WPF - World Photography Forum
Home Gallery Register FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Welcome to World Photography Forum!
Welcome!

Thank you for finding your way to World Photography Forum, a dedicated community for photographers and enthusiasts. There's a variety of forums, a wonderful gallery, and what's more, we are absolutely FREE. You are very welcome to join, take part in the discussion, and post your pictures!

Click here to go to the forums home page and find out more.
Click here to join.


Go Back   World Photography Forum > General Photography > The Photography Forum


The Photography Forum General Photography Related Discussion.

In camera processing RAW v JPG comparison

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 18-02-06, 21:34
Don Hoey's Avatar
Don Hoey Don Hoey is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 4,462
Default In camera processing RAW v JPG comparison

As part of my investigation into missing EXIF information I have been processing images using Nikon Capture, Paint Shop Pro versions 7 & 8. I have been using PSP7 a lot as I am familiar with it. On a couple of occasions I have used PSP8 having needed to do a straighten operation.

I have discovered that any image I do a ' save ' or ' save as ' in PSP7 looses the EXIF. I am going to upload a test image from today to my gallery, that has been cropped and saved in PSP8 to see how much of the EXIF has survived. Nikon Capture suggests some may have gone.

As an aside to that little exercise I thought I would compare how the camera, Nikon D100 processes JPG Fine in comparison with RAW.

On the market today I bought and old mic for a couple of quid ( £'s ). As it has an engraved scale I thought it would make a suitable subject for a sharpness check. After converting it into a fancy paperweight, the mic I use proved a better bet for the comarison, so the attached image is a composite of a RAW converted to JPG and a straight JPG. Apart from cropping NO changes have been made, to give a realistic comparison. A full frame image is also attached.

In the case of the D100 Raw converted to JPG proves to be significantly sharper than JPG fine.

Don
Attached Images
File Type: jpg RAW & JPG comparison.jpg (111.2 KB, 105 views)
File Type: jpg Mitutoyo full frame.jpg (43.9 KB, 48 views)
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 18-02-06, 22:09
Saphire's Avatar
Saphire Saphire is offline  
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Shropshire
Age: 75
Posts: 5,980
Default

Don thanks for posting the photo's, it really shows up the difference of the in camera jpg against the raw converted jpg. As separate photo's I would have said there is very little difference but side by side like that it really shows. I am glad I shoot raw.
__________________
Christine Iwancz
Gallery upload limit is 4 photos per 24hrs Gallery Posting Guidelines here
http://ciphotography.freehostia.com/index.php
Equipment= Canon 7D, 40D, 400 f5.6, 75-300, 100mm Macro, 18-55, Canon 70-200 f4, Tokina 12-24mm, Kenko pro 300 1.4,1.5 and 2.0x, Jessops ext tube set,
Canon 580 flash. Home made ring flash. . Close-lens.


Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 19-02-06, 01:31
robski robski is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kent UK
Posts: 3,739
Default

Much is made of the RAW vs JPEG debate. I think the results are very much down to what parameters are used in the raw convertor and the co-efficients used for the jpeg encoder. These you may or may not have control over in your software or camera.

A simple test. The eye of a small rusty sewing needle was photographed with the 20D set to produce RAW and Fine Jpeg from the same shot. No fancy lighting just the builtin flash. I used Canon EOSviewer to convert the RAW to an 8 bit tiff. It has no setting you can play with really. I also tried PS CS to convert but no real difference.

A 100% 300 x 400 crop was taken from jpeg and raw versions and put side by side in a new image. No sharpening was applied to either.

So the question is which of the 2 needles is the RAW, left or right ?

Just to prove there is a small difference the second image is the 2 merged together in exclusive mode.

In the case of Don's Nikon test is it that the fine jpeg is poor or the raw convertor sharpens ?
__________________
Rob

-----------------------------------------------------
Solar powered Box Brownie Mk2

Captain Sunshine, to be such a man as he, and walk so pure between the earth and the sea.

WPF Gallery
Birdforum Gallery
http://www.robertstocker.co.uk updated

Last edited by robski; 26-07-11 at 22:35.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 19-02-06, 09:51
Canis Vulpes's Avatar
Canis Vulpes Canis Vulpes is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 51
Posts: 4,398
Default

Nikon Capture RAW processing software should process images in exactly the same way as a Nikon camera. If a Nikon camera has five sharpness modes then these same shaprness modes and terminology are present within Nikon Capture (NC). Without any changes I would expect the same results from NC as the camera.

Unlike other RAW processing software NC has no default, it simply reads all in-camera settings and applys them to the 'RAW' image itself.

The difference in the two techniques is procesing a 12-bit image (NC) and perhaps the camera converts to 8-bit first for faster processing with less memory requirement, hence a sharper RAW converted image.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 19-02-06, 12:36
robski robski is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kent UK
Posts: 3,739
Default

So your not going to hazzard a guess which is the raw version then Stephen ?

