In camera processing RAW v JPG comparison

[ruchai]

I believe RAW are not designed to use without processing in the computer. If you want to do the work by your self take in RAW. If you want to let the camera do the work shoot in JPEG. Such small DSLR can not match pc with WindowsXP in capability to do the job. I am interest mostly in insects and birds. If you did not do it right-on the pictures can always be improved. The D50 has spot metering which help but to expect the 3mm spot meeter to measure light falling on smallest insects is a bit too much.
My D50 could be set to process for different subjects. But I never know what the next shot will be. So I prefer RAW than settings in the camera. With RAW you do not have to bracket exposures. If it off by + or - two stops it always can be corrected easily.

[Don Hoey]

Ruchai,

The purpose behind this thread was not to say how members should be working, but to try and put forward unbiased information. I have seen a lot on the net that RAW is the only way to go. Generally these views are not supported with pictures to demonstrate the reasoning, rather authors use the fall back position that JPG is for amateurs and if you care about photography RAW is the only way to go.

While I do not deny that RAW allows you to manipulate the image for exposure and white balance the question here is. Is RAW the magic bullet it is porported to be as far as pure image quality is concerned.

A lot of people getting their first camera may not have the latest ALL POWERFULL pc and may be like me on 800hz. 128mb ram. Under those circumstances RAW can be a positive pain in the neck !!

We know that different camera's have different processing algoithms and some may well produce better files from RAW whilest others are cabable of excellent JPG's. These test have shown that with a D100 and well exposed image there is NO benefit to RAW. On the other hand I have read that the D200 does not process JPG's as well in camera, but with no pictures to support that statement. The D50 on the other hand is reckoned to produce superb JPG's straight from the camera.

So if we can get rid of the hype and show with images, readers of the thread can make a better judgement as to which method would best suit them.

Don

[Don Hoey]

To return this thread to in camera processing and dispell some of the myths about JPG I am posting this.

Sorry to the foodies but I will do another later.

When I moved to digital from medium format I thought a series of tests were in order to establish the capabilities of my then new Nikon D100. I took the picture of the F2 to use for the purpose. Due to the limitations of my pc I wanted to know how good the JPG files were. The attached pictures are of the print I made then, ( nearly 4 years ago ) hence the colour fade visible.

For those not familiar with this camera, it was released in 2002 and is 6 megapixel. In camera image processing is therefore not up to todays standards. For those using D70 and D50 cameras I hope this gives you some added confidence in your kit. As for Canon users I would expect the same to apply. The image was processed through Genuine Fractals but that only smooths jaggies it cannot add detail.

You will have to excuse the glare on the print but I do not have a polorising filter to suit this lens. There is also sunlight fading to take into account, so blacks are not what they were in some areas.

If you look at the lens crop, you can see the clouds in the sky through the window. A copy of the full image is pasted top left to give an idea of what proportion of the full image, this detail occupies.

Don

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Don Hoey

Ruchai,

The purpose behind this thread was not to say how members should be working, but to try and put forward unbiased information. I have seen a lot on the net that RAW is the only way to go. Generally these views are not supported with pictures to demonstrate the reasoning, rather authors use the fall back position that JPG is for amateurs and if you care about photography RAW is the only way to go.

While I do not deny that RAW allows you to manipulate the image for exposure and white balance the question here is. Is RAW the magic bullet it is porported to be as far as pure image quality is concerned.

A lot of people getting their first camera may not have the latest ALL POWERFULL pc and may be like me on 800hz. 128mb ram. Under those circumstances RAW can be a positive pain in the neck !!

We know that different camera's have different processing algoithms and some may well produce better files from RAW whilest others are cabable of excellent JPG's. These test have shown that with a D100 and well exposed image there is NO benefit to RAW. On the other hand I have read that the D200 does not process JPG's as well in camera, but with no pictures to support that statement. The D50 on the other hand is reckoned to produce superb JPG's straight from the camera.

So if we can get rid of the hype and show with images, readers of the thread can make a better judgement as to which method would best suit them.

Don

During the short time I have been a subscriber to this forum, I have kept a watchful eye on this thread, and though I may not have read every post I feel I understand the gist of what its about and why Don originally started it, indeed his summary above somewhat negates the need to go read all the thread

At the end of the day though I can't help feeling that its only a variation of the long standing discussion RAW v JPEG.

