it is possible to download the DNG converter from their website for free. This will convert your cameras RAW format files to the DNG format. This holds all the data from your files but is a standard file type and in fact creates a smaller file so saving some space. Your camera Raw files can then be discarded as they are superfluous to requirements.