This experiment I have done several times with the 20D and 300D and the difference between fine jpeg and raw is marginal if you have a well exposed image. In my case I don't think it is worth the investment of extra storage to process every shot as raw. The point I am making is that those who only use jpeg should not feel like second class citizens or they are missing out on a big improvement. Raw does have a bigger advantage if the shot was taken with incorrect settings to correct the error or you generate 16 bit tiff for printing. However I have found that raw is not bullet proof in saving bad images.
__________________
Rob

-----------------------------------------------------
Solar powered Box Brownie Mk2

Captain Sunshine, to be such a man as he, and walk so pure between the earth and the sea.

WPF Gallery
Birdforum Gallery
http://www.robertstocker.co.uk updated
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 19-02-06, 13:50
Don Hoey's Avatar
Don Hoey Don Hoey is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 4,462
Default

Rob the reason for the post was that I simply did not recognise that there was a difference. Obviously as technology advances things change.
In this case the D100 is several years old and therefore one can expect things to have changed in the mean time.

As I do not have a modern computer ( 5 years old laptop ) 128mbs ram 30gig hard drive, I chose to use the fastest photo editing program and workflow without totally understanding the consequences of that decision.

Although I went digital when the D100 came out, photography was a long way behind third hobby at the time. So I was mainly happy snapping on program mode at Steam Rallies.
This forum has changed things elevating photography to current no.1. This has made me relook at how digital works and just what the camera is capable of.

Events over the last couple of weeks have put any kit upgrades on the back burner.

Knowing that really good deals can be had on cameras like the D100 I thought this worth posting. I did a print test using Genuine Fractals, of the F2AS in my gallery and printed a slight crop over 6 A4 sheets ( 21 1/2" x 24" ) so I have no quality issues with it.

And no, I did not know which was which in your post.

Don
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 19-02-06, 13:52
Craftysnapper's Avatar
Craftysnapper Craftysnapper is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 281
Smile

In the case of the micrometer it is obvious the raw image has had more sharpening because when you start enlarging it it has more edge halo than the jpeg so this particualar test is inconclusive...most people convince theirselves of what they want to see
By the way if you turn off or reduce the contrast and sharpeness parameters and set your own post process in PS the difference between raw and HQ jpeg lessens even more and you still have the bonus of more images on a card. Saying that I mostly shoot raw then save as HQjpeg after all processing is done.
Quote:
or you generate 16 bit tiff for printing
You have to convert to 8 bit for printing so this is not really a reason to shoot in raw, the advantage of raw and 16 bit is where extreme post processing will take place and where banding postrization may take place.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 19-02-06, 15:20
robski robski is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kent UK
Posts: 3,739
Default

I keep forgetting when I refer to print folk take this as meaning printing to an inkjet. Yes I did mean top end comercial work.

30 Gig Hard drive now I call that luxury Don

A year ago I was using a 333Mhz P2 processor. Now using a 1.5 GHz AMD 20 Gig Drive. ( Donated by younger son who upgraded his motherboard ).

Prospect of another upgrade to 2Ghz ( Donated by elder son ).

I think it is worth trying Raw to see what difference it does make for you in terms of improved quality.

I'll let you know in a few days time which of the two is the raw version.
__________________
Rob

-----------------------------------------------------
Solar powered Box Brownie Mk2

Captain Sunshine, to be such a man as he, and walk so pure between the earth and the sea.

WPF Gallery
Birdforum Gallery
http://www.robertstocker.co.uk updated
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 19-02-06, 20:15
Saphire's Avatar
Saphire Saphire is offline  
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Shropshire
Age: 75
Posts: 5,980
Default

After reading and viewing the photo of the needle I am still not convinced.
I still feel comfortable shooting Raw and don't mind all the processing involved. When I got my first digital slr I battled with trying to decide what to use for the best then came the final decision to use raw as I felt I had more control.
__________________
Christine Iwancz
Gallery upload limit is 4 photos per 24hrs Gallery Posting Guidelines here
http://ciphotography.freehostia.com/index.php
Equipment= Canon 7D, 40D, 400 f5.6, 75-300, 100mm Macro, 18-55, Canon 70-200 f4, Tokina 12-24mm, Kenko pro 300 1.4,1.5 and 2.0x, Jessops ext tube set,
Canon 580 flash. Home made ring flash. . Close-lens.


Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 19-02-06, 22:09
kennygee kennygee is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Manchester
Posts: 122
Default

As an inexperienced photographer, I have convinced myself that shooting RAW gives me a better chance of rescuing some of my poor attempts, particularly shots taken in poor light such as we have been experiencing lately in the UK.

Or am I deluding myself?
__________________
Cheers

Ken
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 17:15.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.