In camera processing RAW v JPG comparison

[Don Hoey]

Originally Posted by Stephen

Don I too came from a world of film, using 6x6 a lot of the time, however I used mainly ISO400 film. I'm a real world photographer and I knew that medium format images printed to the sizes that most customers demanded were fine on such film. No one was ever going to tell the difference at say 7x5 or 10x8 ISO400 gave me the flexibility I needed to fulfil most work. If I was using transparency film on a brochure shoot then ISO 100 would have likely been used. In the studio too 100 was the norm. However being a real world photographer I knew that 99% of the time no one needed the quality afforded by MF and fine grain films. Doing product photography, which I rarely do however, and it may be a different case.

Stephen,

Just to get the real world photograher part behind us - my experience and hence choice of film was quite different from yours. I worked in manufacturing, and other than standard products we made ' specials '. As it was never known if a repeat order would be forthcoming for a special they were photographed in detail ( Tech Pan B&W for its resolution ) and ISO 100 in colour. This was far more effecient than creating a set of drawings and method sheets for something that might never be produced again. For product shots ISO 50 was used as the competition was using 5 x 4. I am not a ' real world ' photographer now and have gone digital as an affordable option to keep photography as an interest. My view of images in digital is quite naturally tainted by my years of film involvement but I am not a pixel counter. If, as in yesterdays example, an image is put up for comparison I will look at it with high magnification but I would not otherwise.

Now with that behind us.

It is from people such as yourself that I hope to learn more of the digital world. I have found so much conflicting information on the net and I hope we can do better than that here.

It seems there is a lot to catch up on from today which I will now do. My version of Nikon Capture will not allow the same degree of interpolation. Save as JPG ( various compression levels ), NEF 8bit or TIFF 16bit only. Tried several times and ways of getting a screen capture but each time the Tool Boxes vanish so I've given up for now but I can take a pic later if it is any use.

Don

[Don Hoey]

Originally Posted by robski

I can see from some examples in this thread there is a difference but I believe some models of camera seem to blur the image before passing to jpeg encoder.

Rob,

From what I have read this is so on the D100. There is a sharpness in the RAW that is not there on the JPG, yet I have not found that a sharpened JPG contains less image info. Some of this may be down to what was going on at the time of release. Again I have heard this was put down to the strength of the anti alaise filter ( not well up on this electronics tech stuff ) People have commented on the large difference in out of camera JPG's from the D70 in comparison. Most of which has been put down to a less agressive ( if thats the word ) aa filter rather than changes to in camera processing. Once again though no comparison pics have been found.

Don

[Don Hoey]

Originally Posted by robski

I have dabbled with RAW and to date I have not been that impressed. I downloaded a freebie RAW converter that crashed all the time. I now have PS CS1 and with blown highlights on bird shots it failed to improve. The other pain was the Canon 300D it did not save RAW + jpeg. Because small birds move so quickly many shots are trashed and a quick method of proofing was required. So I reverted back to using jpeg. Now I have the 20D which will save RAW + jpeg I am willing to try RAW again but need to be convinced by example that it is really worth the effort and expense.

This thread is a reminder of just how different RAW converters can be.
http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...read.php?t=401

Don

[robski]

Originally Posted by Don Hoey

Rob,
Again I have heard this was put down to the strength of the anti alaise filter ( not well up on this electronics tech stuff )
Don

This filter is to overcome moire patterning. If a pattern in the subject image is close to the pitch of the sensors pixels it will product a beat pattern. I don't know if you remember the days of news readers on the TV wearing check jackets and ties ? If the camera caught it right it would give a jazzy effect. The technical reason for this was down to the quaility of a notch filter in the TV set. The video frequency produced by the jacket matched that of the sub-carrier radio frequency the colour was modulated to. It amasing the stuff you never forget - LOL

[Don Hoey]

Originally Posted by robski

This filter is to overcome moire patterning. If a pattern in the subject image is close to the pitch of the sensors pixels it will product a beat pattern. I don't know if you remember the days of news readers on the TV wearing check jackets and ties ? If the camera caught it right it would give a jazzy effect. The technical reason for this was down to the quaility of a notch filter in the TV set. The video frequency produced by the jacket matched that of the sub-carrier radio frequency the colour was modulated to. It amasing the stuff you never forget - LOL

Rob,

I would guess that in 2002 and Canons position in the market, I think D10, Nikon may have been very cautious. Seen all this stuff on D200 banding going on now.

As for the jazzy effect I think Micheal Fish springs to mind.

Following my last post referring to Stephen's experience ( with 2 Stephens here perhaps I will have to refer to him as FOXY BOB ) I have just downloaded Corels Raw Shooter. Tomorrow I will give that a go and if it works I can compare 2 different RAW converters side by side. Going back to Foxy Bob's experience I think Bibble had an effect on colour as well as the 1/3 difference.

I feel am going to learn a lot through this thread. Thanks for the explanation.

Don

[Saphire]

Originally Posted by Stephen

For me the workflow is to use PS CS2 and Adobe Camera Raw. The screen grab attached shows the ACR dialogue with the resolution menu open, and you can see the options available when processing your file. My theory is that its better to upsize in ACR or at this stage, because you are interpolating effectively a file that has still not had its final condition decided. Whilst if it was upsized from a jpeg this is another stage. I've not personally tested the theory, but then I'm not a 'measurebator' I just know that this works for me and the end product speaks for itself. Its what being a real world photographer is all about

I have just been running some tests on the above quote. Whenever I had to resize an image I would just resize in CS with image resize in small increments on a jpg image. I have just done a resize using the above method and the method I normaly use, I am very surprised at the diference at the same magnification. I have put a sample so you can see the diference.
The left hand of the pair is the Raw upsized and the right is using the image resize

Thanks Stephen for sharing that one I didn't know about it.

[Don Hoey]

You certainly do not have to look hard to see the difference Christine

Don

[robski]

Originally Posted by Stephen

I've not personally tested the theory, but then I'm not a 'measurebator' I just know that this works for me and the end product speaks for itself. Its what being a real world photographer is all about

LOL - Your up against a bunch of Real World engineers here who like to make improvements through science and measurement. The empirical approach can be very hit and miss and just lead you around in circles.

[robski]

I down loaded Capture One yesterday (db version if I recall ) I don't know if it's because it's demo but half the tools don't seem to work. I may have to start reading the manual - LOL

[robski]

My son is doing a Uni programming course with a local camera shop manager. It appears that a lot of folk don't reckon the D200 because of these problems.