I'm no 'pixel peeper' and so am not about to start setting my camera up to take images of a subject in both RAW and JPEG. I'm happy to let others do that and FWIW in the test shown yesterday the first image, the RAW one, was unquestionably the best IMO.

I was a JPEG only user for several years with digicams and the Nikon D1. At the time I felt the differences were not significant and the extra time it involved in the workflow could not be justified, especially when I had a lot of images to process. Not to mention the fact that at the time I did not have the benefit of the software that would enable me to use RAW in an efficient sort of way. Raw files from the D1 were not as easily handled then as NEFS are today.

It is a fact however that my approach to these matters has matured and developed over time and as new software develops. I am now a 100% user of Raw. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that for me it is the best method to use. From a software point of view, I use CS2 and Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) which in conjunction with Adobe Bridge has made processing images a breeze. I have also used Raw Shooter Essentials (RSE) which has made a quality RAW converter available to everyone. I would have bought the Premium version except for the fact I had made a concious decision to use ACR.

For me, its not about comparing images on the screen and pixel counting. The fact is I always SAVE to JPEG which as we all know is a 'lossy' format. For my own purposes saved in Photoshop at highest quality (12) its perfectly adequate for my needs, even though I know the data in the file has been reduced from 23mb down to around 5-8mb. If in the rare situation that I ever notice a loss of quality, I always have the RAW file to return to, its my 'negative'

RAW mode offers me the versatility I require, but most importantly I have the option to make the decision on how the data is processed rather than letting the camera do it all. Do you all take photos in full Auto mode even just P mode. Most serious photographers like to have the creative input to adjust the camera exposure to what they want, they like to be in control. Using RAW is simply an extension of that.

Then of course there is the fact that RAW has more dynamic range than JPEG. However I am not convinced about this 12bit red herring mentioned earlier. To the best of my knowledge the 12bit RAW image is always processed into either an 8 or 16bit image. Saving to TIFF has no bearing on this. However I will stand corrected on this I'm not familiar with all conversion software. The fact is though that PS only works in 8 or 16bit. Frankly unless asked to do so I would never use 16bit

Finally, I have often used the image below to illustrate how a duff exposure can be retrieved in the RAW converter. The left side was straight out of the camera, and the right side is the same shot after adjustment. It was one of the situations that did it for me I would have struggled had it been an in camera JPEG
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...s/IMG_8580.jpg

[ruchai]

Well said, Stephen. I think to compare using RAW versus JPEG is like comparing cooking your own food versus buying food in cans. If you do not have time to spare then eat from cans, if you think eating is important to you then cook your own food. I used JPEG most of the time before I have NikonCapture4. It is very easy to use and very effective. I do not think there is any thing wrong with using JPEG but I feel I could save many pictures because I took them in RAW. I enjoy playing with my pictures in the computer just as much as taking pictures.

[Ledaig]

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/...2-picture3.gif

[prostie1200]

Hi Ruchai
A very apt simile, and I think you can go a little further, in as much as besides the meat and veg even the smallest grain of salt and pepper is there in the Raw file for us to manipulate.

I now shoot only in Raw, not because I am anything near an expert photographer, quite the opposite in fact.
The camera which I use is programmed to adjust itself which ever program I use,
ie., in A it chooses S , in S it chooses A in P it chooses A and S, provided I give it a fair idea of the ambient light situation and dial in a reasonable ISO and focus correctly, then the Raw file will contain all the information I require to produce an acceptable photograph.
All my old Raw (negatives) I have stored on disks, and now as I slowly get more proficient with CS, I am returning to those old files and in quite a few cases getting very pleasing images out of them. If I had shot them originally in jpeg I would have junked them and they would have been lost and gone forever

[Saphire]

I have also done a quick test with my 350D 18-55mm. Both are 100% crop.
First one is raw. 2nd one is fine jpg. nothing done to either image.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Saphire

I have also done a quick test with my 350D 18-55mm. Both are 100% crop.
First one is raw. 2nd one is fine jpg. nothing done to either image.

So what is your conclusion Christine. Apart from the obvious difference in levels I can see no difference. The RAW shot however to me is more pleasing, which suggests the in camera processing is not doing such a good job.

What prog was used to convert the Raw file. Do you think the default settings is adjusting levels

[robski]

Christine what software did you use to convert raw to jpg ?